At 10:29 AM 96/03/23 -0500, Bruce Siceloff wrote:

>A lot of publishers (and other employers, and educators weighing e-mail 
>access for students) do have that fear, no winking; it's why some of 
>them don't want e-mail, or much e-mail, in the newsroom.  And I don't mean 
>just the ones whose few famous byliners might get swamped with  
>more e-traffic than the byliner could answer personally.  Many of us 
>get a lot out of e-mail, but there's no denying it often takes a lot of time 
>away from something else.  Mileage varies.  

This brings to mind something from Tom Regan I clipped a while back.
The article is called "TOM REGAN: On-line news needs interactivity."
If anyone's interested, the full text of the item is in the NandO Times
infotech page archive (I found it by searching "tom regan").
Rick

>[...] 
> Journalists offer numerous excuses for this reluctance to engage
> readers: answering e-mail takes too much time; the danger of
> 'role-slippage', where a reporter goes from just reporting the news
> to giving his or her opinions on it; and the lack of interest in
> learning about cyberculture.
> 
> Make no mistake, embracing interactivity raises some important
> questions for journalists. Avoiding questions, however, is quite
> different from discussing and answering them. When two other
> columnists and I at the Halifax Daily News Worldwide were given
> listserve e-mail groups for our columns several years ago, we
> confronted many of these issues. But time, and a little experience,
> showed us that the positives of interactivity far out weighed the
> negatives.
> 
> Based on that experience, we came up with some ideas, observations
> and rules which I now pass along.
> 
> 1. IF YOU GIVE OUT YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, 
> YOU WILL NOT BE OVERWHELMED WITH E-MAIL. 
> As much as we like to flatter ourselves, online readers
> have better things to do than write us e-mail all day. Most of what
> you'll receive won't require an answer. The ones that do won't need
> a long reply. Now and then you'll get into an interesting e-mail
> exchange with a reader that will either add to your understanding of
> a subject, or lead to new stories.
> 
> 2. IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT ROLE SLIPPAGE, USE 
> COMMON SENSE AND SOME EDITORIAL GUIDANCE.
> Come on, folks, 'fess up. We know when we're
> crossing the border between observer and commentator. Just using
> your head will save you lots of headaches. Most online readers
> understand journalists can't sound off -- they're just looking for
> some insight or guidance on the topic. If you're still worried,
> create some guidelines with your editor about how to respond, and
> only use moderated threaded discussion lists.
> 
> 3. IF YOU STILL DON'T WANT TO USE YOUR OWN PEOPLE, 
> FIND LOCAL 'CELEBRITIES 'TO MODERATE DISCUSSIONS GROUPS. 
>The New York Times is using this model in its online discussion areas. 
> It's not a huge time commitment, perhaps half-an-hour a day to read the
> new messages on the group, write the odd reply, and propose new
> discussion topics for the group. And it's cool. What more could a local 
> celebrity ask for?
> 
>[...]



__________________________________________
Richard Andersen
Calgary, Alberta  CANADA
http://www.canuck.com/~andersen/


------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #572
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Sun Mar 24 11:55:57 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA03442 ; for ; Sun, 24 Mar 1996 11:55:55 -0500