The right of response

June 14, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis
, ,

Being in planes and trains and meetings all day, I haven’t been able to join in the discussion that I’m sure is raging about Tom Friedman’s shock & awe against GM and their jihad back. After he attacked GM, GM couldn’t get a full response as a letter to the editor (what a silly name for it, by the way… isn’t it a letter to the public… but only if it gets published by that editor). So GM Letters to the editor: Return to sender“>retaliated on their blog. And now Friedman fires back from The Times (though some of his bullets hit that pay wall now). It shows what an inadequate medium for debate and discussion a newspaper is. Whichever team you’re rooting for here, there’s no debating that it would be better to hold a fair and equal discussion. That’s happening online. But note that GM links to Friedman but Friedman doesn’t link to GM. In our new etiquette of online discussion, that’s just rude — to the other side and the people some still call the audience.

  • http://www.inopinion.com David Mastio

    1st link doesn’t work

  • http://mike01s.wordpress.com MikeS

    And if NYT wants to hide behind the pay wall, how is that a public debate? Put it out there and let those of us who don’t want to line the NYT wallet debate the issue. The NYT has been rude a number of times here: they didn’t give GM enough “word count” to say their piece, and now they won’t link back. If it acts pompous, it is pompous!

  • Andy Freeman

    The NYT both complained that GM’s response had too many words AND insisted that GM use “we beg to differ” (four words) instead of “rubbish” (one word).

  • Jay

    Friedman’s article only mentions GM’s response as being a “formal statement” posted on its “corporate blog.” Again, the NYT just pretends the dynamic of the internet doesn’t exist, and that nobody knows about the frustrating attempt by GM to get the letter printed. Friedman simply picks the few sentences he feels he can refute.

    In a way, the NYT is correct: a large (but shrinking) percentage of their readers undoubtedly don’t look beyond their ink-smudged fingers, and so the internet DOESN’T exist, at least as a wider resource for news stories. Friedman is safe, for now.