>     In researching that article, I became interested
>     in the issue of how list owners govern. I heard
>     from some people who said they had been tossed off
>     of lists because of political differences with the
>     list manager.  The Chronicle has recently had two of its reporters
>     tossed off of lists after they telephoned people to
>     pursue stories about what they said on the lists.
>     The listowners said that reporters did not belong and would
>     inhibit discussion.
 
In my experience, people who are kicked out of a group for being abusive
tend to rationalize and finally believe themselves that they were kicked
out for "political reasons".  They can't think of themselves as abusive
and discourteous.  I also think that a lot of journalists tend to be
like this, rationalizing that because they are journalists, they should
be able to harass private citizens to obtain something to sell.  Perhaps
the journalists in question were not excluded for being journalists, but
for what they DID to people in their role as journalist.
 
 
>     These were not private lists, but ones with open, automated
>     subscription mechanisms.
 
This is of no importance whatever.  Lists generally send subscribers a
statement of goals and behavior.  Subscribers who do not wish to respect
the other list subscribers by following the guidelines are free to set
up their own list.
 
As a journalist who has researched this topic, I'm sure you have read
the LSTOWN-L archives where this question has been discussed at length
;-)
 
Bob
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Robert Ponterio                  | [log in to unmask]
 co-manager of FLTEACH            | State Univ. of New York Cortland
 Foreign Language Teaching Forum