[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Mark

When Andy is at RCPD and chatting with members, does he remember to say with each breath "Chaps, that's off the record, of course" or does he just expect the members to be ethical gentlemen?

Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

I recently took 6 of my real word golf buddies out to the fifth major to join along in one of our outings.  As I described you guys I always used the term internet friends.  I learned today you are my internet sources.  Scott stole a little innocence from all of us today.

[Dan Herrmann]

Scott - please take time to read http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

To quote:  "— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."

Scott, you made a terrible error in judgement because your article makes it sound like you and Mr. Doak were having an actual interview.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, I have never let people like Scott Warren dissuade me from saying what I want to say, and I hope I won't have to change that policy in the future, though the tenor of his response does give me pause.  

In this case, I'm not harmed by what he quoted.  But as a writer myself, I still think what he did was wrong.  I learned common courtesy from my mom ... and my mom had a journalism degree, at that.

As for the web site, I won't demand the removal of the article, but I will point out to them that the book will not be available in any schedule that could be described as presently newsworthy, and that I'm bothered that they posted the article without checking with me first.

Let's not waste more bandwidth on this.  The point seems clear to most, even though Scott does not agree with it.

[Jim Hoak]

As a relatively new member of GCA, I don't know the appropriate and expected ethics of the site.  Maybe our moderators could discuss that issue.
But I do believe that this an example of unethical--and certainly unprofessional--media behavior.  As a life-long media industry person, I think I have a perspective on that.  I don't think that established media outlets would have done this in this way; only "fly-by-night," non-reputable publications.
I also do know that this type of "sleazy" behavior has a chilling effect on this site.  I have been reluctant to ever comment on issues about clubs of which I am a member.  And this just reinforces that decision.  But that is a shame for all of us if people are reluctant to comment for fear of being quoted outside of this site.  And if we lose commentators, we all lose.
Hopefully, this will open a further discussion of proper behavior from people using and enjoying GCA.  It dampens my enthusiasm for being a member.

[Robert Emmons]

Tom,
Thanks for a considerate responce...RHE

[Shane Wright]

At worst, unethical.
At best, discourteous.

We're only four words away from putting this to bed:
I apologize.
I accept.  

The treehouse is better than this.

Mike

+1


I wish this could happen. But this is nowhere near the first time Scott has done something similar.  And although I have not met him, he seems to be a 1st team All-American in his own opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but  I've never seen him hint at being apologetic about anything.

It is unfortunate for some of the really good journalists on this board (I'm not one of them) because it shouldn't reflect badly on everyone as it is an isolated incident.  And it shouldn't alienate others who have been valuable contributors.

[Mark Chaplin]

Rich - if the Duke gave a speech at a dinner of course there would be an expectation of privacy, if he wrote a forward to a programme for an event there would be no expectation not to be quoted.

When all is said and done GCA is an open forum indeed a search parameter of "Scott Warren Tom Doak and Mark Chaplin" surprisingly has two hits both of which are GCA forum.

[Cliff Walston]

Tom,
Thanks for a considerate responce...RHE

+1

[Garland Bayley]

...  And although I have not met him, he seems to be a 1st team All-American in his own opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but  I've never seen him hint at being apologetic about anything.

...

That would be 1st team All-Australian. So, you are wrong.

[Greg Tallman]

Thanks to all. After having read every comment and agreeing, in part, with all views I am off to see my shrink.

[Shane Wright]

...  And although I have not met him, he seems to be a 1st team All-American in his own opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but  I've never seen him hint at being apologetic about anything.

...

That would be 1st team All-Australian. So, you are wrong.

I sincerely apologize, you are correct, 1st team All-Australian

[Jim Hoak]

This may be over-debated, but I for one would love to hear Ben and/or Ran weigh in as to what is appropriate behavior for the participants on this site.  Maybe something good can come from this.

[Michael Moore]

I for one would love to hear Ben and/or Ran weigh in as to what is appropriate behavior for the participants on this site.

They got so fed up with journalists, publicists, and hobbyists ripping material from this site without attribution that they resorted to a false entry, a bogus world ranking from 1939 if I remember correctly.

A small group who take themselves and this site too seriously deemed it "brand suicide" but I thought it was hilarious and appropriate. Cartographers do it all the time, and the story that Borges wrote about this practice is a world classic.

[Jim Briggs]

As we all know and others have mentioned, this site is public for all to be able to view, and Tom himself started the thread from which the quotes were lifted, so anyone could have looked to do the same as Scott and attempt to present a "scoop" on this to a wider audience.  I just don't understand the lack of common courtesy and heads up given both are members of the site.  Given the arrogance Scott displayed in feeling no need to do so, I can't help but think he felt Tom may have told him he preferred to not start publicizing just yet, effectively killing the piece.

In reading the piece, had I not known any better, I sure would have felt that Tom gave Scott some time on the topic based on how it was written with no context to the quotes.  I'm not saying he should have written "I lurked on a 6 page thread in a discussion group for which I am a member.  I didn't participate in any contructive way in the thread, but here is what Tom had to say to others on the topic of an updated Confidential Guide..", but something that made it clear that Scott didn't have a direct conversation with Tom seems appropriate.

[Rich Goodale]

I for one would love to hear Ben and/or Ran weigh in as to what is appropriate behavior for the participants on this site.

They got so fed up with journalists, publicists, and hobbyists ripping material from this site without attribution that they resorted to a false entry, a bogus world ranking from 1939 if I remember correctly.

A small group who take themselves and this site too seriously deemed it "brand suicide" but I thought it was hilarious and appropriate. Cartographers do it all the time, and the story that Borges wrote about this practice is a world classic.

You are correct, Michael (if the Morrissett/MacWood fraud was indeed a clever conspiracy), but the fact that it took at least 5 years for somebody to bite at the "hook" tells me that the bait was woefully inadequate.  But at least, we will always have Foulepointe.....

And yes, all maps have some designed mistake on them to identify plagiarists, but this trivium has nothing to do with such things as we are discussing above.  We are talking ethics and common courtesies, not juvenile academic artifices.

[Cliff Hamm]

Not too long ago a poster responded to an interview topic with quite strong words. It included many political views. Another poster and member of the site took it upon themselves to inform this person's employer.  I suspect most of you know to what I am referring.

My basic point is that anything posted on GCA may and will be used in any way someone else sees fit.  This is most unfortunate.  This will only serve to inhibit postings especially by those in the "public eye".

I also hope that Ran/Ben will give their views.  As for me I believe "what is written on GCA should stay on GCA".

[Greg Tallman]

As to those calling for Ran & Ben to wiegh in... I don't think that is really their style. I cannot see a public admonishing from either but rather see Scott's lack of participation as telling.

[Mark Chaplin]

Greg I wouldn't read too much into Scott going quiet, it's currently 5am in Sydney so Scott will have been in bed for a number of hours so nothing sinister there!

[George Pazin]

Scott's on the other side of the world, he's probably asleep right now.

As with the Mel thread - or any Mel thread - this seems like an overreaction by most. While I do enjoy being lectured to by some of the posters on here, I will simply say, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Scott felt he was just sharing something with his readers that don't look in on here and that it was free publicity for the book. Maybe his reaction on here was simply the same defensive reaction that damn near everyone on here has, damn near all the time, on damn near every topic. I doubt the column was viewed by Scott or Adam or whoever is connected with that website as any sort of journalistic coup that would lead to copious rewards.

That's why Bogey's words ring true (as they usually do).

[Tony Weiler]

The biggest issue I have with the entire situation is the brazenly cavalier attitude Scott has displayed toward's Tom's opinion on the subject, given that he has clearly used Tom for his own professional gain.  You can debate whether Scott's use of the quote did or did not violate some journalistic ethical boundary all you want.  There is no debate he was prick to Tom and has likely alienated one of this forum's most significant contributors.

+1

[George Pazin]

. Maybe his reaction on here was simply the same defensive reaction that damn near everyone on here has, damn near all the time, on damn near every topic.

George, I agree in the main with what you are saying - but speak for yourself on this one. I always admit when I'm wrong and so do most reasonable guys on here.

Having read many of your posts, I'd agree with you. I'm not so sure about most, however. It's something I know I fight with myself over all the time, and I certainly see it from many of Scott's critics on this thread. I think Tom is really the only one who has a right to be upset, again reinforcing Bogey's simple wisdom.

[David_Tepper]

Regardless of how one feels about Scott Warren's actions, the reality is that everything posted by any member of this Discussion Group on this chatboard is available to the general public at large. There are a number of lurkers who follow this chatboard with regularity and the contents of this chatboard are searchable on the web.

While one might hope that the members of this Discussion Group treat each other with some level of respect, no one should expect what they post here to be treated with discretion or confidentiality.   

[Dan Herrmann]

David - if the article said "Doak said on gca.com, ....." I'd be fine with it.  The tone of the article made it sound like Doak had an interview with Steve.

Therein lies my issue.

However, Tom said to let it go, so let's let it go.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott is a mate and a good guy, I cannot stop smirking with the though of bubbling him up to his previous employer the Daily Mail "Scott has written a story, it's based on fact" there is only one thing the editor could have done - fire him for bringing the paper into disrepute by telling the truth!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()