Allow the release of transcripts of those calls? But how does anyone
know the transcripts were made accurately? Maybe the state could
provide free (as in speech) listening to the calls, but not recording
them. There's also the theoretical problem of some print organization
(e.g. newspaper) printing the transcripts with some stuff inserted as if
it were clarifications, which changes the tone of the call from the
intended (and perceived) meaning. And there's still the problem of
> > a cadre of gossips getting their jollies
> > from their neighbors' problems.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
A neutron walks into a bar; he asks the bartender,
"How much for a beer?" The bartender looks at him,
and says "For you, no charge." -- GooberMcFly on Fark
The last problem is easiest, to my mind: ignore them. Or point and
giggle at them, that they have such tawdry lives that they can get
entertainment value from such things.
Transcripts seem to me to have just the problems you state: errors
in transcription and an inability to convey the emotional tone of
the people speaking, which can be a significant part of the
communication that takes place.
And of course, news organisations sometimes portray things
inaccurately. If you consider Fox News a legitimate news
organisation (I don't), then they serve as an example--they were
caught out and out lying via substitution of video shot on different
dates.
Shirley
No he didn't. Don K did.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Scientist A: A matterbaby is a very unstable particle.
Scientist B: What's a matterbaby?
Scientist A: I'm doing fine honey, how you doing? -- mrshowrules on Fark
The thing about the gangs? No it wasn't.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky
about who it makes friends with.
> In article <Xns9CC1890AAEBA9op...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bill van (bil...@skipthis.shaw.ca) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9CC151C4977F3op...@192.168.1.101>,
>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> M. Shirley Chong (eit...@netins.net.spam.not) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I could come up with a law that would allow a
>>>>> researcher who was not affiliated with a university or a well
>>>>> known media outlet to do that research and still bar the yahoo
>>>>> who wants to get their giggles from a 911 call.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not. I think we should try though. But at some point one
>>>> side or the other has to shrug and say them's the breaks. I think
>>>> your example is a good one. I think Don gave a good example on
>>>> the other side of someone requesting 911 tapes in order to find
>>>> out who ratted them out.
>>>
>>> But do we know that Don's example is a real-world one?
>>
>> I misspoke. It was Hactar.
>
> The thing about the gangs? No it wasn't.
>
>
Who are we going to believe, you or Opus?
I sincerely apologise, I screwed up the attributions thoroughly.
I'm sorry.
Shirley
There's a lot of news organizations out there competing for the
out-and-out-lying award:
CBS has done fake news.
I remember faked documents involving computer fonts.
NBC has done fake news.
I remember rigged testing of cars so they would explode.
The New York Times has done fake news stories.
I remember a series of made-up journalism reports.
Don