So much for my insensitive writing

[Matt Trulio]

Compared to what normal (sensationalist ) media writes his article was
extremely sensitive.
Had it been tv new they would have been saying much worse.
( another reckless speed and alcohol related powerboat accident last night ,
or something like that )

I realize that the media is often sensationalistic, but you'd probably be surprised at how much those of us who try to report ethically and responsibly hold back even in columns, which are by nature opinionated.

Almost every day, I get a quote from someone in the high-performance world that would make spectacular, "sensational" copy but would absolutely bury that person. And I don't use it. People often misspeak or, even more often, reveal ugly little things during interviews that are on the record.

A responsible journalist (an oxymoron it seems, at least at times), never lets those ugly little things seen the light of day. It doesn't make that journalist a hero, just someone who understands his job.

 

[MarylandMark]

Almost every day, I get a quote from someone in the high-performance world that would make spectacular, "sensational" copy but would absolutely bury that person. And I don't use it. People often misspeak or, even more often, reveal ugly little things during interviews that are on the record.

A responsible journalist (an oxymoron it seems, at least at times), never lets those ugly little things seen the light of day. It doesn't make that journalist a hero, just someone who understands his job.

and keeps you working. Sure, you would sell the snot out of that one story/issue but you may never get an interview from that person again. Every one can have a forked tongue at times and may spew out some thing they wish they had kept to themselves, you giving them a pass on that may be just what landed you your next interview. Keep up the good work!

 

[htrdlncn]

But unfortunately they are not as grounded as you are,
the TV media is meant to be sensationalist by design, it gets them ratings...

I realize that the media is often sensationalistic, but you'd probably be surprised at how much those of us who try to report ethically and responsibly hold back even in columns, which are by nature opinionated.

Almost every day, I get a quote from someone in the high-performance world that would make spectacular, "sensational" copy but would absolutely bury that person. And I don't use it. People often misspeak or, even more often, reveal ugly little things during interviews that are on the record.

A responsible journalist (an oxymoron it seems, at least at times), never lets those ugly little things seen the light of day. It doesn't make that journalist a hero, just someone who understands his job.

 

[Matt Trulio]

I tend to agree with you regarding TV media. And yet survey after survey reveals that Americans place more credibility in what they see on the nightly news than what they read in the papers. Interesting.

And MarylandMark is right. If you screw a source, you lose that source.

 

[T2x]

A responsible journalist (an oxymoron it seems, at least at times), never lets those ugly little things seen the light of day. It doesn't make that journalist a hero, just someone who understands his job.

Matt:

It's a fine line sometimes, I clearly recall being admonished for giving what were basically accurate racing insights during various Offshore telecasts over the years. There were various sacred cows including boat and engine manufacturers, wealthy owners, and race promotors who could not be criticised. At times boats that were stinking up the race course were "waiting to make their move", badly driven and trimmed boats were suffering from "mechanical gremlins", and poorly conceived safety cockpits were "a bold new design by the visionary owner". All meant to cater to some hidden agenda. The beauty of the web, for me, is the absence of this censorship. On the other hand it also provides an audience for every hair brained point of view or distorted/exagerrated "fact" known to man.

The world would be so much better if I could choose who could or could not write on the web......... But I think Obama is already working on that one.

T2x

 

[MarylandMark]

The world would be so much better if I could choose who could or could not write on the web......... But I think Obama is already working on that one.

T2x

Gore should have built that in from the get go!

 

[Matt Trulio]

Matt:

It's a fine line sometimes, I clearly recall being admonished for giving what were basically accurate racing insights during various Offshore telecasts over the years. There were various sacred cows including boat and engine manufacturers, wealthy owners, and race promotors who could not be criticised. At times boats that were stinking up the race course were "waiting to make their move", badly driven and trimmed boats were suffering from "mechanical gremlins", and poorly conceived safety cockpits were "a bold new design by the visionary owner". All meant to cater to some hidden agenda. The beauty of the web, for me, is the absence of this censorship. On the other hand it also provides an audience for every hair brained point of view or distorted/exagerrated "fact" known to man.

The world would be so much better if I could choose who could or could not write on the web......... But I think Obama is already working on that one.

T2x

Which is why, my friend, I have made it a policy never to cover more than one offshore race per year. Sometimes it's best not to know the politics and just go in and try to find the best "story" for a given feature. I would hate, and I mean hate, to have offshore racing as my "beat," as you did. No thanks—for all the reasons you listed and more.

What constitutes sensitivity also varies with the reader. True story: One day, a subscriber called me after reading one of my boat reviews to tell me I was "a whore" for the manufacturer. The next day, the manufacturer canceled his advertising schedule because I "unfair and harsh" to his product.

Hence my fondness for the expression, "No good deed shall go unpunished."

As for censorship or the lack of it, the Internet does present great opportunities for free expression. That, however, does nothing to guarantee accuracy of information, fairness or ethics. There is at least as much inaccurate information online—look up something you know about on Wikipedia if you don't believe me—as there is accurate information.

That's what makes Seriousoffshore 2.0 (coming soon) so exciting. We have an opportunity to raise the bar. That's very cool.