Some of you may have seen that the producer of the "Infinite Mind" program came into the Fray to challenge Slate's article on doctors on radio programs. We featured that response, then the original author came in to argue. Adam and I did a couple of Fraywatches to cover this.

there's an interesting post in the Fraywatch Fray

<link>

discussing how Slate & the Fray handle this kind of thing. We'd be interested to know what other readers think, so if you have any views, it's time to share them in the Fraywatch Fray.

Thanks

Moira Redmond

Might be helpful if you actually couched your post (very elegantly stated by the way) in the form of a question. What "kind of thing" are you referencing? That some bigwig who's been mentioned in a fray article actually comes on here and dukes it out with the riffraff? I dunno, seems okay to me. His pixels don't stink anymore than the rest of us (well, with two exceptions).

Not exactly. The question I raised in my original post was whether or not it is fair that responses to articles by people directly mentioned in the articles go to the Fray, and can only go to the Fray.

One might ask exactly the same question of print media. If I felt slandered by People magazine (they regularly, and unconscionably, overlook me in their 50 Most Beautiful issues), probably my best hope would be to get a letter published in the Letters section. I guess I'm wondering if electronic media (with fewer constraints of space) have a better way of dealing with the issue.

In the Fraywatch thread, Schadenfreude said he thought that the highlighting of particular responses in the Fraywatch column was the best of both worlds. He may be right. I don't pretend to have an answer; it's just there have been several cases that didn't sit well with me.

It's one thing for a Fray writer to post comments on a linked board and to answer comments on his article, but quite another when a Slate article is being answered by a writer or other noteworthy individual from outside of Slate. I'd agree that the latter merits space on Slate for editorial reply. Link that article to the same board and let posters comment, by all means, but give the respondant his or her own forum.

JMO, FWIW

Moira:

Also missed was a response by a Dr. Leo who made this statement in an answer to the BMJ retraction.

"Why did Eli Lilly not share this data with the general medical community?"

He has appeared in the later checkmarked thread (Infinitemind). This has far greater implications above and beyond whether documents were supplied to the court or plaintiffs.

It is worthy of a separate forum.

You have tolerated me for several years now (with brief vacations awarded by editors with bruised feelings) so why should this individual be a problem? This is an open forum and in reality is probably the most fair to potential posters.

Were I you, I would take him on and defend your position. The worst thing that can happen is that he will make you all look like Boo Radley, but so what, that has happened before. Nothing to which you should not be accustomed by now.

If you need any help just tell me who he is and I will whip his rude ass for you. *

Jack

That always used to be cool when the BTers of the week would check the Fray to find out how the riff-raff were responding. They were almost always horribly offended, and their reactions were priceless. Champagne-swilling Stalinists.

But I don't see why that the Fray posts should be included in the main article rather than in Fraywatch. If the author wants to mix it up on the Forum, why not? Should be fun.

Apparently I wasn't clear. If somebody wants to post in the fray, that's fine with me. The question is whether they should have to post in the Fray. If Slate writes a front page article proclaiming "August is the Next Adam Ant," and I feel this is a misrepresentation, shouldn't my response ("August is in Fact the Next Angela Ammons") get equivalent exposure?

Right now, highlighting responses by people who are mentioned in articles falls to Fray Editors, and I'm just not sure that is the best way to do it.

I don't agree that the equal time rule applies in this case. Slate is an independent business and is under no obligation to give a pulpit to someone simply because Slate has written an opinion with which that person disagrees.

The Fray, however, is a free and open forum,available to all. If the magazine decides to give equivalent exposure, that is their choice but I don't think it should be a given.

Jack

Of course people directly mentioned in Slate pieces should respond on the Fray, and be duly recognized by Slate writers/editors. There definitely should not be hard and fast lines between Slate writers, their subjects, and Fray responders. Isn't that what the Fray is for?

Related point - After the "new" Fray started back up, several Slate writers were making an effort to post on the Fray, put out questions for discussion, etc. In a few months' time, that effort dwindled down to nothing. Is there a reason for that? A policy? Or just inertia, or writers' wariness to defend their pieces, or their sense of being "above the Fray" . . . ?

but would if someone unfamiliar with the fray responds to a Slate article that addressed their work? Wouldn't it be a tad more decent of Slate to attach their response to the bottom of the article they are responding toward? They likely wouldn't even see it posted in the fray and would feel slighted.

I agree that Slate should probably give them the opportunity to respond as you suggested, but I don't think they are obligated to do it.

Jack

it looks good on them, if they do it.

I’m finding this very interesting. (I have made a similar post in the parallel discussion in the Fraywatch Fray)

In the interests of helping the argument, you might like a few facts about how it works.

If someone mentioned in an article approaches Slate, they will be advised to post in the Fray. Some people just come and post anyway, because they know the system.

When we see such a response we always a) check that the poster is who he or she claims to be b) give the post a check and c) post the response at the foot of the article. If this does not happen (and I do not know of any such occasions) it would be because we did not know it was there. But normally we do know! I personally formulated this policy many years ago, and I believe it has been current ever since. I’m a bit surprised by the people claiming here that we don't do this.

If the issue warrants it, we would also mention it in Fraywatch, as has happened recently with the drugs story, and with Michael Chabon. (It used to be that they would be featured in the Best of the Fray column.)

It also does happen that someone mentioned in an article wants to make a response which is not a complaint: to add to the story, or even compliment the author. Such a response would get the same treatment.

As far as I know, no-one has ever complained to Slate about the treatment of his or her response. I have often emailed back and forth with those concerned – as well as checking identity, I would usually send them links to the relevant pages. Whatever their issues with the article, they almost always say some version of ‘thanks for dealing with this in a straightforward way.’

And, urquhart, I couldn't agree with you more - Breakfast Table was the best in terms of true interaction and fabulous frays: I used to love doing them, and adding to the long list of featured posts several times during a week.

And, august, I know just what you mean about People. Me too! I think their invitation to me must have got lost in the post along with my Nobel Prize notification.

Moira Redmond

Hi Moira,

The example I remember best (and cannot now find -- it might be on the old fray) was David Edelstein expressing disgruntlement at what he regarded as a misrepresentation of his views. My recollection is that he mentioned that he expected better (better journalism, not necessarily better treatment) from his former employers.

I feel like there have been others; now that I know the policy I will e-mail the editors if I see something. It's comforting to know that you double-check on identity.

As for People, who needs 'em?

august