> In agreement, it seems to me that the "PRESS" is part of the public that
> needs to be "educated."  There are several reporters in southern Nevada who
> delight in cultural resource issues.  And although they seldom get the facts
> straight (is that artistic license?) as we perceive them, they are open to
> reasonable, discussion.  For example, a leisure reporter some time ago
> announced the location of a rock art site on public land as an isolated
> (seldom visited), therapeutic location to relax and refresh the spirit.
> After upsetting numerous local archaeologists (and Native Americans), this
> reporter was invited to another site that has been thoroughly trashed by the
> uneducated and was made aware of what his disclosures could potentially do
> to his refresh-the-spirit site.  Seeing the damage first hand, he said he
> had no idea and appreciated the comparison and enlightenment.  While this
> person does continue to publish locations of sanctioned and controled sites
> to visit, he no longer discusses sites that are off the beaten path.
> Instead of flaming Dr. Gott, honoring him with the title of moron and making
> an enemy (armed with a pen instead of a sword), wouldn't it be better to
> establish an open dialoge and convert him, make him see the error of his
> ways?  Is public education not a professional goal or are we just paying it
> lip service?  Convert the press, convert the masses - well almost.

yeah, but that was what the initial letter tried to do - gott didn't take it
that way, and the question now is, what next?
        we had some success some time back with a similar discussion over
"antique roadshow", now this - it's sort of like dealing with a saddam hussein
who keeps insisting he won the war - we've tried the high road, now what?

>     Behold the power of PR (remember Nixon).

or goebbels

  Look at it this way, newspaper
> editors love controversy and in order to sell their version of the truth
> they encourage their reporters to pursue such issues rather than admitting
> mistakes or bad judgement (unless there is proveable negligence and then
> they just drop it).  If the good Dr. Gott receives approval from his boss to
> publicly respond to numerous flaming letters, just imagine the possibilities
> for the bad press he could muster.  Take for example, POTTY PALACE
> ARCHAEOLOGISTS TAKE ISSUE WITH MEDICAL ADVISE, ouch.  Now don't get me
> wrong, I don't condon what advise he gave or the method he rendered his
> opinion.  The bottom line is to get the man on our side, show him the
> enlightend path, and drop the attack on his credibility.  Just a
> thought.......


geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]