If an editor says that she is very interested in the subject, and in following the legislation, even if she and her staff are particularly buys, I would expect to see her tweet about it and retweet people who do have time to cover it. That wasnt the case. I cant help but judge this to be a weak reply by the DC bureau chief. Its particularly disheartening when the bill in question never got a vote in the House yesterday, sending Freedom of Information Act reform to expire in this Congress. e-pluribusunum/2014/12/10/with-hours-of-sunshine-left-passage-of-foia-reform-hangs-in-the-u-s-house-hangs-in-the-balance/ Over the years, Ive found that being politely persistent with editors over email and Twitter has led to more attention & coverage of boring but important topics. I tried a couple of new approaches to try to get attention on this count, including making memes and tweeting about what media companies were covering instead. I spent the time not just because of the obvious need for FOIA reform but because I care about the New York Times and these other publications. I hoped they would put attention where it has *impact*. I cant imagine that I made myself popular by doing so, but Ive faced uncomfortable public questions about why I havent covered subjects, or how I did it. Ive made errors of omission. In my view, I failed; the vast majority of editors, producers and editorial boards simply didnt cover it. I knew cable & broadcast news were unlikely to bother covering FOIA reform. I expected The New York Times would, when I flagged it on Sunday and contacted the public editor. My bet was that House leadership would judge that they could hold back FOIA reform for a vote because major media would focus elsewhere. If so, they were right. The public lost.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:36:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015