Bill Conlin update

Never seen a confidentiality notice on an e-mail from a newspaper.

Given our business, it would be hypocritical.

Plus, can you imagine Conlin (or someone) actually suing on grounds a blogger posted an e-mail? Even if you could win in court -- and that would be highly debatable no matter what the language of the confidentiality notice -- how would you look with this defense: "I called him a @#$% and he posted it when he wasn't supposed to. I should be able to call him a @#$%."

 

Gee, when I want my comments public on someone's blog, I submit a comment. When I want to communicate with the person writing the blog, presumably someone with some degree of professionalism, I send the writer an e-mail. And tend to assume that it won't be made public unless I OK it.

Maybe that's a dinosaur approach, but really, what's wrong with functioning that way? It would serve bloggers to be able to maintain some professional communication with more mainstream journalists, without waving every last syllable around in public.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

 

Because they can doesn't mean they should...the terminology could also be applied to Conlin. Because he <i>can</i> respond with an insulting retort featuring Hilter references doesn't mean he <i>should</i>. Had Conlin sent back something even the least bit personable, I doubt the email would have been posted.

 

No quibble with that.

 

No excuse for what Conlin wrote. But he thinks he's writing a nasty private note to someone he's arguing with. He's not responding to a questionnaire for a public interview.

How much differently do we all behave when we know what we're saying is going to made part of the public record?

 

"with the social security check my wife and I receive, I'm making ballplayer money for two columns a week"

That's a pretty funny line, whether it was intentional or not.

He's clearly in the "fuck you" stage of being an old man.

 

Too bad the ballplayer to whom he's referring is Clem Labine.

 

We can't have it both ways.

Let's say you (as a reporter) are corresponding with the CEO of a local business, or a coach or athlete, or a city councilman and he/she says something inflammatory, offensive, patently absurd or ridiculous.

You're going to consider the e-mail conversation sacrosanct? I wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect a reader (or blogger) to do so either.

 

I think Clem had to work in the insurance racket in the offseason to afford the Florida condo.

 

Are you doing a story on them? On something else? Are you simply arranging to do a story on them? Are you interviewing them? Are they on or off the record?

I think each case has a different answer.

 

A free suite in Provence?
And you didn't call the rest of us?
Damn you, HH.

 

See, I have the same answer each time (except maybe "off the record," although that would be difficult to do via e-mail):

Print it!