Heads Up: Sentry Exposed in Rich's Rumblings!
Alan David Doane
that it is in Rich's new column--stop by and have a look!
While you're there, be sure to read our DAILY reviews section In The
Line of Fire, and catch up on comics news in Silver Bulletins, the
'Net's ONLY 24/7 comics news service!
http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
---
The Ministry of Popular Enlightenment: Creator interviews, reviews, and essays. http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/ministry/ministry.htm
The Ministry of Disinformation: My true stories, essays, a comic book fan fiction archive and more: http://www.ministry2000.com
SonofWashu
not used, character, and importantly, no reason why the book shouldn't be any
good. If there's one thing Inhumans proved, it's that these two could use
fingerpaints and random-key-hitting, and it'd be a damn fine book. I mean,
seriously, aside from mentioning a Marvel employee can be drunk, and that the
supposed artist's name isn't well-known (or accurate, hey it wasn't like near
everyone in comics at the time was *not* using aliases; virtually no
self-respecting artist wanted to admit he drew comics), the entire
shit-inna-can article was semantically and informatively null. And by null, I
mean it said absolutely nothing - very angrily, and in an extremely petty way,
however.
Alan Travis
> And by null, I mean it said absolutely nothing - very angrily, and in an
> extremely petty way, however.
I don't think it takes too great of a mind to imagine that Marvel's just trying to
have fun with the concept of this great un-published character from their past.
It's a sales hook in the same vein as the Flashback month or the Marvels Comics
Group. I don't know why Rich is so pissed off that they won't own up to it. Does
he get mad when magicians don't let him in on the trick?
Alan
Alan David Doane
>Ah, and no proof offered, no reason why it couldn't be a previously created,
>not used, character, and importantly, no reason why the book shouldn't be any
>good. If there's one thing Inhumans proved, it's that these two could use
>fingerpaints and random-key-hitting, and it'd be a damn fine book. I mean,
>seriously, aside from mentioning a Marvel employee can be drunk, and that the
>supposed artist's name isn't well-known (or accurate, hey it wasn't like near
>everyone in comics at the time was *not* using aliases; virtually no
>self-respecting artist wanted to admit he drew comics), the entire
>shit-inna-can article was semantically and informatively null. And by null, I
>mean it said absolutely nothing - very angrily, and in an extremely petty way,
>however.
I didn't write the article in question, but I think the fact that
they're pretending a sketch by John Romita Sr. was drawn by "Artie
Rosen" speaks volumes about the legitimacy of it all.
Alan David Doane
Alan David Doane
<alnt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>SonofWashu wrote:
>
>> And by null, I mean it said absolutely nothing - very angrily, and in an
>> extremely petty way, however.
>
>I don't think it takes too great of a mind to imagine that Marvel's just trying to
>have fun with the concept of this great un-published character from their past.
>It's a sales hook in the same vein as the Flashback month or the Marvels Comics
>Group. I don't know why Rich is so pissed off that they won't own up to it. Does
>he get mad when magicians don't let him in on the trick?
>
>Alan
That's pretty much my take on it--I was surprised anyone thought this
was for real once the faux sketch showed up.
Paul O'Brien
<sonof...@aol.com> writes
>Ah, and no proof offered, no reason why it couldn't be a previously created,
>not used, character, and importantly, no reason why the book shouldn't be any
>good.
He doesn't say that the book won't be any good.
And if you're reading with any close attention, he does offer a piece
of fairly compelling evidence, namely the fact that the artist who
supposedly created the character doesn't seem ever to have existed.
Incidentally, according to my price guide, the book in which Sentry
was supposed to have made his first appearance never existed either.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Flowers: the practical alternative to capitalism, apparently.
Paul O'Brien
<alnt...@earthlink.net> writes
>It's a sales hook in the same vein as the Flashback month or the Marvels Comics
>Group. I don't know why Rich is so pissed off that they won't own up to it.
I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
Agreed.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Maroney. You are free
to leave."--Hyperion, _Squadron Supreme_ (by Mark Gruenwald)
Todd VerBeek
>>Group. I don't know why Rich is so pissed off that they won't own up to it.
My pal Paul O'Brien said:
>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
And rightly so, I would say. This Sentry buiness practically had "wink,
nudge" written all over it, and I would expect any journalist to A) be
skeptical enough not to just accept it at face value, and B) report the
truth. If they want to be play along and not actively poke holes it, fine,
but they should at lest maintain their objective distance leave it up to the
reader whether to believe it or not rather than pretending they've confirmed
it. (e.g. "Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee CLAIM to have unearthed a pivotal
Marvel character Stan Lee created before the Four...." --Previews Picks for
July)
Cheers, Todd
--
A retrospective on the artistic career of Todd VerBeek
is online at http://www.rzero.com/TVerBeek/gallery/
Kitchen T
>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
Tom Brevoort
Visit the thoroughly-useless KUSO archive!
http://www.kitchentableproductions.net
Newsarama
should at lest maintain their objective distance leave it up to the reader
whether to believe it or not rather than pretending they've confirmed it. >>
Excellent point Todd, might be interesting to go back and see if anyone did
just that...
md.
Alan Travis
> In article <394D9DE1...@earthlink.net>, Alan Travis
> <alnt...@earthlink.net> writes
> >It's a sales hook in the same vein as the Flashback month or the Marvels Comics
> >Group. I don't know why Rich is so pissed off that they won't own up to it.
>
> I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
> impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
> who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
Journalistic sources that don't just reiterate the press release? Wizard? Rich was
surprised?
I don't know. I got the opinion that the article viewed the whole ballyhoo in a
negative light.
Alan
Kevin J. Maroney
>>>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
>
>Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
Is it ironic that Rich, who investigates stories and checks his facts,
is annoyed at supposed journalists who are reprinting press releases
verbatim?
Rich, an admitted gossip, is actually one of the few people in comics
who actually qualfies as a reporter. Is that ironic, or does it just
suck?
--
Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Todd VerBeek
>>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
My pal Kitchen T said:
>Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
But at least when Rich reports something, he usually has some reason to
believe that it's true. His sources may often be shaky, but I don't believe
he's ever reported something that he knew was not factual.
Rich Johnston
>
>Is it ironic that Rich, who investigates stories and checks his facts,
>is annoyed at supposed journalists who are reprinting press releases
>verbatim?
Hmmm, I suspect I'm being overpraised here. I'm more annoyed that these
journalists know they're printing aomething false without mitigating that with
an explanation or that it's April Fool's Day. And if they don't know that it's
false, then there's something wrong with their reporting.
>Rich, an admitted gossip, is actually one of the few people in comics
>who actually qualfies as a reporter. Is that ironic, or does it just
>suck?
There's plenty more better qualified and experienced than me. But I'm happy in
my own little niche.
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
http://come.to/ramblings http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html right now!
Rich Johnston
>
>>>>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>>>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
>
>My pal Kitchen T said:
>>Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
>
>But at least when Rich reports something, he usually has some reason to
>believe that it's true. His sources may often be shaky, but I don't believe
>he's ever reported something that he knew was not factual.
Ooh, I've missed all this. Sorry I'm late.
Ahem. I print rumours that I know to be rumours, I've never just made something
up. Sometimes I speculat, and make that speculation clear. I printed rumours
that I suspect to be false, saying I suspect them to be false. I print rumours
that have been strongly denied, with the denial. When I don't know if they're
true or false, I print them, stating that they are rumours.
I have a problem with certain newsfeeds over this story in that they printed a
story/press release that they knew not to be true, without commenting upon that
fact.
And yes, that includes Newsarama, Mike.
Rich Johnston
>
>Journalistic sources that don't just reiterate the press release? Wizard? Rich
>was
>surprised?
No, Wizard elaborated, they went to town on it. They didn't just reiterate the
press release, they worked with Marvel to go further with the deception.
Personally, I think Sentry will be a cracking comic. Good creative team, a
strong high concept, an amusing use of meta-fiction... hope it won't be too
similar to Maximortal though.
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
Oh Newsarama printed the press release, yes. Despite the fact that Matt and Mike
must know it to be false. If you're a PR site for Marvel, fine. But Newsarama is
not, it's so not that...
Rich Johnston
says...
>
>>>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
>
I haven't yet reported any press release I knew to be false as if it were
factual, Tom.
But who knows, the night is still young...
Newsarama
are rumours.
I have a problem with certain newsfeeds over this story in that they printed a
story/press release that they knew not to be true, without commenting upon that
fact.>>
Rich, I reported what Joe and Paul and others were saying publicly about the
project, I reported the desciption of the project provided by Marvel, taking
great care to point out that this was what, Joe, Paul and Marvel were saying
about the project. I was not, nor do I ever, nor have I ever personally
endorsed the "veracity" of the information.
When Marvel, Joe and Paul say something about an upcoming project, it qualifies
as news, and that's what I very specifically reported.
I reported what Jim Sternanko had to say about the SHIELD tpb.. I didn't
qualify it or edit it. He said it, and what he said was news. We allowed Marvel
to respond of course to get their side of the story and to try to get a clearer
picture of the facts.
I rarely - if ever - editorialize the news, I report what people are saying, be
it a person or an 'entity', same as you...I just have different criteria, mine
being my source has to be a principle player in the "news" I'm reporting on.
I don't have proof Alan Davis is ever going to pencil a page of the Avengers...
Brevoort, Busiek and Davis all say he will, so that's what I report.
Really give some thought about what you are saying here.
You may disagree with it, but Newsarama has been consistent from day one... it
isn't about what *I* know, or think I know.. it's about what I can support,
what I can source/trace back to a principle. In every Newsarama story, it says
who is saying what, and I try to describe in the most descriptive way possible
in what context they are saying it.
That's what *I* do, that's what I've always done. That's the best picture *I*
know how to paint.
My existence doesn't preclude someone from working in another way or with
another criteria, as your presence clearly demonstrates. Nor have I ever argued
that people with other criteria shouldn't do what they do...
So what's the problem here?
md.
Paul O'Brien
<kitc...@aol.com> writes
>>>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
>
>Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
Not really, since (a) Rich doesn't claim to be a journalist; (b)
Rich doesn't claim to be accurate; and (c) in terms of coverage of
this particular item, Rich beats an awful lot of those who do.
Rich Johnston
>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
>
I guess I'll have to agree with you both too.
Paul O'Brien
<news...@aol.compsyche> writes
>
>I rarely - if ever - editorialize the news, I report what people are saying, be
> it a person or an 'entity', same as you...I just have different criteria, mine
>being my source has to be a principle player in the "news" I'm reporting on.
With respect, I think there are occasions where editorialising is
called for. If the statement you are reporting is blatantly untrue,
surely it is the duty of a journalist to - at the very least - give
the reader the necessary background to realise this.
Newsarama
claim to be accurate; and (c) in terms of coverage of this particular item,
Rich beats an awful lot of those who do.>>
Rich certainly does not claim to be a journalist, but criticizes anyone who
doesn't work exactly the way he does...
Isn't that sort of having your cake and eating it too?
Rich can work the way he does, because he doesn't hold himself
accountable..which is perfectly fine. But people got to understand others that
do hold themelves accountable, do ALL the time, and not just when it's
convenient for them or their readers.
m.
Newsarama
If the statement you are reporting is blatantly untrue, surely it is the duty
of a journalist to - at the very least - give the reader the necessary
background to realise this.>>
Totally agreed Paul...on some occasions that is certainly reasonable to expect,
but for me, that background must also meet the same criteria that I place on
whatever I report...
I realize that's sort of a nebulas answer, and might not make sense, but
whatever I report, I have to be able to support it in some fashion or another.
Then there are background issues that sometimes complicate things even further.
As I say, this has always been the way I've worked.. is it perfect? No,
certainly not. But it's the best I know how to work...
md
Robin Riggs
> In article <20000619220521...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, Kitchen T
> <kitc...@aol.com> writes
> >>>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
> >>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
> >>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
> >
> >Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it.
>
> Not really, since (a) Rich doesn't claim to be a journalist;
Yes he does. I believe he's even a member of the NUJ.
> (b)
> Rich doesn't claim to be accurate;
Yes he does. He just posts everything and comments on whether he thinks
it's accurate or not.
> and (c) in terms of coverage of
> this particular item, Rich beats an awful lot of those who do.
Now that's really damning with faint praise. :)
--Robin.
MBRADY669
>If the statement you are reporting is blatantly untrue, surely it is the duty
of a journalist to - at the very least - give the reader the necessary
background to realise this.<
a few quick things:
1) we're still talking about comic books here, right? the tone is making me
think we're discussing nuclear weapons, or at the very least, something that
will affect people's health.
2) so, with this in mind, and playing devil's advocate here, any story about
comics where the creator or company says, "Stuporman dies!" should be
accompanied with a [no, he doesn't - the next issue is already solicited,
editor]. The same for every claim of "earth-shaking issue," "senses-shattering
conclusion," and "original story?"
3) again, we reported it as news - the creators are working on a new book.
Since then, we've patently avoided reporting on it again, despite the fact that
it's being written by an Eisner winning, popular writer. The fact that they
were doing a book called Sentry was the news - we reported it as such.
4) if you wanted to look, Paul himself spoke about finally landing his dream
project that he'd been carrying with him for years at MK in an interview on the
site just a few weeks earlier. The background was all there if anyone wanted to
look.
5) playing devil's advocate again, every media outlet that reported on The
Blair Witch Project last year, and didn't call it a sham at every chance
(interviews with the stars, directors, going on and asking what they hoped to
gain by bringing forth this falsehood..) - where do they fit into this
continuum?
6) and finally - let's not forget Mr. Pot here, calling the kettle black - Rich
has known about this for months as well, has an occasional column that's seen
about 8 updates since, and only *now* chooses to "expose" it?
Heck, every day he held onto this earth-shattering secret perpetuated Marvel's
marketing plan in a certain sense.
Matt
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>
>Rich, I reported what Joe and Paul and others were saying publicly about the
>project, I reported the desciption of the project provided by Marvel, taking
>great care to point out that this was what, Joe, Paul and Marvel were saying
>about the project. I was not, nor do I ever, nor have I ever personally
>endorsed the "veracity" of the information.
But I believe you knew the story to be untrue. And you reported this story
without comment. And since Newsarama has a good rep for this sort of thing, do
you think your readers would believe the story or not? And once they realise its
fake, will that impact on Newsarama's good name?
>When Marvel, Joe and Paul say something about an upcoming project, it qualifies
>as news, and that's what I very specifically reported.
>
>I reported what Jim Sternanko had to say about the SHIELD tpb.. I didn't
>qualify it or edit it. He said it, and what he said was news.
At the time, did you believe it to be untrue? Because I believe you knew the
Sentry story was untrue.
>I don't have proof Alan Davis is ever going to pencil a page of the Avengers...
>Brevoort, Busiek and Davis all say he will, so that's what I report.
Do you believe them?
>So what's the problem here?
My problem is that you printed an article telling a story that you knew to be
untrue without tackling that aspect.
Don't take it personally, it's what almost everyone else did too.
Rich Johnston
Newsarama
Mike must know it to be false. If you're a PR site for Marvel, fine. But
Newsarama is
not, it's so not that...>>
I'll say it again Rich, I reported what Joe, Paul and Marvel were saying about
the project. I didn't report anything as fact, I reported what I was able,
following the criteria I set for myself.
Again, what you're missing is my criteria is my criteria and not maleable at my
convenience. It has to be consistent on both sides of the coin...
You had high praise for the Paul Jenkins article. Why, it wasn't fact, it
wasn't presented as fact... It was what Jenkins had to say about his memories
of those events.
You recently reported something completely unsourced about DC that was highly
speculative and subjective at best. Why? Because you say that's what people are
saying, that's what people are thinking
Because you say people deserve to know what people are saying and thinking,
regardless of whether it is actually true or not...You put things "out there"
to put the truth to it.. that the important thing isn't whether its true or
not, but that people are saying it...have I got that right?
You say you have never printed anything that you knew not to be true, right?
Well, neither have I...I have reported what people have said on the record, and
made clear that THIS is what I was reporting... and you know what, it was
accurate, because they were saying that.
Am I mistaken about all this?
m.
Michael Alan Chary
MBRADY669 <mbra...@aol.com> wrote:
>Paul O'Brien pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk said:
>
>>If the statement you are reporting is blatantly untrue, surely it is the duty
>of a journalist to - at the very least - give the reader the necessary
>background to realise this.<
>
>a few quick things:
>
>1) we're still talking about comic books here, right? the tone is making me
>think we're discussing nuclear weapons, or at the very least, something that
>will affect people's health.
Call yourself something else if you feel that way about your beat.
Parrot, maybe. Mouthpiece. Town crier. I don't care, but if you are
putting yourself forward as a journalist, at least pretend you give a
dam.
>2) so, with this in mind, and playing devil's advocate here, any story about
>comics where the creator or company says, "Stuporman dies!" should be
>accompanied with a [no, he doesn't - the next issue is already solicited,
>editor]. The same for every claim of "earth-shaking issue," "senses-shattering
>conclusion," and "original story?"
Yes. And if Mike Carlin says "No, really." You do what I did in 1992, and
say "I'm taking bets."
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." -- Roger Bacon
Lundonj
>My problem is that you printed an article telling a story that you knew to be
>untrue without tackling that aspect.
May I ask what the difference is in publishing something as fact, without
investigation and publishing an unsubstantiated rumor?
Why is an unverified bit of gossip, even when presented as such, a more viable
journalistic resource than a company press release?
Is this the argument?
-Don Lund
Newsarama
without comment.>>
I didn't report the story you keep claiming I did... You keep implying I
reported that Sentry WAS a long lost character created by Stan Lee and Artie
Rosen and found by Marvel Knights.. I didn't...never did...
I reported that Marvel and MK was saying it was... there is a very important
difference here.
You know why I reported that, because they DID claim that, and it fit my
criteria for something that I report...that being it came from a principle
source involved in the project.
<< And since Newsarama has a good rep for this sort of thing, do you think your
readers would believe the story or not?>>
Do I believe my readers would believe that Quesada, Stan Lee and Marvel were
saying that this was a long lost character? Yes I did expect that, and not
unjustifiably because they all DID say that...THAT's what I reported...
You are SO missing the point here...
<<And once they realise its fake, will that impact on Newsarama's good name?>>
For anyone who care to remember what I actually reported, as well as care at
all to consider the context of this entire matter, no I don't think it will For
anyone who can't be bothered to get what I reported correct, it might. And I
have no problem with this...
You place a "rumor barrier" before everything you report. You of all people
should recognize context is a very integral part of all this...
<<At the time, did you believe it to be untrue? Because I believe you knew the
Sentry story was untrue.>>
Good thing I never reported that is was true, not implied that it was true...
Not even by ommission. We're going to go round and round on this Rich until
you actually have the common decency to correctly convey what I reported...
And I'll say it again, what I report has nothing to do with what *I* know.. or
think I know. It's what I can support. And that goes both ways...
I recently reported on creative change that I was pretty sure was happening or
at least in development for several weeks...99% sure several days before I
reported it... But I didn't report it until the story met my criteria, that
being I could confirm what I thought I knew with a person in proper position to
confirm it...
You can call this whatever you like... I'VE never claimed it to me or me to be
anything but what it is.. That's how Newsarama works... How you choose to label
me and Newsarama is your choice... but at least recognize it's always been
consistent and doesn't claim to be any more than what it is ...
<<My problem is that you printed an article telling a story that you knew to be
untrue without tackling that aspect.>>
Again, for those who bother to actually judge this on the facts, what *I*
reported was and is true...
Do me a favor and actually check it out before you continue to make claims
about it..
<<Don't take it personally, it's what almost everyone else did too.>>
1.) I'm not losing sleep over it, believe me, but it is personal because you
always name Newsarama by name whenever you have the opportunity, which you
rarely, if ever do with anyone else...
2.) It's kind of amusing hearing this from you Rich because you're presenting
these issues as black & white and you all people know these things are hardly
ever that simple.
3.) For the last time, get it right..then we can have a productive talk...
m.
Paul O'Brien
<lun...@aol.com> writes
>
>May I ask what the difference is in publishing something as fact, without
>investigation and publishing an unsubstantiated rumor?
Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
labelled as news.
Stranger
>
> In article <20000620143924...@ng-xc1.aol.com>, Newsarama
> <news...@aol.compsyche> writes
> >
> >I rarely - if ever - editorialize the news, I report what people are saying, be
> > it a person or an 'entity', same as you...I just have different criteria, mine
> >being my source has to be a principle player in the "news" I'm reporting on.
>
> surely it is the duty of a journalist to - at the very least - give
> the reader the necessary background to realise this.
I don't know. This isn't a case of Marvel lieing maliciously. If
anything, it reminds me of the good old days back in the Bullpen pages,
when Stan would talk about how Marvel comics were the greatest thing
since Shakespeare (much better than Brand Ecch) and how the Fantastic
Four were just by the other day congratulating them on their good work.
It was all in good fun- creating more enjoyment for the kids.
Now, in the real world, the media works to keep politicians honest. But
a magazine like Wizard, while it does provide news, has a goal of
entertainemnt- specifically a goal of having fun based on the comic
business. Really, I honestly believe that all the players involved
really like dthe concept and just wanted to have some fun with it. If
Marvel released a press release saying that Stan Lee would write it, and
this would be his last work EVER before retiring (making it a hot
collectible item) that's one thing- their purpose is based on greed.
But when we're just trying to have fun? That's what comics are all about
kiddo's.
--
Stranger- Impulse's #1 fan. Next to Max of course.
Lundonj
>Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
>difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
>labelled as news.
The entire subject is silly. The rumor guru is ripping someone for not
investigating a rumor. All news organizations print press releases, many of
them don't alter or followup on the content either (depending on the editor).
All this fuss over obvious hype? Should Rich's next column rip on THE COMICS
JOURNAL for not doing an investigative piece on Irving Forbush way back when?
That's how ridiculous this is. The bottom line is Rich doesn't like Newsarama
and took a shot at them. It is not about the appropriate amount of research on
a press release.
-Don Lund
Consul de Designers
> Yes. And if Mike Carlin says "No, really." You do what I did in 1992, and
> say "I'm taking bets."
I wish George Carlin was still the Engineer in Tommy and the Magic Railroad
Movie. :(
--
Jameson Stalanthas Yu.
How much does one filled longbox, w/ bags and boards weigh? I have no scale, and
I have about 8 boxes to ship across country.
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>Rich certainly does not claim to be a journalist, but criticizes anyone who
>doesn't work exactly the way he does...
Not true, Mike. I do criticise others for doing things I think are wrong, and
they do the same back. But certainly not for people who don't work exactly as I
do...
>Isn't that sort of having your cake and eating it too?
It's much tastier that way.
>Rich can work the way he does, because he doesn't hold himself
>accountable..
I do hold myself accountable, to the readers. On a few occasions, I've held
votes on how the column should be run, even if it should exist at all.
>which is perfectly fine. But people got to understand others that
>do hold themelves accountable, do ALL the time, and not just when it's
>convenient for them or their readers.
You have printed a press release you know not to be true without comment. Ase a
news source, will you be accountable for that?
>m.
Rich Johnston
rmr...@bellatlantic.net says...
>
>> Not really, since (a) Rich doesn't claim to be a journalist;
>
>Yes he does. I believe he's even a member of the NUJ.
I regard myself as a gossip columnist. Some people call that journalism, some
don't. My (now-lapsed, i really should rejoin) membershiop of the NUJ is more to
do with the fact that, strangely, it covers the advertising industry, and I'm a
senior copywriter at a Soho ad agency.
>> (b)
>> Rich doesn't claim to be accurate;
>
>Yes he does. He just posts everything and comments on whether he thinks
>it's accurate or not.
I claim the articles to be rumours, I don't claim the rumours to be accurate. In
fact, I try to go out of my way to stress this.
>> and (c) in terms of coverage of
>> this particular item, Rich beats an awful lot of those who do.
>
>Now that's really damning with faint praise. :)
Well, Robin, strangely enough, this is the nicest post you seem to have ever
made about me and Ramblings. I was expecting an attack... my prejudices I guess.
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>
>I'll say it again Rich, I reported what Joe, Paul and Marvel were saying about
>the project. I didn't report anything as fact, I reported what I was able,
>following the criteria I set for myself.
Okay, how about this way. Newsarama is a trusted news source. It's reliability
and standards make it a place that people come when they want to read the news,
news they can believe in as opposed to malicious guttersnipe gossip merchants
like myself.
By printing a press release you knew to be false, without comment to that fact,
you've done yourself a disservice.
>You had high praise for the Paul Jenkins article. Why, it wasn't fact, it
>wasn't presented as fact... It was what Jenkins had to say about his memories
>of those events.
I enjoyed it certainly. I still reckon you should print Al Columbia's responses.
Maybe I will...
>You recently reported something completely unsourced about DC that was highly
>speculative and subjective at best. Why? Because you say that's what people are
>saying, that's what people are thinking
I didn't know it to be untrue, indeed, I knew it to be the opinion of many of
those working at the company. When one person came to be with the story, I was
able to see if it held true with other DC sources. It did.
>Because you say people deserve to know what people are saying and thinking,
>regardless of whether it is actually true or not...You put things "out there"
>to put the truth to it.. that the important thing isn't whether its true or
>not, but that people are saying it...have I got that right?
Indeed, but done with comment and provisos.
>You say you have never printed anything that you knew not to be true, right?
Only if i've then stated that fact, as in 'this is a rumour', this is what
people say, I don't believe a word of it. But the truth is that the story is a
rumour.
>Well, neither have I...I have reported what people have said on the record, and
>made clear that THIS is what I was reporting... and you know what, it was
>accurate, because they were saying that.
Even though you knew it to be untrue. And didn't say anything to that effect.
>Am I mistaken about all this?
I don't know. I just found it suprising that all the news sources were prepared
to go along with it, when most knew it wasn't true.
Should be a great comic though.
Rich Johnston
says...
>
>2) so, with this in mind, and playing devil's advocate here, any story about
>comics where the creator or company says, "Stuporman dies!" should be
>accompanied with a [no, he doesn't - the next issue is already solicited,
>editor]. The same for every claim of "earth-shaking issue," "senses-shattering
>conclusion," and "original story?"
Depends. Do you know the story to be false?
>3) again, we reported it as news - the creators are working on a new book.
>Since then, we've patently avoided reporting on it again, despite the fact that
>it's being written by an Eisner winning, popular writer. The fact that they
>were doing a book called Sentry was the news - we reported it as such.
And you reported the backstory to the book, knowing it to be false.
>4) if you wanted to look, Paul himself spoke about finally landing his dream
>project that he'd been carrying with him for years at MK in an interview on the
>site just a few weeks earlier. The background was all there if anyone wanted to
>look.
Doesn't contradict the backstory... who knows when Paul Jenkins was to have
found out about Sentry...
>5) playing devil's advocate again, every media outlet that reported on The
>Blair Witch Project last year, and didn't call it a sham at every chance
>(interviews with the stars, directors, going on and asking what they hoped to
>gain by bringing forth this falsehood..) - where do they fit into this
>continuum?
The same place. Most news sources I read reported on the Blair Witch phenomena,
and how it presented a flasehood as truth as a backstory behind the film. Some
people were genuinely fooled. So which news sources presented the backstory as
truth? Anyone respectable?
>6) and finally - let's not forget Mr. Pot here, calling the kettle black - Rich
>has known about this for months as well, has an occasional column that's seen
>about 8 updates since, and only *now* chooses to "expose" it?
No, I exposed it 9 months ago, and had a few catch up articles since. It was
only when someone asked me if I was going to do an update, that I thought about
it, and the silverbulletcomicbooks column seemed a good place. I'll probably
also doa much shorter version for Ramblings.
>Heck, every day he held onto this earth-shattering secret perpetuated Marvel's
>marketing plan in a certain sense.
No, I exposed it the moment I had the story, and two independent sources.
Rich Johnston
says...
>
>Rich Johnston wrote of Newsarama:
>
>>untrue without tackling that aspect.
>
>investigation and publishing an unsubstantiated rumor?
Fair point. The unsubstantiated rumours are labelled as such.
>Why is an unverified bit of gossip, even when presented as such, a more viable
>journalistic resource than a company press release?
It's not. Press releases are very useful... not the kind of thing I generally
use, because everybody else does and I like to distinguish Ramblings in the
marketplace. If I use press releases, it'll be as apart of the story, not the
story itself, and generally the story will be actually about the press release
itself, not what it's promoting.
>Is this the argument?
No, I'm arguing that news sources presenting a press release as fact when the
news source knows it to be a lie bothers me. So I did a piece on it.
And it's certainly not just Newsarama.
Kitchen T
>factual, Tom.
Not what I was saying, Rich. What I find ironic about this whole argument is
that you, who take the stance that everything you report is rumor, so you
cannot be held accountable for any damage you might inadvertently do or
anything you might get wrong, are complaining that somebody else didn't report
on a piece "responsibly", to your satisfaction.
I don't just think you're on thin ice with this opinion--I think you're
standing on water.
Tom Brevoort
Visit the thoroughly-useless KUSO archive!
http://www.kitchentableproductions.net
Peter Likidis
Kitchen T wrote:
>
> >I haven't yet reported any press release I knew to be false as if it were
> >factual, Tom.
>
> Not what I was saying, Rich. What I find ironic about this whole argument is
> that you, who take the stance that everything you report is rumor, so you
> cannot be held accountable for any damage you might inadvertently do or
> anything you might get wrong, are complaining that somebody else didn't report
> on a piece "responsibly", to your satisfaction.
Yeah but at least Rich tells you this. The others don't. They present
information AS factual.
Michael Alan Chary
Kitchen T <kitc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I haven't yet reported any press release I knew to be false as if it were
>>factual, Tom.
>
>Not what I was saying, Rich. What I find ironic about this whole argument is
>that you, who take the stance that everything you report is rumor, so you
>cannot be held accountable for any damage you might inadvertently do or
>anything you might get wrong, are complaining that somebody else didn't report
>on a piece "responsibly", to your satisfaction.
>
>standing on water.
Your logic is flawed. First of all, just because someone is a hypocrite
doesn't make what they say false. Second, Rich claims not to be involved
in a journalistic enterprise, but that doesn't mean he can't voice an
opinion about the quality of those who are any more than it means a pastry
chef cannot voice such an opinion. Finally, Rich was forced to call his
column rumior because idiots were lying to him.
Paul Jenks
<< >>I didn't get the impression he was pissed off at Marvel. I got the
>>impression he was complaining about the journalistic values of those
>>who have reported the press release as if it were factual.
Which is incredibly ironic, when you come right down to it. >>
He's a funny guy. Hehh...
Todd VerBeek
>>Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
>>difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
>>labelled as news.
My pal Lundonj said:
>The entire subject is silly.
So why are you getting involved in the discussion?
>The rumor guru is ripping someone for not
>investigating a rumor. All news organizations print press releases, many of
>them don't alter or followup on the content either (depending on the editor).
So, because "everybody does it" that automatically makes it beyond reproach?
When I read Rich's column, I know a fair chunk of it is only half true, and
some of it will be flat-out wrong. Because he's told me so. When I used to
read Newsarama (back when I could tolerate the site it was on), I assumed
that everything was true to the best of Mike and Matt's ability to verify.
Because they'd told me so.
Rich calls his column "entertainment" (under pressure, and somewhat
disingenuosly, but that's what he calls it). Newsarama is supposed to be
"journalism". I expect both of them to live up to that. Usually they do.
In this instance, Newsarama did not.
Cheers, Todd
--
A retrospective on the artistic career of Todd VerBeek
is online at http://www.rzero.com/TVerBeek/gallery/
Newsarama
"journalism". I expect both of them to live up to that. Usually they do. In
this instance, Newsarama did not.>>
I'll say it again, because though oddly everyone seems rock solid on exactly
what Richs column is supposed to be, no one can seem to get it right when it
comes to Newsarama... all the more odd because I keep saying so over and
over...even in this very thread...
*I* don't call Newsarama anything, except news...I've never called "factual",
I've never called it journalism... I've gone way out of my way time and time
again to stress this point. Newsarama is what it is and always as been... I
report news... If a principle creator, principle editor, reprensative for the a
creator or publisher, or a source that has been proven reliable and are
themsevles citing one of the above says something that is new and of interest,
I report that...
*I* happen to think that's journalism.. I happen to think it's responsible
journalism... You don't, fine by me...
I don't make claims, my standard answer to this has always been check my
record. You want to ignore 4 years in favor a a few highly arguable ancedotale
instances, fine by me. But please do me the favor of not telling me what I
claim to be...
It would further be appreciated if someone actually checked to see what I
reported in this partcular case, as well as actually consider what I've been
saying alll along. That in order for me to report something in my column, it
has to meet a certain criteria in terms of what I can support and source. This
happens to work in different ways.
Think about that...I need to support and source ANYthing I report...*I*,
Michael Doran, don't claim things, I don't say things are true. I find sources
how are in the position to know who do.
Can't anyone put 1 and 1 together and realize the implications of that in this
case???
m.
Newsarama
information AS factual.>>
No, you're wrong, "they don't"... Actually read the column...I don't rely on
anyone to trust me, that what I'M saying is factual... beyond asking you to
believe that if Newsarama says DC Comics said, or Joe Creator, or Mary Editor
said something, that they actually said it... That's all I ask you to
believe...
People keep claiming I put a bunch of info in my column and ask you to trust
it's true... that's not how it works at alll...
Newsarama is and always has been a complitation of quotes and reports from
comics professionals and entities who are telling YOU via me about new
developments...
What I reported about Sentry happens to be 100% accurate...to this day.
Why can't anyone understand this?
m.
Newsarama
"...". You never state whether something is true or false, merely that it was
said or written in a press release.>>
Do *I* ever state whether it is true or false..? No
Do I present present information that is false? Read the column, you tell me...
<<Are you saying that you are willing to print any lie that anybody wants to
tell you as long as they are "in proper position to confirm it"?>>
As you can see, I tend to repeat myself...Read the column, 4 years worth that
you can check yourself and answer that question...
<<You don't do any independent fact checking other than more interviews, even
when you don't believe the quote?>>
99.9 percent of the time there is no indepedent fact checking to me done... How
was I suppose to fact check the Alan Davis thing aside from getting Alan, and
the Avengers writer and editor to confirm it. Call his doctors to be sure he's
physically able to take on the assignment?
I'll say it again, read the 4-year history of the column, if you find it
lacking in certain areas, point that out. That's my record, I'll have to live
with and stand by it.
It's just odd this need people have to label and describe it based on claims
Rich is making and singular instances that most people have only a passing
knowledge of...when there is such a better resource available to help make
those determinations.
<<So that makes Newsarama a collator of press releases and official statements.
I
suppose that is an important niche, but it doesn't fit most people's (or at
least my) definition of journalism. >>
Again, take in account my record, after that you want to arrive at that
conclusion, I have no qualms...
<< But hey, you're handy and I don't know how to get in touch with the
mainstream journalists who give us sound bites and photo-ops without
investigation or analysis.>>
I think I might be interested in what YOUR definition of "investigation" is..
but no, I don't do analysis.. anyone who's read the column for any amount of
time would already well know this..
m.
Lundonj
>>The entire subject is silly.
Todd Verbeek replied:
>So why are you getting involved in the discussion?
Because I thought it was silly. Isn't this a major function of a public forum,
to comment on things?
>So, because "everybody does it" that automatically makes it beyond reproach?
No it does not. I don't think the publication of that particular press release
constituted a major investigation. In the Marvel tradition of the No-prize,
Irving Forbush and now Artie Rosen, I thought is was kind of fun.
>When I read Rich's column, I know a fair chunk of it is only half true, and
>some of it will be flat-out wrong. Because he's told me so. When I used to
>read Newsarama (back when I could tolerate the site it was on), I assumed
>that everything was true to the best of Mike and Matt's ability to verify.
>Because they'd told me so.
I think if they point to their source (Marvel in this case), some fans were
able to discern the humor and some were not, as was the intent of the hype. If
they reported they "talked" to Artie themselves, then that would have been
something I felt cheated about. As it was, they belted out some
tongue-in-cheek info.
>Rich calls his column "entertainment" (under pressure, and somewhat
>disingenuosly, but that's what he calls it). Newsarama is supposed to be
>"journalism". I expect both of them to live up to that. Usually they do.
>In this instance, Newsarama did not.
Fair enough. I didn't feel mislead by any of the information they presented.
And the published article (that started the thread), exposing the whole thing
as a sham, seemed at least a little hypocritcal based on the author's track
record (whether the rumors are defined as entertainment or not).
-Don Lund
Newsarama
accurate, or is your only criterion that it be the official statement of a
publisher, creator, etc?>>
"Official" has little to do with it..I get the impression people think I sit
here and my phone rings and it's a publisher on the line wanting to give me the
official word on somnething.. I wish dearly that was anywhere near accuate..:-)
To answer your question, yes, I do care whether the information is acccurate,
as I believe the body of my work overwhelmingly demonstrates...
I'm not touching your response to the Alan Davis/doctor thing only to say it
was a bad analogy on my part considering...
<< I became interested because your defense addressed the fact that you quoted
what was actually said and you did not make any claims that the statement
itself was true, and implied that the veracity of
the statement was not of interest to you.>>
Well, I didn't make that blanket a statement, if you read my column you'd know
the veracity of the information in it is of a concern to me...
The Sentry case was one ususual circumstance out of thousands of usual ones...
<<I read your column frequently and I already knew your style of reporting. I
was just surprised that you didn't seem to care whether an interviewee or press
release was being truthful.>>
I didn't say that exactly...least I didn't think I did or mean to..99.9% of the
time, the word of an pro who has proven relialbe in the past is usually all the
"investigation" required if he talking about something HE is involved in. If a
pro I've known to be truthful and reliable tells me something, I'll probably
consider that worthy of reporting.
Rich has done this, reporting "true" items by the word of a sigular creator a
couple times the last month or so. As perfectly justifiable.
If it's a creator I'm not familiar with, I'll usually do more checking...
<<For what it's worth, I find your column very useful and I read it most
weeks.>>
Thank you...and I'll leave you with this..
Here is an excerpt from the small article in question, which I'm going to
assume few if any have any actual memory of…It was there all the time for
anyone bothering to read and apply common sense
"One week prior to that, Stan - along with artist Artie Rose - launched what
should have been Marvel's flagship title. A title that contained within its
four-color pages a being so powerful and so full of beauty and grace that it
somehow didn't fit in the Marvel Universe as we know it. Somehow, somewhere, we
were all forced to forget - made to simply pretend the title never existed."
My last (yeah right) comment on this matter is that it's a freakin' sad day for
us all when society becomes reliant upon entertainment "journalists" to assure
them global mass magical amnesia doesn't *really* exist…
:-)
md
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>I reported that Marvel and MK was saying it was... there is a very important
>difference here.
But you knew it to be false. Which begs the question, which other press releases
in the past have you printed that you knew to be false?
>You place a "rumor barrier" before everything you report. You of all people
>should recognize context is a very integral part of all this...
I do. And your article sits alongside the reporting of news stories.
>Good thing I never reported that is was true, not implied that it was true...
I believe that by printing the press release without comment in Newsarama, a
column held with high esteem by many, you implied it was true.
>Do me a favor and actually check it out before you continue to make claims
>about it..
I did. Remember? You sent it to me a few days ago.
Rich Johnston
says...
>That's how ridiculous this is. The bottom line is Rich doesn't like Newsarama
>and took a shot at them. It is not about the appropriate amount of research on
>a press release.
Not at all. I like Newsarama a lot, it's my favourite comic-related web site.
And you're right, it's not about the appropriate amount of research on a press
release. It's that the reporters knew the press release to be false. And
reported it as news in an arena that people trust.
In Ramblings, who gives a shit? Everyone knows that as news goes, it's not a
reliable source. Ramblings prints rumours and labels them as such. Newsarama,
however, is somewhere people go to find things out that they can trust.
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>
>If a principle creator, principle editor, reprensative for the a
>creator or publisher, or a source that has been proven reliable and are
>themsevles citing one of the above says something that is new and of interest,
>I report that...
What if you know it to be untrue? Does this affect what you report?
Rich Johnston
news...@aol.compsyche says...
>
>Do I present present information that is false? Read the column, you tell me...
You did this time.
>As you can see, I tend to repeat myself...Read the column, 4 years worth that
>you can check yourself and answer that question...
You see, that's why people are making a fuss. I originally aimed this at all
news sources. Newsarama, however, has a great reputation for reliable comic
news.
Robin Riggs
> Well, Robin, strangely enough, this is the nicest post you seem to have
> ever made about me and Ramblings. I was expecting an attack... my
> prejudices I guess.
But, Rich, this post wasn't made by me. It was an old Artie Rosen post
that was re-written by his longtime collaborator Sam Simek.
--Robin. (nobody gets the letterer in-jokes)
Adrian Brown
(Paul Jenks) writes:
Is that REALLY your opinion or are you making it up ?
Anyway, not wanting to miss the chance to wade into a brawl when it's too late:
I'd just like to say I agree with what Rich said about the coverage not being
journalistically correct*, but I see nothing wrong with going along with the
Marvel publicity in this context. To say the least, we could print up a hundred
or so fake editions of the non-existant comic and sell them for lots of money
to some evil speculators.
*"Whatever, it’s a fiction one that everyone seems to be falling for. And no
wonder, since all the respected news sources seem to be going along with it
too. Wizard even did a large splash detailing the project’s supposed history.
April Fools are fine... we expect them. Reporting company news is fine,
although it’s good to question it. But intentionally misleading the audience
when they know the truth? Or even being completely fooled themselves? Either
way it doesn’t look good."
from the scurrilous Rich's Rumplestiltskin.
A "friend" passed me the following "excerpt"
from the school text book of one "Richie Johnston" (aged 10 1/2).
"One of my teddy bears tells me that he heard from an elf working in the
Selfridges X-mas grotto that the presents we look forward to every year are NOT
brought to us by that jolly white bearded man in red. In the interests of
balance, I asked Mommy, who told me 'There IS such a man who brings the
presents down the chimney on X-mas Eve, ask your Father'. Daddy has so far not
answered me on this question.
Therefore, I have to say
RUMOUR ALERT RUMOUR ALERT RUMOUR ALERT RUMOUR ALERT RUMOUR ALERT
there is NO Santa Claus."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Elayne Riggs
> Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
> difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
> labelled as news.
I was under the impression both columns were labelled as a mixture, with
the news and the rumors in separate sections (when one reads them in
context).
- Elayne
--
"Just because you like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything."
- Bob Dylan
Elayne Riggs
> If a principle creator, principle editor, reprensative for the a
> creator or publisher, or a source that has been proven reliable and are
> themsevles citing one of the above says something that is new and of interest,
> I report that...
> *I* happen to think that's journalism.. I happen to think it's responsible
> journalism...
It would be more responsible if you reported news from a reliable source
about a creator as COMING from that reliable source and not from the
creator him/herself, unless of course you then confirm that news directly
with the creator involved.
Elayne Riggs
> How
> was I suppose to fact check the Alan Davis thing aside from getting Alan, and
> the Avengers writer and editor to confirm it.
An editor or a writer, while they will almost certainly have more
information than a fan, cannot always confirm that an artist will be
taking a certain assignment. Only the artist can confirm that.
- Elayne
FabNic
>column rumior because idiots were lying to him
Well, Rich is a gossip-whore -- he accepts being the back end of a factually
unchecked conversation, or being the last person in line in a game of telephone
and then publically writes that down, nudge-nudging and wink-winking that "it's
all just rumor, folks."
But blaming the MESSENGER for this is the most childish form of deniability I
could imagine.
And I'm not taking sides, since I think Rich is just a barrel of silly fun and
I happen to enjoy his "reports" the same way I like gossiping with friends over
beers or watching Jerry Springer while I work out!
But I think Tom also has a very valid point about the irony of the fox
complaining that someone else is eating the chickens.
--fabian
FabNic
heard such and such or if I'd be willing to go on record for a story BEFORE
he's been willing "to go to press" with it.
I also know that he has NOT run plenty of stories he has heard BECAUSE he
couldn't get enough verification to comfortably run it.
I also know that he ran one story that WAS "verified" by a few different
sources that happened to have been a practical joke being perpetrated by the
very people who were the sources.
Maybe that wasn't a nice thing for them to do, but it was kind of a funny one,
since it wasn't a really "important story" anyway (which I laugh out loud as I
write it, even thinking that anyone would seriously think of information about
comics as important in the truest sense of the word)
But accusations that Mike doesn't try to make sure the stories he runs are
accurate can only be coming from people who haven't been in any way involved in
the process of getting those stories released. Jees, newspapers run corrections
EVERY SINGLE DAY for things they get wrong. TV hard news outlets have been sued
for things they've gotten wrong.
When put into that perspective, to be making ANY kind of a fuss about this --
especially in light of it being an argument between Rich's Ramblings and
Newsrama -- is the height of self-indulgence and childishness.
Or at least I'll preach from my lofty perch until one of them says something
wrong about me! ;-)
--fabian
NYSteve11
>--Robin. (nobody gets the letterer in-jokes)
... so the priest says "Agustin Mas!!!! My Starkings are are in the wrong
font!!"
Steve Wacker
eating
Kevin J. Maroney
>Well, Rich is a gossip-whore -- he accepts being the back end of a factually
>unchecked conversation, or being the last person in line in a game of telephone
>and then publically writes that down, nudge-nudging and wink-winking that "it's
>all just rumor, folks."
>But blaming the MESSENGER for this is the most childish form of deniability I
>could imagine.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
I have heard reports from at least two people that, once upon a time,
people deliberately told lies to Rich Johnston just for the pleasure
of watching him repeat false information publically.
Once this came to light, Rich changed his behavior. Rich now does a
better job of confirming his sources than any reporter at _CBG_ or
_Wizard_, and better than most television reporters. Of course, that's
because Rich loves his job and loves comics.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Maroney. You are free
to leave."--Hyperion, _Squadron Supreme_ (by Mark Gruenwald)
Newsarama
especially in light of it being an argument between Rich's Ramblings and
Newsrama -- is the height of self-indulgence and childishness.>>
This is usenet...take away self-indulgence and childishness and what have you
got left..??
:-)
m.
Newsarama
than a fan, cannot always confirm that an artist will be taking a certain
assignment. Only the artist can confirm that.>>
Well, in this case I got all 3.. your point?
m.
Newsarama
about a creator as COMING from that reliable source and not from the creator
him/herself, unless of course you then confirm that news directly with the
creator involved.>>
Ah, understood...
m.
Newsarama
votes on how the column should be run, even if it should exist at all.>>
You needn't hold yourself accountable to the readers, you should hold yourself
accountable to the facts...
Since we're being so honest with each other (and lest anyone think Rich and I
spiteful adversaries airing out dirty laundry in public, we aren't, believe
me). I think your "rumor barrier" (which *I* find disgenuine) and the fact that
you've allowed votes on how the column should be run, or if it should run at
all, displays somewhat a lack of purpose and conviction on your part...
I know you exist on this hard to label netherworld Rich, but I can't imagine
any good comng from letting your audience dictate how you and why you
work...Either you feel what you are doing is right and justified, or you don't.
Tailoring it to court public acceptance and approval.. I don't know, just seems
to suggest strength of conviction.
<<You have printed a press release you know not to be true without comment. Ase
a news source, will you be accountable for that?>>
I quoted a press release that I believe contained all the information within
for readers to judge for themselves the veracity of what was being said. I'm
still comfortable with it to this day and yes, I certainly do hold myself
accountable for that.
m.
Newsarama
news source knows it to be a lie bothers me. So I did a piece on it.>>
You use the work "present" but you remove "presentation" from the equation,
you're removing syntax and context, and ignoring the information that was
actually presented...
Which I guess you can do if you like but I'm not sure if its fair or effective.
m.
Rich Johnston
>>Finally, Rich was forced to call his
>>column rumior because idiots were lying to him
Sadly I missed this one... No, that's not why I was forced to call the column
'rumour'. I wasn't forced, it's what the column was. And always has been. It
reported rumours and said so.
Eventually, after a number of Usenet discussions, I upped the emphasis of
stressing the fact they were rumours, to the extent that I have a rumour barrier
before people enter the page and a nice big Elmo warning at the top of the page
itself.
Rich Johnston
rmr...@bellatlantic.net says...
>--Robin. (nobody gets the letterer in-jokes)
I do. In fact in the article that started all this, I'm sure I mentioned it.
Newsarama
releases
in the past have you printed that you knew to be false?>>
Oh of course, I always forget this part, you take one ancetotal incident, whose
circumstance were anything but normal, and you read into and that casts doubt
on ALL things...? :-)
Same answer all the time Rich, check the record...
<<I do. And your article sits alongside the reporting of news stories.>>
My article sits along side every article I've ever written and when placd side
by side the context I wrote it in becomes even clearer.
<<I believe that by printing the press release without comment in Newsarama, a
column held with high esteem by many, you implied it was true.>>
But I did comment, I commented by how I couched the story....and as I pointed
out earlier, I can't imagine anyone believeing in magical mass amnesia because
"Newsarama" "reported" it...
<<I did. Remember? You sent it to me a few days ago.>>
Which makes it all the more frustrating that you're unable to get it right...
m.
Newsarama
reliable source. Ramblings prints rumours and labels them as such. Newsarama,
however, is somewhere people go to find things out that they can trust.>>
And I like to think if they do that, they do it for a reason, and not because I
say "trust me, I'm reliable." Because I don't, and never habe.
If readers who at least consider the circumstance and context of what was said
and wasn't said, and they still want to cast a more skeptical eye at Newsarama
because of it, my answer to that is, okay, no problem.
Go back and read it's history with a new skepticism, read each new column,
every new item being newly skeptical of it's veracity. I have absolutely no
problem with this. Its not about who trusts me and trying to preserve that,
it's about getting the story right...that's all I care about.
The trust is not a cause, it's an effect that takes care of itself. It's not
something I specifically court of concern myself with...
m.
Newsarama
Again, you're completey ignoring context...
<<Doesn't contradict the backstory... who knows when Paul Jenkins was to have
found out about Sentry...>>
Because the backstory was that Paul found this while he was working for Marvel
Knights, in NYC, working with Joe... I quoted Paul just weeks before this
saying this was his dream project that he shopped around for 7 or 8 years...
Do you need a roadmap, a compass and a flashlight?
md
m.
Robin Riggs
Sigh. Michael, Michael, Michael... I really didn't want to point this
out but you keep saying it over and over. You DIDN'T talk to the artist
but you keep saying that you did. What you did was speak to at least
three people who had spoken to him, which is absolutely fine, but you
then wrote it as if you'd spoken with the artist yourself. This doesn't
affect the accuracy of the news at all but I do see it as
misrepresentation to write a piece worded as if you've spoken to an
artist yourself rather than stating that the information was relayed by
reliable sources.
--Robin.
Rich Johnston
>I have heard reports from at least two people that, once upon a time,
>people deliberately told lies to Rich Johnston just for the pleasure
>of watching him repeat false information publically.
Apparently so. I seem to recall both Elayne Riggs and Kurt Busiek have mentioned
this, although I've never had any specifics - story or individual. However, as
the column has matured and my contact list has grown I've been able to do a more
thorough job.
There's a major rumour that came through recently, which could have been just
that. Except that I've now heard it from a number of sources with interesting
variants and have now got official comment on it. Several years ago, I'd have
printed it from the first rumour reported.
>Once this came to light, Rich changed his behavior. Rich now does a
>better job of confirming his sources than any reporter at _CBG_ or
>_Wizard_, and better than most television reporters. Of course, that's
>because Rich loves his job and loves comics.
I can definitely confirm that last sentence. On the record.
Rich Johnston
says...
>And I'm not taking sides, since I think Rich is just a barrel of silly fun and
>I happen to enjoy his "reports" the same way I like gossiping with friends over
>beers or watching Jerry Springer while I work out!
Which is just the response I'm after. Cheers Fabe.
>But I think Tom also has a very valid point about the irony of the fox
>complaining that someone else is eating the chickens.
Of course, I found it quite a funny position to take too. One of the reasons I
did so.
Rich Johnston
says...
>
>But accusations that Mike doesn't try to make sure the stories he runs are
>accurate can only be coming from people who haven't been in any way involved in
>the process of getting those stories released.
But it's just the fact that Mike does go to such lengths to report the truth and
has such a good reputation for going over and above duty to do so, is why the
Sentry thing is weird. He knew the backstory was false and still printed it
without comment. And, naturally, people will have believed it because it came
from Newsarama.
>When put into that perspective, to be making ANY kind of a fuss about this --
>especially in light of it being an argument between Rich's Ramblings and
>Newsrama -- is the height of self-indulgence and childishness.
We're totally different animals and I'm not that happy when people make direct
comparisons, because we do different things, have different values and a
different audience.
>Or at least I'll preach from my lofty perch until one of them says something
>wrong about me! ;-)
Rich Johnston
><<An editor or a writer, while they will almost certainly have more information
>than a fan, cannot always confirm that an artist will be taking a certain
>assignment. Only the artist can confirm that.>>
Not always true. On a number of occasions, an artist has stated they'll be on a
project when the editor knows the artist isn't... just hasn't got round to
telling the artist this yet.
Rich Johnston
Ojerasmus
><<When put into that perspective, to be making ANY kind of a fuss about this
>--
>especially in light of it being an argument between Rich's Ramblings and
>Newsrama -- is the height of self-indulgence and childishness.>>
>
>got left..??
>
Owen Erasmus
Elayne Riggs
> Ah, understood...
I assure you, I speak from experience. :)
Newsarama
you keep saying it over and over. You DIDN'T talk to the artist but you keep
saying that you did. What you did was speak to at least three people who had
spoken to him, which is absolutely fine, but you then wrote it as if you'd
spoken with the artist yourself. This doesn't affect the accuracy of the news
at all but I do see it as
misrepresentation to write a piece worded as if you've spoken to an artist
yourself rather than stating that the information was relayed by reliable
sources.>>
I don't mind you pointing it out because you're absolutely right...my bad...
md.
Elayne Riggs
> than a fan, cannot always confirm that an artist will be taking a certain
> assignment. Only the artist can confirm that.>>
> Well, in this case I got all 3..
Ah okay, glad you've spoken with Alan then, my mistake.
> your point?
Again, I speak from experience, having once done something similar
(involving Alan, coincidentally) which ended up costing me a friendship.
Since then I'm very wary of things that don't come straight from the
horse's mouth-- and sometimes wary even when they DO. :)
Elayne Riggs
>><<An editor or a writer, while they will almost certainly have more information
>>than a fan, cannot always confirm that an artist will be taking a certain
>>assignment. Only the artist can confirm that.>>
> Not always true. On a number of occasions, an artist has stated they'll be on a
> project when the editor knows the artist isn't... just hasn't got round to
> telling the artist this yet.
You're right, of course, sometimes this works both ways.
Probably the second best thing to do* is be skeptical of any source whom
you don't know very well as a personal friend or something. And judging
by Usenet and Web board posts, I see no scarcity of skepticism. :)
*The BEST thing to do, of course, is as Kurt and others advise, wait until
the book actually comes out. :)
Rich Johnston
rmr...@bellatlantic.net says...
>Sigh. Michael, Michael, Michael... I really didn't want to point this
>out but you keep saying it over and over. You DIDN'T talk to the artist
>but you keep saying that you did. What you did was speak to at least
>three people who had spoken to him, which is absolutely fine, but you
>then wrote it as if you'd spoken with the artist yourself.
Gosh. Normally I have to write an article so that it doesn't sound like I spoken
to the artist/writer/editor/publisher/president... 8-)
Kevin J. Maroney
>This is usenet...take away self-indulgence and childishness and what have you
>got left..??
In my world, information.
Strangely, I don't seem willing to give that up.
Kevin J. Maroney
>*The BEST thing to do, of course, is as Kurt and others advise, wait until
>the book actually comes out. :)
Yes, that certainly works best for those of us who mail-order our
comics: Wait until the actual issue is out until we decide whether to
buy it or not.
Dave Potter
>got left..??
>
That's agreat quote for a sig file if I ever saw one.....
Read Comics and Become Cool
www.savantmag.com
Rich Johnston
>
>*The BEST thing to do, of course, is as Kurt and others advise, wait until
>the book actually comes out. :)
Even then the credits can be wrong...
Michael Alan Chary
Newsarama <news...@aol.compsyche> wrote:
><<When put into that perspective, to be making ANY kind of a fuss about this --
>especially in light of it being an argument between Rich's Ramblings and
>Newsrama -- is the height of self-indulgence and childishness.>>
>
>got left..??
>
Intelligent conversation,academic rigor, an independent crucible. If you
don't like that, feel free not to participate.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." -- Roger Bacon
Joe Ankenbauer
> >Paul O'Brien wrote:
> >>Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
> >>difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
> >>labelled as news.
>
> My pal Lundonj said:
> >The entire subject is silly.
>
> So why are you getting involved in the discussion?
My guess is that no one's day is complete unless s/he receives some criticism from
you.
JMA
Joe Ankenbauer
> When I read Rich's column, I know a fair chunk of it is only half true, and
> some of it will be flat-out wrong. Because he's told me so. When I used to
> read Newsarama (back when I could tolerate the site it was on), I assumed
> that everything was true to the best of Mike and Matt's ability to verify.
> Because they'd told me so.
I hope that Newsarama doesn't fold due to the fact that <YOU> are no longer
reading it.
JMA
Joe Ankenbauer
> Your logic is flawed. First of all, just because someone is a hypocrite
> doesn't make what they say false. Second, Rich claims not to be involved
> in a journalistic enterprise, but that doesn't mean he can't voice an
> opinion about the quality of those who are any more than it means a pastry
> chef cannot voice such an opinion. Finally, Rich was forced to call his
> column rumior because idiots were lying to him.
Boy, that last sentence doesn't say much about Rich. He had idiots lying to him,
and he still printed the information? When Rich found out the idiots were lying to
him, did he then stop using the information?
Pot --> Kettle --> Black
JMA
Michael Alan Chary
Since the idiots in question were comics pros, one assumes he stills
prints what they say but with more caution than usual. (And Rich, I was
there for the discussion. You can be a wussy about your characterizations
of events, but *I* needn't be.)
>Pot --> Kettle --> Black
How clever. FOAD, PW.
Newsarama
don't like that, feel free not to participate.>>
I like it just fine.. I just don't think there is relatively a lot of it to be
found here.
But I have no doubt you're being genuine when you say you do...
m.
Paul O'Brien
Stra...@mail.utexas.edu> writes
>
>I don't know. This isn't a case of Marvel lieing maliciously.
Certainly, and I make no criticism whatsoever of Marvel for promoting
the book in this way. I merely think there's a little more to
journalism than, in effect, reproducing a press release.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Flowers: the practical alternative to capitalism, apparently.
Paul O'Brien
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> happened to mention:
>
>> Please let's not get into this ridiculous argument again. The
>> difference is that Rich's column is labelled as rumour. Newsarama is
>> labelled as news.
>
>the news and the rumors in separate sections (when one reads them in
>context).
Okay, granted, Newsarama sometimes reports rumours labelled as such.
The present case that we're talking about is not, to the best of my
recollection, such an instance.
Paul O'Brien
<fab...@aol.com> writes
>I can tell you that I have received PLENTY of emails from Mike asking if I'd
>heard such and such or if I'd be willing to go on record for a story BEFORE
>he's been willing "to go to press" with it.
>
>I also know that he has NOT run plenty of stories he has heard BECAUSE he
>couldn't get enough verification to comfortably run it.
Sure, but what we're discussing here isn't a failure to verify; it's
the reproduction of a press release with fictional content, not
presented in such a way as to enable most readers to easily distinguish
it from press releases with factual content. It's a question of
presentation and of what information is conveyed, not of research.
The article was undoubtedly factually accurate insofar as the press
release was quoted accurately. But there is more to the question of
whether an accurate impression has been given than simply going
through the article sentence by sentence, ticking boxes marked true
and false.
Paul O'Brien
<kitc...@aol.com> writes
>
>Not what I was saying, Rich. What I find ironic about this whole argument is
>that you, who take the stance that everything you report is rumor, so you
>cannot be held accountable for any damage you might inadvertently do or
>anything you might get wrong, are complaining that somebody else didn't report
>on a piece "responsibly", to your satisfaction.
>
>I don't just think you're on thin ice with this opinion--I think you're
>standing on water.
Tom, there's an obvious and clear distinction here. Rich's column is
presented in such a way that readers are left in no doubt that it
is simply recording the fact that certain rumours are circulating,
without guaranteeing or insinuating their veracity. Newsarama isn't,
and when its readers see a press release for a new title quoted
wholesale, they are quite entitled to jump to the conclusion that the
contents are true, since that's how the column normally works.
Joe Ankenbauer
> In article <39512E1E...@home.com>,
> Joe Ankenbauer <anken...@home.com> wrote:
> >Michael Alan Chary wrote:
> >
> >> Your logic is flawed. First of all, just because someone is a hypocrite
> >> doesn't make what they say false. Second, Rich claims not to be involved
> >> in a journalistic enterprise, but that doesn't mean he can't voice an
> >> opinion about the quality of those who are any more than it means a pastry
> >> chef cannot voice such an opinion. Finally, Rich was forced to call his
> >> column rumior because idiots were lying to him.
> >
> >Boy, that last sentence doesn't say much about Rich. He had idiots lying to him,
> >and he still printed the information? When Rich found out the idiots
> >were lying to
> >him, did he then stop using the information?
>
> Since the idiots in question were comics pros, one assumes he stills
> prints what they say but with more caution than usual. (And Rich, I was
> there for the discussion. You can be a wussy about your characterizations
> of events, but *I* needn't be.)
>
> >Pot --> Kettle --> Black
>
> How clever. FOAD, PW.
Since I'm obviously not as clever as you, could you please decipher your last
sentence: FOAD, PW.
Thanks!
JMA