Subject:
|
Re: [rtlToronto] rtlToronto in National Post!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:47:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richard Noeckel writes:
> It’s nice to see a rtlToronto reference, but how come
> Lugnet didn’t get noticed.
> T’would have been a perfect segue into a Lugnet link!
I think you've got the idea that we control what gets printed in the media.
Journalists aren't allowed to let you choose what gets written in their
pieces, because if they did, then they wouldn't be journalists anymore,
they'd be ad copywriters for rtlToronto. Also, even if the article writer
put it in, his copy editor or fact checker may have taken those items out.
We learned this from the unusual tone of the Elm Street article, we've seen
it repeated in dealing with Rogers (ie, someone didn't wish to air it
because it wasn't relevant to Missisauga) and a number of other instances.
I also watched All The President's Men, and worked with an irritating
journalism grad once, but that's not really experience.
I did mention Lugnet and a number of other things (Todd Lehman, ParLUGment,
MonLUG etc) but they didn't get put in. It's often a mistake by enthusiast
groups in courting the media to be displeased when they don't completely
explain your cause. (the Amiga, Linux, environmental groups, social
activism, whatever) But that's not what the media is out there to do.
They're trying to write a story (in this case, about the Lego company) and I
was there to illuminate a small section of it. They're not my mouthpiece,
they're covering a bigger issue. The goal was NOT to talk about Lego
enthusiasts in general, so correspondingly, the section which featured
rtlToronto was a small fraction of the total coverage.
> > We ripped off their heads and limbs and threw them in the garbage."
>
> Sacrilege!
> Commandment #3:
> Thou shalt never dispose of any ABS.
That's the other thing. Writers take notes, they don't legally transcribe
your comments. I probably did say something to the effect of "threw them
out", specifically in reference to a time when Bruce Sheridan once mentioned
he bought a Throwbot for a large 40t gear and tossed the rest of it. (Bruce
has even given away a MicroScout processor before!)
> > He couldn't care less that the company has totally ignored his
> > club's existence. "We don't represent Lego. We don't want to,"
> > he says. "We once called up Lego Canada and invited them to
> > our first robotics design contest." That was four years ago.
> > "We still haven't heard back."
>
> But we’re still gonna need their assistance should we hope to
> hold a ‘Snow Brick’ national Lego extravaganza one day…
I doubt that. There isn't really anything required from Lego for such an
event, and if there is, I'm not particularily interested in trying to
wrangle it from them. I'm not convinced that enthusiasts are Lego's core
market, and I don't wish for them to be. I believe that enthusiasts may
have some of the right ideas, but they're good business sense more than
anything. I'd hate to see Lego devolve to something like Beanie Babies,
sports cards or other "collector" items where the company knowingly tunes
their product to adult tastes.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: [rtlToronto] rtlToronto in National Post!
|
| (...) Not a bad article… (some comments below) (...) Doesn’t the “Land of Childhood” sound trippy! (...) A few years age? Wasn’t the fun-house developed back in the 70s’? I remember reading once that the place was extremely outdated, with record (...) (22 years ago, 28-Apr-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
