rn- re: Most of us just don’t get it…


Richard Moore

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

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,