============================================================================ From: Allister_Hain <•••@••.•••> To: "'•••@••.•••'" <•••@••.•••> Cc: "'•••@••.•••'" <•••@••.•••> Subject: source for Carleton University news release Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:20:59 -0400 Dear Jan: In a recent posting to your listserv (Oct. 2, 1999 at 1:14 p.m.) -- renaissance-network -- you copied a Carleton University news release (from a Paul A. Falvo) entitled "79 percent of North Americans Missing the Point Entirely." In it you quote from a Dr. Ronald Shaw of Carleton's Center For American Studies. This has got many of us at Carleton's University Communications department just a little confused. We can't find any listing for a Ronald Shaw at Carleton University nor do we know of any Center for American Studies here either. Furthermore, after reading the release, which definitely didn't come through our office, we would never allow a piece of writing that uses this tone of language to go out under the University's name. The one interesting thing about the body of the release is this statement near the end: "Despite the preponderance of evidence supporting its findings, the Georgetown study has drawn widespread criticism from the American public." As well, there is a number of what I would call "Americanisms" in the release. Did the study originate from Georgetown University? My gut reaction is I can't believe Georgetown would allow this release to go out either. Could you please follow up with Mr. Falvo (I have cc'ed this to him) and determine the authorship and source of the release. We think its a fake and if it is it certainly doesn't lend credibility to any publication, or listserv, that publishes it. Thanks for your attention to this matter and I hope to hear from you shortly. Allister Hain Editor, This is Carleton and Today@Carleton Department of University Communications 605 Robertson Hall, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6 ========================= Dear Allister, It turns out that the piece had been originally posted as a joke, and in the orginal context it was clear that it was not to be taken seriously. But by the time it got sent to us, the surrounding context had been deleted and it appeared to be a genuine news report. Sorry for the confusion and any embarrasment it may have caused you or Carleton. Nowhere in the sequence of events did anyone intend to deceive or misinform. Internet is certainly vulnerable to mis-information, whether accidental or intentional. On our kind of list there is very little we can do about this, except to use our best judgment as to 'what looks genuine'. For example, I did not take the time to phone Carleton and verify that you really are employed there. If we did that kind of checking, we wouldn't have time to do anything else. But we can certainly post corrections when we get better information! Thanks for bringing this to our attention, rkm ============================================================================
