On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:11:16 -0500, Gogarty
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Perfect Storm is a fine, but humanly imperfect, piece of book
journalism. Everything in it is attributed.

As a journalist, I would be proud to have written it.

Are you a journalist Rodney? I didn't know that. Well, as a one-time journalist
myself, I too am envious that somebody else wrote the book, but it was sloppy
journalism nonetheless. Which, by the way, I can understand. There are some
people vital to a story that you just don't want to talk to or can't talk to
either because they will upset a thesis or they are just nasty and
intimidating people one would rather not go near. But the worst thing for any
journalist is to have someone who prominently figures in a story pop up after
the fact and say "He never even tried to talk to me."

A retired journalist. Bob Brown was the only person in any way "vital
to the story" that wasn't interviewed. We don't really know whether
the author tried to talk to him.

Mr Leonard complained, but the book reports the voyage of the
Tangueroa very well, in a way that conveys the southern fringe of the
storm. The author pehaps shouldn't have reported what his crew said
about Mr Leonard, but it was in no way vital, or even important.





Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

"That idiot Leibniz, who wants to teach me about the infinitesimally small! Has he therefore forgotten that I am the wife of Frederick I? How can he imagine that I am unacquainted with my own husband?"

In article ,
says...


A retired journalist.

No such thing as a retired journalist. Only journalists between assignments.

But the worst thing for any
journalist is to have someone who prominently figures in a story pop
up after the fact and say "He never even tried to talk to me."

A retired journalist. Bob Brown was the only person in any way "vital
to the story" that wasn't interviewed. We don't really know whether
the author tried to talk to him.

He did not try to talk to the owner of Satori. Was even quoted saying
"he is not the sort of person I'd want to talk to". Was the owner "vital
to the story"? I think so, given the attention that part of the story
received , and also given the public naming of a person in such
derogatory fashion.


Even after it was revealed that Satori stayed afloat for 10 days after
the storm and the author reluctantly acknowledged that in subsequent
paperback editions, he still did not attempt to talk to the owner. Nor
did he do enough research to get the story right about where the boat
drifted ashore.


Not just sloppy. Callously irresponsible. Reckless disregard for a
person's reputation. Any responsible journalist would give the subject
an opportunity to comment.

In article ,
says...


Not just sloppy. Callously irresponsible. Reckless disregard for a
person's reputation. Any responsible journalist would give the subject
an opportunity to comment.

Exactly. How often do we see the line: "So-and-so refused to be
interviewd, declined to comments, etc., for this article."