[WikiEN-l] Larry Craig

[Stephen Bain]

On 10/20/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Rob wrote:
>
> > There is a case to be made either way, I think, and that is a
> > legitimate issue to be discussed, and it's one I've gone back and
> > forth on in my internal dialogue as well as on the talk page.  But
> > it's just absolutely not true that it has not been discussed in the
> > mainstream press and I find it frustrating that you keep repeating
> > this false assertion, especially when your other comments on the
> > matter are thoughtful and responsible.
>
> If you refer to this:
> : http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml
> ... I would suggest you read it.

This is an unusual case. If I may make a brief summary from what I've read:

a) Some guy publishes rumours on his blog, and mentions them while on
a radio show
b) A small newspaper [1] takes the unusual step of running the rumours
c) The rumours spiral through the blogosphere
d) The mainstream media publishes opinion pieces using the story to
comment on the nature of rumours in the new media [2]

So the real story is not about Craig at all. The rumours remain
rumours - the attention they have received from all parts of the media
has been exclusively "Mike Rogers said this". Other people saying that
someone said something doesn't really change the fact that only they
said it.

We could have a sentence in Craig's article saying "in October, Mike
Rogers claimed in his blog that Craig was gay". But would that really
be responsible? How notable is Rogers? Blogs are acceptable sources
*for the opinions only* of notable people, but what good reason is
there to publish Rogers' opinion?

We could have a paragraph in Craig's article describing the
controversy, including how the Spokesman-Review ran the story and the
mainstream commentary on the whole business. But would that be
appropriate from a BLP perspective? The real story is only
peripherally about Craig.

My view is that we should have a nice objective paragraph *about the
controversy around reporting the rumours* (not about the rumours
themselves) in [[The Spokesman-Review]] article, or perhaps the
article on Rogers (if he should actually have an article).

----
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spokesman-Review
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2006-10-19-raasch_x.htm,
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com