On 28/10/2007, Vihan Pandey <vihanpandey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The person concerned went as a representative of FSF
India and thus
should have left no stone unturned in making sure its ideals were
properly represented. However the person concerned failed in doing so
I think it is
very wrong to point fingers at a person who is so
dedicated towards the mission without first trying to confirm facts.
and this has been mentioned time and time again by yours truely as
well as nagarjun as to who was the culprit.
but even after all this if one person keeps on pointing fingers at the
person in question then I can only say one thing.
the freedom fighters might not be encouraged to take this as a good insentive.
if my breafing started with the mention to fsf and the free software
moment, and in my breafing to the press I did not even mention ones
about the cost factor and after doing this (for me this is not a new
thing), if people instead of bashing the press are going to talk
roodly to the person himself, then I modestly leave it to the readers
to conclude if this is some thing a person wants to have some thing
personal in the mission or ... I think firstly if I am feeling bad
about a certain article, I would first talk to the known person in the
circle who is well known promoter of "free software " and confirm what
happened.
I would also ask certain respected people if they have any idea about
the real facts.
so if press made a mistake I would go to the source of that article
and comment there if I was really by hart concerned about the problem
and not to show some one "how great a freedom fighter I am ".
I am not saying much because we must unite and fight the evils of
proprietry software.
but that's me, if this same thing would have happened with some one
else, the situation would have been different.
you see, after talking about all the free as in freedom aspect and
confirming the same with the press, if people raise fingers at a
dedicated person, then I doubt how many will sustain like I do.
I don't need credit for what I do because I am doing it for the cause
and the freedom of the community, but at the same time disregarding
some ones efords is also not very encouraging.
the entire mis understanding started when the comments came on the
glug instead of on the rediff page where the rediff guys are most
likely to see. that is what my colligue alpesh did because his anger
was on the press and not on me. but on this email I was the one who
would be reading and rediff was most unlikely to read it,
so who was the target?
any ways I have written this email no to bash vihan or some one
(afterall his thoughts were the same as me except the words ), but to
clearify things so people can understand my strong reactions.
if some one wants to hear my press breafing, please email me off the
list and I will arange to send a cd.
regards,
Krishnakant.
and i happened to point that out. Representing an
organisation or
even a school of thought is a big responsibility and must be handled
with care that was not done in this case.
After reading my mail the person concerned responded by simply touting
his experience and placing the blame squarely on the media and
unilaterally absolving himself of all responsibility which IMHO is not
the way things are done. You have to keep the media under check by
making sure you are not misquoted or quoted out of context by
demanding to have a look at the article before publication. Or you
simply put pre-conditions to the reporter to mention the following
(independently verifiable) facts before giving the interview.
Apparently none of this seems to have been done in this case.
On me pointing that out the person concerned touted even more
``experience" including 5 years with the media. That statement raised
a LOT of interesting questions most of which i put forward and am
still awaiting a reply. The person concerned also implied that i had
no right to ask these questions because of my age, which according to
him was far too less to have asked those questions. Well if age and
``experience" is a pre-condition to ask questions then we probably
ought to put an age and/or ``experience" restriction on who can ask
questions on this list and who can't.
While you point does explain how this happened it does not change the
fact that the a person made a mistake. In fact he still has not
admitted he made one nor apologised for the harm done. Moreover if we
are talking about ideals - it has to be consistent from publication to
publication. If we send mixed ideals to suit our convinience - just so
we get coverage - well IMHO, in that case we are not really being
representatives of those ideals but cheap media attention whores.
Regards,
- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers