Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 14:37:09 12/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1997 at 13:22:07, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all: >I am not just a self appointed chess computers journalist. I am a real >one, a guy that works in TV, magazines, papers and so on in my country. >And If I can say it, a very reputed one, specially as a columnist. So, I >think I know something about what is due to journalistic pressure to be >the first to put the new and what is due to others considerations. There >is not a general rule about this. It depends totally of circunstances. >To put it clear with an extreme example, in case of war you are not >going to publish anything that hurts your country even if dping so you >get a great new strike. Also, you should be a miserable to publish >something just to be the first to do so if that publication hurts >severely the reputation of an inocent people and for nothing of >importance.And, on the contrary, you would be a very bad journalist and >even a bad citizen if you does not publish something of importante to >your country or the world just because you have a friendship with a guy >or two. >Then, without general rules you must use specific criteria and common >sense and in this case, in the case of KK publication about Ed failure >to protect his rights, I think KK is wrong -and so Chris- when he >claims a kind of jourmalistic obligation to do something that was >clearly damaging a respected member of this community. What benefice are >we going to get as chess consummers if Ed goes bankrupt? This is plain amoral pragmatism. And if Ed weren't a respected member ? It would be alright then ? Its cliquism, Fernando, your basic tenet is that 'Ed is one of us' - therefore tread carefully. When 'journos' start doing this, its bye-bye freedom and all the rest. Chris Whittington > What is the >sense suddenly to play the rol as a journalist here, when in a way or >another we know all each others as consummers, posters, programmers or >in any other qualification? We are primarely a club, don't we?, and not >a general, anonimous community that needs to be informed thought >journalists. Are we friends or not? If not, at least we have something >in common that is the advance of this field; we are interested not only >as programmer that earns a life with this, as Ed, but as customers that >wants to get better, nicer programs in the future. I cannot understand >what I would be winning if I get Decade 2,0 with rebel 9 and then Ed >goes baknrupt and Rebel 10 never will appear. Is my interest -is our >interest- to ensure that any programmer gets enough money to stay in his >business. That's the reason reasonable people does not copy ilegally >even if they can. I prefer to pay a fee, to purchase and so to ensure >support, better versions, etc. >All this does not mean that if a program seems badly designed or >marketed -as i have posted about the DOS obstinacy of MCP7 father- you >will not say a word: I did, as maybe you recall, but there is a great >difference between to be an objetive or at least sincere critic of a >product and to say somnnething that at the same time is not necesary and >will produce an extreme damage. Journalism, to be the first to say >something, is no so important to legitimate anything. You must pondere >the weight of each thing in order not to do unnecesary damage, a damage >without compensation for anyone. In the case of MCP7 DOS oobstinacy, I >did not damage severely nobody; surely was sold and is being sold well >and if some damage was done, is justified in order to put in the table >the issue of the platform that people wants now. If I had believed that >for any reason my articles about that issue were capable of putting >Marty out of business, I had silence my pen, for sure. Is that a >"violation" of journalistic ethics or something? No, is just commons >sense, not to be a freak, not to be a fundamentalist.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.