[WikiEN-l] Interesting Sunday Times article on privacy

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/12/2008 3:00:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
ansell.peter at gmail.com writes:

Noone  said you have to be a luddite to overcome the problem.
Newspapers  hypothetically could publish any random story>>


--------------------
But could a newspaper get away with a story like this:
 
"Somewhere near Chicago, a man shot his wife.  He worked in some sort  of 
factory, and they may have had two to four children".
 
The extent to which BLP'ers or rather "tendentious editors who think they  
are following BLP" is just ridiculous. "Oh you only found the name in 20  
newspaper articles? Well you'll need to find it in... um.. three hundred.   That's 
our new criteria."
 
When a hundred outlets report that Jennifer Aniston has a new boyfriend,  and 
we don't, we are not fooling anybody.  We just look stupid and  lazy.  We are 
not protecting anyone's privacy by ignoring what everyone has  already read 
somewhere else.  Or what you can find out with three google  searches.
 
Will Johnson



**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)