Re: An observation

[thomst@netcom.com (Thom Stark)]

> At 8:04 PM -0800 12/23/96, Thom Stark wrote:
>
> >It seems to me that when Mr. Metzger speaks in terms of "details"
> >as something that "we are not anxious to change", he is both speaking
> >specifically for the IAHC, rather than himself, and making it pretty
> >clear that the IAHC has, indeed, made up its mind on the issue and that
> >the "draft" is being looked on by the IAHC as a much more finished
> >document than they have been insisting it is.

To which Dave Crocker responded:

> 	Public advocacy prior to publication.  Interesting mode you've
> chosen.

Your contention being that I no right to an opinion?  Or, no right to
EXPRESS that opinion?

> 	Even in this new age of varying journalistic styles, you are
> showing considerable uniqueness.  Going even further, to over-interpret
> simple statements and to form substantive opinions without talking directly
> to the principals is really quite exceptional.  Using the kinds of
> evaluative criteria about you that you, yourself, seem to be applying, I
> might find myself thinking that you were more interested in exacerbating
> divisiveness than in providing balanced review...

<More than 100 lines of similarly patronizing crap deleted>

You guys need to get a grip.

I pointed out behavior I have observed in Mr. Metzger that appears to me
to be sending a completely different message than the one he keeps 
insisting he means to send.  I asked him to be conscious of not just his
actual intent, but of the nuances that his carelessly-chosen phrasing
caused to creep into his communiques to the point where even someone 
(specifically: me) who does NOT have an axe to grind sees him conveying
a distinctly mixed message.  I concluded by enjoining him, you and all
the other IAHC members to resist allowing your personal feelings and
emotions to push you into intemperate responses to often-provocative
posts on this list.

In response, first Perry and now you have chosen to shoot the messenger.

It didn't work for Darius II and it is unlikely to work any better for
you.  The message remains.

You folks are in a fundamentally different position than is anyone else
on this list.  You occupy a voluntarily-accepted position of public
trust.  To faithfully execute that charge, you must set your own emotions
aside, you must vigilantly critique the language of your own posts and
you must accept as a given that you, personally and collectively, will be
criticized for your actions, positions and speech throughout the public
portion of this process.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.  As Harry S Truman so
succinctly put it, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

The fact that you, personally, put in a long, demanding and sustained
effort to produce the 12/19 draft is immaterial.  Nobody put a gun to 
your head.  You accepted a responsibility and discharged one part of it.
The job isn't over, and, if you seriously expect unalloyed praise for
your effort, you clearly haven't had a lot of experience being a part of
a public body before.

I used my local City Council as an example.  Perhaps a better example
would have been the local Planning Commission.  Like you, they are an
appointed body.  Like you, they put in, individually and collectively,
very long hours out of the public eye, then still more hours in public
meetings where, quite frequently, they are subjected to fierce criticism
for their statements and actions both as individuals and as a body.
They aren't paid for their work.  Their efforts are largely unappreciated
by the very people they serve, and they frequently are forced to make
their decisions based on criteria which seem arcane and non-responsive
to the audience which attends only their public meetings.

I is my view that the members of the Planning Commission have no right
to verbally attack members of the public who turn out to speak before
them, regardless of the provocation presented.  They have chosen to
become public servants, and they must, for the greater good of the
community, forgo the right of response, in order not to further inflame
public opinion and thereby diminish the quality of public debate.

You're in the same boat.

As a sidelight, and since you asked, the truth is that it is utterly 
commonplace for someone in the journalism game to work his/her guts
out on a piece, only to have an editor turn around and demand a total
rewrite on a very short turnaround.  For example, McGraw-Hill's 
standard contract calls for a "kill fee" of 10% of the contracted amount 
to be paid for an article which is rejected, with the writer given the 
option of rewriting the article to his/her editor's satisfaction for no 
additional money..and with no guarantee that the rewrite will be accepted.

As the late Robert A. Heinlein observed:

  "Writers and editors are natural enemies."

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457