From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: article on Guix Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:12:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20160625151236.GA9695@jasmine> References: <1958229.9gnFz0Qv7g@nanday> <87twgie4cb.fsf@dustycloud.org> <10186224.9jk1T2YVAK@nanday> <20160625073756.GA11424@thebird.nl> <20160625075333.GA2029@solar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGpGT-0001S2-0h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:12:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGpGM-0005ac-U8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:12:55 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:55040) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGpGL-0005ZD-Jz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:12:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160625075333.GA2029@solar> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Bruce Byfield , ludovic.courtes@inria.fr, ludo@chbouib.org On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 09:53:33AM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 09:37:57AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:50:32PM -0700, Bruce Byfield wrote: > > > I appreciate the offer, but editors frown on articles being shown > > > around beforehand. The belief is that doing so compromises the integrity > > > of the article. > > I must be living in a different world. > > I think you do :-) > > From what I have heard, this is a difference between North American and > European (or at least German) journalism: In Germany, interview transcripts > are sent to the interviewed person for cross-checking, so that they can correct > misunderstandings. This is a good thing actually; journalists writing about > science usually get it wrong, and then one can work together to find correct, > but understandable formulations. On the other hand, even in political > journalism this has gone so far that interviews need to be "authorised" before > publication, which could censor the information, for which North American > culture is very sensitive. I concur. In the United States, readers are very suspicious of journalism that has been reviewed by the subject prior to publication. But, it would be equally bad if errors were discovered after publication and left uncorrected.