[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

[Mike Godwin]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to
> > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than
> > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them.
>
> I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass
> deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in
> having you expand on this.
>

It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet.  But when I did see
your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to
congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in
response. I've been dealing with media strategy, both as a reporter and as
someone who has to respond to media, for nearly three decades now. The issue
isn't whether you can persuade Fox of anything -- Fox is not the kind of
organization you can have a discussion with.


> Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox
> news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the
> images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned
> discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been
> an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating.


I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter.

If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside
> influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can
> enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord.


I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the
consequences of it are.  I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do
so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an
opportunity to do something constructive.


--Mike