What's up with the Anderson Independent Mail??
JD what say you? Your media knowledge and your attention to local news must give you some thoughts on the cindy curmudgeon's post. I just checked some news items and the comments are not there. Is this the normal way of doing things?
Reporters generally quote their sources not make stuff up, here's the quote from the AIM, "“Unless someone walks into my office within the next few moments and tells me differently, we have not been contacted by anyone to look into that issue,” said Mark Plowden, spokesman for McMaster’s office, on Friday."
I guess someone walked into his office and he forgot to call Carey back. <g>
We should concentrate our concerns on what is next on the hidden agenda of the five Council Puppets. We only have until December 9th to find a way to stop them from continuing on their road of revenge.
JD what say you? Your media knowledge and your attention to local news must give you some thoughts on the cindy curmudgeon's post. I just checked some news items and the comments are not there. Is this the normal way of doing things?
-non-sequitur
Non-seq, you're probably asking the wrong person here. I've taken my share of heat for removing posts and, in one case, an entire threat on Anderson Talkzone for reasons that some thought were less than solid.
Generally speaking, though - and having seen those posts on that story before they were removed - I'll say this. There is a small, but determined, group of internet posters who are determined that no story in the AIM is fair and accurate unless it pushes their own agenda. This group has already caused StraightTalk to have to shut down and has threatened other forums, including Anderson Talkzone, in recent months.
If anyone thinks a story on AIM is inaccurate or inappropriate, there is nothng that I've seen to stop you from doing so as long as you're willing to point out where it's inacurrate (with factual backup) or why it's inappropriate. I've done it myself, as JDTippett, on several stories over there.
HOWEVER, one thing to remember is that Mr. Plowden of the AG's Office is what is known as a "source." He has direct information fom that offense to give the news media, ands until and unless he proves otherwise, he is probably automatically considered to be a "reliable source."
Now, we on ATZ like to think we're sometimes "sources" for news stories on the ATZ. We're not. Reporters who monitor the site may occasionally get a "tip" toward a good story, but NO BLOGGER POSTING UNDER AN ASSUMED (SCREEN) NAME IS EVER A RELIABLE SOURCE unless he or she steps out from behind that assumed name and puts himself into the story. You have to understand how the AIM views the credibility level of ATZ and the old Cocklebur forums: It's my understandind they're STILL waiting for that promised videotape of Joey and the picnic table.
And Independent-Mail and other publications always take a chance when they allow direct reader input on their stories.Those comments are monitored. Sometimes, they're censored or deleted. Sometimes, as on ATZ, the reasons are not patently clear to those who think they have a right to say anything, anytime, on any forum, without consequence.
I'd say to anybody who posts there, if you have facts, bring 'em. If you disagree with an opinion stated in an editorial, out with it. But if you take the opportunity to take a cheapshot at the editorial writer, or the reporter as several are prone to do, don't expect it to stand. There's one poster on the AIM who takes a cheapshot at Pearce Adams every time he writes a story, regardless of its accuracy. The same happens to Liz Carey quite frequently over there - and, I might add, here. THEY'RE REPORTERS. IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA OR MY AGENDA OR THEIR OWN AGENDAS. IT'S THEIR JOB TO REPORT THE VERIFIABLE NEWS, NOT TO SPREAD RUMORS. Yes, part of their job is to investigate rumors with their reporting. It's not their job to repeat the ones that have no substance except to refute them.
In this case, if someone who has disputed the AG story has actually contacted the AG's Office and has turned over information on this case, step forward and pass that info on to the AIM. Until and unless other concrete informatino - NOT internet fluff - emerged, then Mr. Plowden's is apparently going to be the last word on this issue.
