USCF Cheap Shot?
Rob
> Rob wrote:
> > I believe this posting to be a cheap shot,personally. They have never
> > made such an announcement in the past as it relates to the serial sue -
> > er , Mr. Sloan.
> >http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&sik=1244137146245&aIdx=0&arti...
> Not a cheap shot. Try truth and/or reality, instead.
> vidmar.vcf
> < 1KViewDownload
Brian,
It may in fact be accurate that these lawsuits are costing the USCF
money. I do not doubt that. However the article fails to meet most
journalistic standards on non bias and accurate reporting.
The Rules
Conflict of Interest:
The injunction to avoid conflicts of interest means that a reporter
must maintain independence from sources. In reality, however, news-
gathering involves an inextricable inter-dependence between reporters
and sources. Reporters must cultivate sources and are keenly aware
that future access to information depends on how they handle today's
story. Sources, in turn, cultivate reporters. The most valuable gifts
that reporters and sources can exchange - scoops and favorable
coverage - simply aren't recognized as gifts. And somehow, the rules
about conflict of interest seem to apply only to journalists, never
to
publishers or parent corporations.
Accuracy:
Journalists are supposed to strive for accuracy, but accuracy has an
ambiguous relationship to truth. For example, a report quoting a
Pentagon spokesperson on the number of casualties in an invasion can
simultaneously be an accurate report of what the spokesperson said,
but an inaccurate representation of what actually happened.
Objectivity:
Objectivity supposedly eliminates personal prejudice and separates
fact from value and interpretation. This assumes that only facts
remain; it doesn't acknowledge unconscious, cultural or institutional
biases, or sources' biases.
Fairness:
Is it fair to report the arrest or indictment of a person accused but
not yet found guilty of a crime? That is illegal in some countries
because it may damage an innocent person wrongly accused. Does
fairness require treating all competing viewpoints as equally valid?
Does fairness extend to all? In practice it stops at the U.S. border.
The right of Castro or Ghadafi or Hussein to a balanced airing of
their perspectives is rarely acknowledged, except, perhaps, in a
token
paragraph whose credibility suffers from the context within which it
appears.
Sensationalism:
Journalists are supposed to avoid sensationalism, but sensationalism
is built into the concept of news. Events are seen as newsworthy
because they deviate from the ordinary, and good reporting is seen as
presenting events in an emotionally compelling way.
Given these fundamental conflicts and ambiguities within the core
concepts of ethics codes, how the rules get applied to particular
cases often depends upon whose interests are at stake. The USCF has
an
interest in the outcome. (Conflict of Interest) The USCF is the
publisher of the magazine. The USCF has used it's position as a
publisher to attack and influence opinions against parties they are
undertaking legal proceedings against.
The lack of the equal airings of all sides of this debate in the
article is therefore biased in it's presentation. The overt lack of
fairness could be seen as proof that the USCF and/or many of it's
officers are undertaking an organized attempt to destroy
professionally and/or personally the reputations of Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar.
By publishing this article the USCF could have made the case against
themselves stronger. I don't know. As a judge how would you view a
personal attack in a magazine? If say John Doe claimed had a
reputation for being a great scoker player and had the record to
prove
it. And people paid him lots of money because of his skills and his
reputation. Then The soccer organization began to discredit him for
political reasons. John sues them and says they are attempting to
destroy my ability to make a living by ruining my reputation. The the
Soccer Association prints a magazine and says "John Doe is suing us
and we are losing money because of the suit." How would you view
that?
The reality of the report was that the Soccer Association did not
operationally have positive cash flow and the lawsuit was simply an
amplification of current ooperational conditions.
Sorry for such a long post. I just things can be factual and still be
inaccurate by ommissions of important details.
On Jun 5, 4:25 pm, StarwarzMonke...@aol.com wrote:
> In August of last year, the USCF was sued by current Executive Board
> Member Susan Polgar for $25 million (later reduced to $10 million).
> This and other suits related to her conduct and the conduct of her
> husband and fellow Executive Board Member Paul Truong, have caused the
> USCF to incur enormous legal fees over the last 10 months and has made
> the budget process for next fiscal year extremely difficult.
>
> Finish reading report & comments by USCF members:http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9436/536/
>
> Bill Hall
> USCF Executive Directorwww.uschess.org
>
> MORE INFO::www.CheckMate.US
> by Bill Goichberg
Rob
> Why exactly would you consider this a "news report" or Hall a
> "reporter"? It's an official statement from the organization. The
> standards are entirely different ("clear error" rather than
> "objectivity"). I think what Hall wrote was substantially correct, but
> if you buy the Polgar line you are free to disagree.
There is really no need for me to buy any line. I received the posting
via rss feed from the USCF "NEWS" service. If it comes from the "NEWS"
service source then I would expect it to adhere to the sames standards
all objective news sources should be subjected to following. If this
was not "NEWS" and was simply "commentary" it should have been
portrayed as such and promoted likewise.
I realize there are plenty of "journalists" that may not follow those
guidelines. I would argue they are truely commentators or essayists.
( a different but no less honorable profession)
Rob
> argue with a straight face that every press release issue by the Obama
> or McCain campaigns was "fair and balanced"? How about announcements
> from Microsoft or Walmart about their latest product or service?
> Sounds to me like you're grasping at straws to find something with
> which to attack the USCF. Since there are plenty of legitimate reasons
> to criticize them, that's well, kinda dumb.
Please address the facts and not try to excuse an obvious error by
saying "politicians do this all the time". The USCF website should not
be used for political gain by any party. It should be unbiased and
stick to facts.. especially if they are going to be disseminated by a
"news service feeder".
The posting in question was not marked as a "press release" and was
not marked as commentary. You cannot honestly argue that is was not
biased and was not designed to attack Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.
Rob
> In August of last year, the USCF was sued by current Executive Board
> Member Susan Polgar for $25 million (later reduced to $10 million).
> This and other suits related to her conduct and the conduct of her
> husband and fellow Executive Board Member Paul Truong, have caused
> the
> USCF to incur enormous legal fees over the last 10 months and has
> made
> the budget process for next fiscal year extremely difficult.
>
> Finish reading report & comments by USCF members:http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9436/536/
>
> Bill Hall
> USCF Executive Directorwww.uschess.org
>
> MORE INFO::www.CheckMate.US
> by Bill Goichberg
Looks like someone is very interested in keeping this topic thread
displayed . Who is "Mr. Monkey"? What is their interest?
Rob Mitchell