W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)

From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:12:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB120E0.4070505@schunter.org>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
CC: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Folks,

I am OK with this policy. However, I would like to mandate that press
participants identify
themselves when joining a call and that their presence is known to all
attendees.

Regards,
matthias



On 14/05/2012 07:41, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> JC,
>
> It's quite common for a forum to limit how first-hand impressions may
> be used in reporting.  Perhaps the best-known example is the Chatham
> House Rule.  The rationale is exactly what we're discussing: a balance
> between the benefits of transparency and unencumbered dialogue.
>
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
>
>> I say no. If they are not permitted to take quotes what’s the point?
>> I would not be comfortable with press participation.
>>
>>  
>>
>> JC
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:31 PM
>> *To:* Heather West
>> *Cc:* SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)
>>
>>  
>>
>> I don't believe the mere addition of press briefings would do much to
>> advance the group's transparency.  We've all been to press
>> conferences.  They're about regurgitating talking points and
>> jockeying for positive spin.  If we want accurate, detailed coverage
>> and a heightened imprimatur of legitimacy, we need to allow media
>> into the room.  There is no substitute for first-hand impressions.
>>
>>  
>>
>> That said, I'm very sensitive to the concerns Shane, Bryan, and
>> Heather have raised about the chilling effects associated with a
>> press policy of direct quotation and identifying attribution.
>>  Industry participants should not be compelled to negotiate in the
>> shadow of a misspoken sentence potentially making headlines verbatim.
>>  My aim in breaking out our options on quotation, attribution, and
>> other media matters was to start a conversation about how we can
>> balance the tremendous transparency advantages of having the press in
>> the room against the potential for chilling our discussions.  Perhaps
>> there is no balance to be struck.  But before leaping to that
>> conclusion, we should give compromise solutions some real thought.
>>
>>  
>>
>> To make things more concrete, here's a proposal: What would
>> participants think of a policy where press are allowed in, but they
>> cannot use direct quotes?  Are there conversations we've had that
>> wouldn't have happened if press were in the room with this policy?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Friday, May 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Heather West wrote:
>>
>>> I think that using this working group as a platform for press is
>>> harmful to the goal of the group: coming to consensus within the
>>> group. While we all want our end product to have a transparent
>>> process, the more that folks direct their remarks towards reporters
>>> instead of the group, the less will get done. 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> I'd be very surprised if a reporter with tons of stories to write
>>> had the time to actually sit through all these calls to glean
>>> context, so structuring sessions for press makes sense. I support
>>> Shane's compromise of actively engaging the press, in a structured
>>> way, and continuing to have a relatively well-defined group on the
>>> calls and in the meetings. I think Bryan's idea is similar, and also
>>> makes sense.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com
>>> <mailto:bs3131@att.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We could support specific sessions in which non-members are invited
>>> for outreach, but not in the context of normal working sessions and
>>> certainly not the presence of press in normal working sessions. If
>>> the group is to effectively progress on the complex issues at hand,
>>> we must have ability to discuss freely the ideas and positions
>>> intended to lead us to consensus.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bryan Sullivan
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com
>>> <mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com><mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com
>>> <mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well done Jonathan – thank you for doing this (nicely parsed).
>>>
>>> I’m not sure how best to approach the debate, but I’m hopeful we
>>> continue to NOT allow press “in the room” for active working
>>> sessions and instead shift our efforts to proactive press outreach
>>> sessions, with training and prepared statements, and access to those
>>> available to speak to the press directly for quotes.  I believe this
>>> more controlled approach to press interactions gives us the best of
>>> both worlds:  interactive (removes reliance on meeting notes or 2nd
>>> hand descriptions) and contained (allows continued free discussion
>>> during working sessions).
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>>
>>> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu
>>> <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:00 PM
>>>
>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org><mailto:public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Media Access (ACTION-197)
>>>
>>> I was tasked on today's call with thinking through alternative media
>>> access policies.  Here's a rough outline of design points:
>>>
>>>  *   Are media allowed to listen to calls and meetings?
>>>  *   If yes, may they reference their first-hand experience in their
>>> reporting?  (If not, they'll have to cite our oh-so-reliable minutes
>>> and second-hand descriptions.)
>>>  *   If yes, what degree of first-hand reporting will be permissible?
>>>
>>>     *   Quotation
>>>
>>>        *   Direct quotes (e.g. "I want a lunch break")
>>>        *   Paraphrasing (e.g. noted that he wanted a lunch break)
>>>        *   Collective sentiment (e.g. several wanted to break for lunch)
>>>
>>>     *   Attribution
>>>
>>>        *   Identification (e.g. Jonathan Mayer from Stanford said)
>>>        *   Background (e.g. a researcher said)
>>>        *   None (e.g. a participant in the working group said)
>>>
>>>     *   Impressions (e.g. he looked hungry)
>>>     *   Procedure (e.g. there was a vote to break for lunch)
>>>     *   Conduct (e.g. he left to get lunch)
>>>
>>>  *   Will we provide media briefings?
>>>
>>> In selecting which policy we adopt, we have to weigh the concerns of
>>> certain industry participants—erroneously negative publicity,
>>> corporate media policy, and the attendant chilling effects of
>>> both—against the importance of transparency in this process.  Given
>>> the broad spectrum of design points, there seems to me a lot of
>>> scope for compromise.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com
>>> <mailto:heatherwest@google.com> | 202-643-6381
>>>
>>  
>>
>
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 15:13:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC