IP: more on -- Do read -- Tony Blair's speech

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:18:51 -0400
> Subject: Re: IP: Do read -- Tony Blair's speech
> From: Jan Ziff <janziff () soundbytesradio com>
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> CC: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> Declan:
>
> Let me introduce myself:  I think my track record speaks for itself.
>
> I began my career as a foreign correspondent in 1976.  I’m a former BBC 
> State Department correspondent, (I covered Reagan/Bush1/Clinton). I’ve 
> covered the White House and the Hill extensively. I was the first foreign 
> correspondent to have a regular place on the Secretary of State’s plane 
> and I served as the NPR correspondent whenever the secretaries traveled . 
> Before that I was the foreign editor of Mutual Radio/Westwood One and 
> prior to that the BBC’s correspondent on Israeli-Palestinian affairs based 
> in Jerusalem. I speak both Arabic and Hebrew. I’ve also done my stint at a 
> wire (AP) and networks (ITN and Reuters TV), I even did time with 
> VOA.  I’ve covered the civil war in Beirut, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. 
> I’ve traveled extensively in the Middle East, and appeared many times as 
> foreign policy analyst on CSpan. In other words, I’m a seasoned and 
> experienced correspondent.
>
> I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. My comments referred to 
> the live media covering the speech and not to the web. I said that  the US 
> media failed to carry many of the pertinent passages of Tony Blair’s 
> speech and that’s exactly as it was -- witness CNN and MSNBC’s truncated 
> live coverage of the speech.
>
> Or to cite your own example of the CNN material on the web:
> CNN is highlighting the complete text of Blair's speech as the third link
> on their site:
>     http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/02/ret.blair.address/
>
> I’ve checked this link and the transcript is indeed incomplete. It’s 
> actually a transcript of less than half of the full speech. In one sense 
> it’s a full transcript — but only of CNN’s truncated coverage of the 
> speech. And it still leaves out  some of the most important elements of  it.
>
> Equally so your example of the Washington Post’s coverage:
> The Washington Post incorporated Blair's speech into the top story on their
> website
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57558-2001Oct2.html),
> posted the video of Blair's speech, and ran the full text of his speech
>     with a prominent link at the top of the washingtonpost.com homepage.
>
> This is the link to their version of the transcript:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/blairtext_100201.html
>
> Again, if you compare that text to the full text, you will see that this 
> transcript covers less than half of Tony Blair’s delivered remarks.
>
> There are probably many reasons for this:
> -- it’s partly the way the US networks cover foreign news,
> -- it’s probably partly due to the European habit of keeping your best 
> material for the end of the speech.
> -- It could also be that whoever booked satellite time for the UK feed 
> didn’t book enough
>
> But that’s no excuse for not posting the complete text which was available 
> at the Labour Party’s website and which was the link I provided to IP.
>
> The US media did cover Blair’s speech and it does cover foreign affairs (I 
> know, I provided some of that coverage for many years) -- what I was 
> raising in my post to IP was the incomplete coverage, not the lack of 
> coverage. And I think the facts, and the links, speak for themselves.
>
> At the end of the day – I guess it all depends on the definition of  “a 
> perfectly good job” ... I just don’t think that cutting away from a live 
> speech and then missing some of its key elements,  is adequate. I also 
> don’t think that representing a partial transcript as a complete text, is 
> acceptable.
>
> I believe in the critical role of a responsible media that provides enough 
> facts and content for intelligent readers to make their own judgment, as I 
> believe you do. And if indeed it’s true that the first casualty in war is 
> the truth, then its vital that we do everything in our power to ensure 
> that the full and complete record is maintained.
>
> Lastly, it’s clear that we all agree on the critical role of the web as it 
> is often the only tool that allows us to check and double check the facts 
> direct from the source. It’s why I so enjoy reading both the material on 
> IP and on your own list, to which I have been a subscriber for many, many 
> months,
>
>
> Jan Ziff



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/