[vorbis] WSJ article

Marshall Eubanks
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 05:33:58 -0000

>
>
Dear Monty;

   In my humble experience, journalists always work from a (mental)
script. They know what sort of story they want to tell, and they look for
details that re-enforce it, and they tend to ignore those that don't.
That's

how you can give a 1/2 hour interview and have one little off hand remark be

the only thing that appears in print. A warning sign is (like in your interview)

when they keep returning to a topic that appears irrelevant. They're
probably

trying to get a quote or fact to support the story they've already written
in
their heads.

   Sounds like her script for you was something like "driven genius pursues

dream to  the exclusion of all else."  I am sorry if the results were
painful,
but it
could have been a lot worse.

                                        Regards
                                        Marshall Eubanks
                                        Multicast Technologies

>
>On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 12:19:52PM -0700, Benjamin Flanders wrote:
>> --- Craig Dickson <crdic@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>> >
>> > > Found this on usenet:
>> > >
>> > > August 13, 2001
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > E-Business
>> > > Inventors Release Free Alternative To MP3 Music,
>> > but Cost Is High
>> > > By MEI FONG
>> > > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SOMERVILLE, Mass. -- Christopher Montgomery wants
>> > to be the Linus
>> > > Torvalds of music [...]
>> >
>> > Way to go, Monty!
>> >
>> Way to go???
>> I would say "What the hell are you thinking?".  Love
>> and family are the meaning of life, not a better
>> sounding audio file.
>
>Forgive in advance, but this is a personal matter, so I'm dropping my
>professionalism for a second.
>
>Benjamin: You're a idiot.  Thank you for believing this little bit of
>drivel from the WSJ.
>
>You're also forgiven because you had no idea you were being an
>idiot. I can understand how a paper with the reputation of the WSJ
>would have instant credibility, but there are a number of fabricated
>facts in the story, and my divorce being because of Ogg is one of
>them.
>
>The reporter (Mei Fong, feel free to write her and bitch) spent a good
>piece of our Ogg interview asking about my divorce (huh?), and I made
>it clear that Dana and I just never learned how to get along.  It was
>one of theose relationships where we loved each other greatly, but
>living together was constant Hell.  Ogg had nothign to do with it.
>
>When the reporter didn't get the answer she wanted from *me*, she
>tracked down my ex-wife and interviewed *her* about it.  Dana (my
>wife) called me to warn me about it because it was clear the reporter was
>after a specific answer to her questions.  Dana didn't give the answer
>she wanted either.
>
>So, the reporter just printed it anyway.
>
>I called her to complain, and she had the nerve to think that I owed
>the WSJ for the huge favor of publicity.  You might say any publicity
>is good publicity, but I don't buy that crap.
>
>For those counting: I also don't work on 'fold up tables from
>Staples'.  I have a good desk.  She saw the desk.  She decided to
>ignore that too.  It didn't fit the story.  She was going for the
>'obsessed, antisocial, destitute programmer' angle whether I fit or
not.
>
>'kept me jobless'.  If I'm getting paid to work, that counts as
a job,
>dammit.  Is Xiph.Org somehow not considered serious enough by WSJ
>standards to be a job?
>
>Fume.  I expected more integrity from WSJ.
>
>Monty
>
>--- >8 ----
>List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
>Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
>To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'

>containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.

>Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>
>

Marshall Eubanks

tme@21rst-century.com