X-Message-Number: 8676 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:09:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #8667 On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Saul Kent wrote: > I want to report that saying "no comment" or not answering > a question won't necessarily stop "journalists". In this case, the writer > of the Times story was fishing around for information about how many > dogs have died in our experiments at 21st Century Medicine. > > No one obliged him with this information. When I was asked > the question, I didn't answer it. So, he merely quessed that dozens of > dogs have died and The Times printed his guess. I find this hard to believe. The Times employs fact checkers (I have been called by them more than once), and no fact checker would allow such a statement unchallenged. Obviously if it was inaccurate it would open the Times to legal liability. I believe they must have obtained information from SOMEWHERE, even if it wasn't someone at 21st Century Medicine. > It also reminds me of being interviewed around the same time > by NY Times writer Homer S. Bigart, a pullitzer-press winning reporter, > who was at the end of his career. The article he wrote from the interview > turned out to be perfect: it was unbiased and every fact was right. > Just goes to show that everything in the newspapers doesn't have to be > screwed up, and that there is always the chance, however remote it may be, > that we'll run across another Homer Bigart. Well, yes, of course! But if we have to endure a dozen damaging articles in order to reap one favorable article, is this a worthwhile tradeoff? I used to think so, but now I'm not so sure. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8676