Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)

I certainly support the whole process open to the news media.  We should also arrange structured briefings on the issues, such as before and after the next F2F.  The ground rules suggestions are good for this discussion, and developing a fair plan to ensure transparency and public accountability is key.   


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On May 9, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> 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
>