I agree! I think Wikipedia got it right with their fundamental principle: assume good faith
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Richard Machado <email@example.com>
We all need to seriously hug this out. Because if this one interview leads to the GA being destroyed, we are NOT ready to change the world, and we will not be deserving of that honor. Let's get the ball rolling and Move Forward.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Doug Singsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Neither Will nor I had ever met the journalist (Rebecca Nathanson) who wrote the piece. She is not an ISO member and I do not know what her politics are or how close she is politically to the ISO. She is friendly with another ISO member but I don't know how well they know each other or how similar their politics are. Your suggestion that Will and Rebecca conspired to put out a hit piece on anarchists and then cover it up is inaccurate and inflammatory. Will was misled by Rebecca, regardless of how experienced she is as a journalist. In fact, as I suggested in my last email, it was probably precisely her inexperience that led to the miscommunication, a point you chose to ignore. The fact that the journalist is a student in no way negates the possibility that she misled Will, whether intentionally or not.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM, David Graeber <email@example.com>
It is absolutely the point - especially because the interviewee insisted that he'd been mislead and never meant to be quoted criticizing fellow members of the GA.
But in fact what we have here is not a naive activist talking to an experienced journalist, but rather one anti-anarchist, ISO-oriented New York student activist, talking to another anti-anarchist, ISO-oriented New York student activist - one who is not a professional journalist but is on her very first Village Voice internship assignment - who then appears on the list claiming that the other student activist somehow tricked him into stating the ISO position. This seems the very opposite of naivete to me.
PS: in case the screen shot didn't come out, the tweet by the author of the piece read:
first post for @VillageVoice! i talked to an occupy wall street organizer! (don't worry, he's not an anarchist)
On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Doug Singsen wrote:
Whether "exploitation" occurred or not is not really the point. The reporter didn't properly explain to Will how she was going to use his comments, which contributed in part to how he responded to her. That was probably inexperience on her part rather than a conscious intention to "exploit" him. Will in turn (and this is where most of the responsibility lies) was naive in not understanding that there are things that you do not say to the press about other activists.
<Screen shot 2011-09-16 at 2.04.31 PM.png>
On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Jon Good wrote:
The person who gave the interview had their inexperience and naivete exploited by the press.
really? then how do you explain the fact that the author of the piece, the journalist who supposedly exploited a naive student
activist, is herself an NYU student activist on an internship who clearly identifies herself with the very same faction as the student
we're all supposed to believe she "exploited"? I checked her name on google and here's what she tweeted to her followers
about the interview:
One day Orlov ate too many ground peas and died. Krylov found out about it and he died too. Spiridonov up and died all by himself. Spiridonov's wife fell off the cupboard and also died. Spiridonov's children drowned in the pond. Spiridonov's grandmother took to drink and hit the road. Mikhailovich stopped combing his hair and caught a skin disease. Kruglov drew a picture of a woman with a whip in her hand and lost his mind. Perekhrestov received four hundred roubles by wire and put on such airs at his office that they fired him.
Good people -- but they have to learn to take themselves in hand.