In a message dated 10/2/00 6:53:50 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< "I will give all reporters a interview AS
LONG as i get to look and approve the finnished product" >>

   It's the same thing as not participating at all, because most media
organizations have policies against it, and for good reason. Let's run it
through a hypothetical scenario. Let's say I talk to 4 beekeepers, 2
professors and one ranger, and they all want to approve the final product.
   Beekeeper A sees that his honey harvest was less than the others so now he
wants to revise the original figure upward or he won't participate. The new
number is a lie.
   Beekeeper B wants bragging rights down at the bee club so he wants to
tweak the original numbers or he's not going to participate. The new numbers
are a lie.
    Beekeeper C  sees that one of the other beekeepers prominently featured
is a woman and he doesn't think women should be commercial beekeepers, so
even though the story is accurate he is disinclined to participate because
the story doesn't reflect his prejudice.
   Beekeeper D was adamant about reviewing the final story but now she has
disappeared into the hills for a week to move bees and won't be back until
well after deadline.
   Professor Aa has just written a book on breatharian beekeeping, and
threatens to pull his quotes if a gratuitous, irrelevant mention of his new
book isn't inserted somewhere in the story.
   Professor Bb doesn't like reporters anyway, so even though the story is
accurate he is going to pull his quotes at the last minute just for spite.
Ha, ha.
   Ranger Rick sees that an anecdote has been told about him that portrays
the park service in an unflattering light. While the anecdote is accurate and
the problems are real, Ranger Rick doesn't want to be the ranger that
unwittingly revealed the flaw in park service policy, so he is inclined to
pull his quotes.
    Obviously some of these are exaggerations, but not by as much as you
think. Do you really think the story that results from this process is going
to be worth reading?
   And if you remove yourself and your information from the story early, the
story will still be told but not with the good accurate information you could
have provided. More than likely the hole that is left will be filled with
garbage, or at least something less valuable than what you could have
contributed.
   Sure, sometimes the story that results will still be garbage, but look at
all the positive media coverage that wouldn't have happened if beekeepers had
demanded to review the final product. A beekeeper in San Francisco has been
featured in the local newspaper, a regional magazine and several times on
National Public Radio for his beekeeping efforts in the city. After all the
positive coverage, I don't think San Francisco will be passing an
anti-beekeeping ordinance any time soon. This spring, The Boston Globe
produced an outstanding story on the rising interest in hobby beekeeping that
included interviews with a number of first-time beekeepers. There are more,
but these are the first that come to mind.
   Provide good information and most of the time you won't go wrong.