From owner-govaccess@well.com Fri Jan 19 14:57:10 1996 Received: from well.com (majordom@well.com [206.15.64.10]) by eff.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA19092; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 14:57:09 -0800 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by well.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16567 for govaccess-outbound; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 09:37:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 09:36:42 -0800 To: GovAccess@well.com From: jwarren@well.com (Jim Warren) Subject: GovAccess.247.prexy: (pls FWD!) Open letter to reporters, editors Sender: owner-govaccess@well.com Precedence: bulk Status: O Yesterday, I forwarded the following content to a number of print and broadcast journalists, online, and to several journalist listservs to which I subscribe. Please forward it to those mainstream journalists who *you* know, hopefully with your supporting comments. Please *print* copies and snailmail them to the political editor and senior political reporters (by names, if possible) of your area's largest general-circulation newspapers, with a brief explanatory cover letter. Pushing together, *we* CAN do much to make substantive online presidential debates happen! Let's do it! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& To: nit@chron.com, Cal-FOI Subject: have YOUR press medium be part of ONLINE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES My fellow journalists -- Two items: Cover online prexy debates, and have them occur at YOUR web-site. As most of you know, I've proposed to have the first-ever *online* debate(s) by mainstream presidential candidates -- starting with those who are on the Republican primary ballots in most of the states. (This is strictly a pro bono effort; I just want it to happen. The time is ripe; someone's got to start it.) These are to be legitimate debates with candidates' responses to questions being posted over each candidate's name as being their own responses (verified by the moderator via a fax back-channel), and limited in length (the online counterpart of time limits for face-to-face debates), although they can include one-line pointers to additional responses available on their campaigns' own web-pages. Please, COMMIT TO COVERING SUBSTANTIVE DEBATES IN YOUR ORGANIZATION'S MEDIUM! The thing that can make substantive online prexy debates happen will be the possibility that mainstream print and broadcast media might give it coverage (to say nothing of all but the front-runners' desire for free national exposure). Please -- make the following committment for public distribution: "[Your or your medium] will cover online debates by mainstream presidential candidates in [your medium], IF they are legimitate debates with substantive responses posted as being from the candidates, themselves." I have already received active interest from a number of press folks, with a Dallas Morning News staff writer being the first to *publicly* commit to cover the events, if substantive, saying: > I can guarantee that The Dallas Morning News would cover a >substantive online debate between the presidential candidiates. The more >major candidiates, of course, the better the coverage. As the DMN's online >politics reporter, this kind of foray into the new technology is exactly >what I'm looking for. > Naturally, the kind of coverage will depend on the newsworthiness >of the event. Platitudes online are no more interesting that they would be >elsewhere. But real, thoughtful interaction in the manner that the Net >allows on the best newsgroups and listservs would be something to behold. >And to describe and excerpt in The Dallas Morning News. > I can be reached at 1-800-431-0010 or 214-977-8738. > >Feel free to distribute. >Let me know what happens... Responding to my additional query, he added: >I'm a general assignment reporter for the City Desk with a responsibility >over the next 11 months for covering online politics, presidential and >otherwise. > >Jeffrey Weiss >jmweiss@ix.netcom.com >The Dallas Morning News >214-977-8738 HAVE *YOUR* ORGANIZATION'S WEB-SERVER BE ONE OF THE DEBATES' "LOCAL STATIONS" The only way to conduct such online debates currently is by using reputable, well-secured web-servers -- thus providing *both* free global public access *and* security against forgery, message cancellations, etc. (as, for instance, occurs with Usenet newsgroups). Rather than have a single web-server "monopolize" such high-profile debates (and potentially be saturated by hits from a national audience), I propose that at least several major print-media and/or broadcast organizations become part of a "broadcast network" of *multiple* web-sites that will carry the moderated debate postings on a parallel/simultaneous basis. In particular, I have proposed that the debate structure, that would be carried at each cooperating media web-site, have at least two forums -- (1) the actual debate forum, limited to the questions and "signed" candidates' responses, and (2) at least one parallel/simultaneous press forum, limited to journalists/commentators assigned by the editors of "major" print and broadcast media, one per "major" media organization. (I've initially suggested that "major" be defined as general-circulation print periodicals with more than 500,000 audited circulation and broadcast stations and networks with some, yet to be defined, large Auditron ratings -- the idea being to avoid having a press forum that is a free-for-all for any self-styled "journalist" who perhaps writes a column for some obscure or special-interest medium.) I would welcome others setting up other moderated forums for commentary from other substantive sources. ALSO OFFER YOUR OWN VALUE-ADDED SERVICES, ADVERTISING, ETC. -- as usual Of course, each independent web-site will remain completely free to set up its own *additional* forums, editorial commentary, online polling, etc. -- as that organizations unique value-added services -- as well as perhaps injecting advertising, etc., just like local broadcast stations have done for several decades of political debates on radio and television. Operationally, all candidate questions and their limited, "signed" responses will be channeled through a moderator, who will send them simultaneously to all cooperating web-sites. Questions will either be posed by the candidates themselves, or by questioners that are chosen by and acceptable to all participating candidates (their call; not mine or yours). At the moment, I am the default moderator, though I'll be happy to defer to any other net-literate moderator preferred by all of the candidates for their forum, and/or another moderator chosen by the participants in the press forum. Under any circumstance, the *only* function of the moderator of either of these forums will be to verify authorship and verify that postings meet objective, measurable criteria for format and length, as agreed by the forums' participants. All of the developing operational details are being carried in my online listserv, GovAccess@well.com (free subscription details, below). Of course, I would be happy to discuss this with anyone -- reporter, editor, web-master, etc. -- at any time. 415-851-7075. Time's a wastin'. Let's DO it! Hope you will join The Dallas Morning News to cover the [proposed] substantive debates, and will be among the first to be listed as cooperating web-sites in one of *tommorrow's* first mainstream-media broadcasting networks. --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren@well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> [puffery: John Dvorak Lifetime Achievement Award (1995); James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award, Soc. of Professional Journalists - Nor.Cal. (1994); Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award, Playboy Foundation (1994); Pioneer Award, Electronic Frontier Foundation (its first year, 1992); founded the Computers, Freedom & Privacy confs, InfoWorld newspaper, the old West Coast Computer Faires (last drew more than 47,000); blah blah blah :-).] === EXPLANATION OF WHAT GOVACCESS IS & WHERE TO FIND ITS ARCHIVES === GovAccess is a list distributing irregular info & advocacy regarding technology and civil liberties, citizen access to government - and government access to citizens, covert and overt. To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored) with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr) For brief description of GovAccess, send the message: info GovAccess &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& I heard this exchange in a discussion somewhere: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Yeah, but a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren@well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored) with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr) For brief description of GovAccess, send the message: info GovAccess Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org: /cpsr/states/california/govaccess and by WWW at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/states/california/govaccess . Also forwarded to USENET's comp.org.cpsr.talk by CPSR's Al Whaley. May be copied & reposted except for any items that explicitly prohibit it.