tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post1914609805660730158..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: Chronicle editor defends outing; I respondUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-75755194641643464722008-04-29T05:12:00.000-04:002008-04-29T05:12:00.000-04:00John:The only thing I might add is to caution you ...John:<BR/><BR/>The only thing I might add is to caution you - or anyone for that matter - about using the terms "journalism" and "ethics" in the same phrase. Or sentence. Or paragraph. Or entire article.<BR/><BR/>Walter AbbottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-50871562073418622572008-04-29T01:21:00.000-04:002008-04-29T01:21:00.000-04:00I tried not to judge Graham solely on the basis of...I tried not to judge Graham solely on the basis of his decision to shut down the messageboard but now I'm ready to conclude, Graham really isn't worth your time.<BR/><BR/>I know gnats are hard to ignore and if you really need to take a few swats, try not to hurt him too much. He obviously is just a kid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-66103375423083567222008-04-29T00:44:00.000-04:002008-04-29T00:44:00.000-04:00Hi PG,You're late for this party.Read a little mor...Hi PG,<BR/><BR/>You're late for this party.<BR/><BR/>Read a little more about the difference between a journalist and a source agreeing on the terms of an off the record relationship and somebody just announcing something's off the record.<BR/><BR/>A comment isn't off the record just because someone says to you, "Off the record, you don't know what you're talking about."<BR/><BR/>You could publish the comment and not be violating an off the record agreement.<BR/><BR/>Ask David Graham or Dan Rather.<BR/><BR/>Now if you say something false about your source, that's different.<BR/><BR/>Joseph PulitzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-13177785659551567612008-04-29T00:17:00.000-04:002008-04-29T00:17:00.000-04:00Apparently Graham is an "ethical journalist/blogge...Apparently Graham is an "ethical journalist/blogger" who didn't make the same egregious mistake of entering into an "off the record" agreement. How is your identity more privileged than the emails you keep posting?<BR/><BR/>PGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-58405529160831084852008-04-28T23:14:00.000-04:002008-04-28T23:14:00.000-04:00JinC --Thanks for sharing this tale in all its det...JinC --<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing this tale in all its detail. It is not an encouraging snapshot of the state of ethics at The Chronicle.<BR/><BR/>Readers shouldn't even have to click on a link to read the email that Chronicle editor David Graham decreed was off the record.<BR/><BR/>Here it that letter, in its entirety, from <A HREF="http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/08/chronicle-off-record.html" REL="nofollow">your 8/9/07 blog post</A>:<BR/><BR/>--- begin email ---<BR/><BR/>John,<BR/><BR/>[Off the record] I guess I'm curious as to what sort of response you were seeking. I believe the coverage that we provide throughout the school year will speak for itself and would caution against any reading of the column that would suggest that we won't aggressively report on issues related to the case.<BR/><BR/>I hope you enjoy and are enlightened by it and imagine I'll be hearing from you about it as we go along.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>DG<BR/>-- <BR/>David Graham<BR/>Editor, The Chronicle<BR/>President, Duke Student Publishing Company<BR/><BR/>--- end email ---<BR/><BR/>Plainly, Graham's letter is <B>content-free</B>, unless he believed that the act of corresponding with you was itself damning. This is a strange variant of what we could call <I>Seinfeld Confidentiality</I>: an off-the-record demand that is imposed, not agreed to, and that is about... Nothing.<BR/><BR/>So, Graham seems to accede to this account:<BR/><BR/>-- Previous editor Ryan McCartney granted you confidentiality;<BR/><BR/>-- Graham learned of McCartney's undertaking and pledged to honor it;<BR/><BR/>-- In August, you wrote to Graham;<BR/><BR/>-- In August, he emailed a boilerplate paragraph to you, demanding off-the-record treatment without prior discussion;<BR/><BR/>-- You did not adhere to this nonexistent agreement;<BR/><BR/>-- Graham stewed about your disobedience for eight months;<BR/><BR/>-- In a call to The Chronicle <I>subsequent to the pledge of confidentiality given to you</I>, Graham read your phone number off Caller ID and did a reverse lookup;<BR/><BR/>-- Unknown persons at The Chronicle outed you in the guise of an April Fool's story;<BR/><BR/>-- David Graham outed you again in his April 23 Chronicle column.<BR/><BR/>This narrative doesn't make sense on its own terms. How could Graham's use of Caller ID explain his decision to out you, in light of his prior agreement to respect your desire to remain pseudonymous?<BR/><BR/>By any reasonable standard, this is despicable and unethical behavior by Editor Graham and his colleagues at The Chronicle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-48309833510958500372008-04-28T22:10:00.000-04:002008-04-28T22:10:00.000-04:00If the MSM exists in a couple years DG will fit in...If the MSM exists in a couple years DG will fit in perfectly. Otherwise he'll have to settly for politician.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-74457200155827818282008-04-28T21:52:00.000-04:002008-04-28T21:52:00.000-04:00Apparently some on the Chronicle believe your "out...Apparently some on the Chronicle believe your "outing" is a tit-for-tat for your publishing on-line e-mails from Graham which he unilaterally labeled as "off the record."<BR/><BR/>Even if it was debatable whether just labeling something as "off the record" requires the other party to observe that privelege, this still does not justify the gratuitous "outing" in a senior farewell column. Two wrongs do not make a right. <BR/><BR/>Graham's sniveling e-mail to you is evasive at best about whether he promised you anonymity.His explanation that he found your identity by caller ID independently of learning it from Ryan McCarthy is ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>In the long run, Graham will be hurt much more by his indiscretion than you. Your long record of intelligent blogging will outlive Graham's mediocre tenure as Chronicle Editor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-26565346646315435992008-04-28T21:49:00.000-04:002008-04-28T21:49:00.000-04:00There are many PC, left-wing radical pseudo-journa...There are many PC, left-wing radical pseudo-journalism establishments that will be waiting to welcome Graham with open arms. <BR/><BR/>He has now qualified himself for pulp fiction and paparazzi. <BR/><BR/>What a sorry example of Duke "scholarship". I, as an alumna, am ashamed of him.<BR/><BR/>So... look for Brodhead to find some way to reward him for his fidelity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-10127869140620884362008-04-28T21:19:00.000-04:002008-04-28T21:19:00.000-04:00John:In all likelihood, Graham probably casually m...John:<BR/><BR/>In all likelihood, Graham probably casually mentioned what he was going to do to McCartney. McCartney gave him encouragement. It would have been an enormous affront to McCartney if Graham unilaterally violated the confidentiality promise without getting McCartney's approval.<BR/><BR/>They are both ghouls.<BR/><BR/>Ken<BR/>DallasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com