[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nader Conference? (A view from someone who was there...)
I was at the conference. I organized and hosted the noon "Ralph Nader
Doesn't Speak For Me!" press conference on day one (the one to which
Declan McCullough referred to as "...the critic's noon summit..." in the
first post of this thread).
We had 40 registered press at our "Ralph Nader Doesn't Speak For Me!" press
conference. We actually had more "plants" from the Nader orgs (two--as best
as I could determine) than from any MS sources. One from MSNBC and the rest
from very reputable, high-visibility, great reputation media sources. Mr.
McCullough was among the credentialed media at our event.
As I've said in past posts to this list, I'm just a regular guy who leads
an association of non-profit groups from around the world. I do it on an
all-volunteer basis. I receive no money for it and I operate independent of
Microsoft and every other company in the computer industry. Everyone who
participated on our panel paid for their own airfare and accomodations. We
neither received nor solicited any outside funding. We did this on behalf
of the hundreds of thousands of people whom we represent.
Mr. Nader and his cadre of highly-paid, "professional gunslingers" are very
skilled in representing the views of minority special interests. I admire
them for their skills not the tactics they use or their current cause. I
live in the Washington, DC area so I am quite familiar with the tactics
used by groups representing special interests who lobby Congress on a
I haven't seen the Nader group present any specific number of people they
represent--other than Sun, Netscape, Sybase, and "ambulance-chasing"
lawyers. I wonder why?
It remains amazing to me how this list serv manages to reject any semblance
of objective factual information. Instead they continue to conjure up
paranoid fantasies that feed their fears and insecurities.
At 11:41 PM 11/14/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Erick responded in private mail and clarified.
>Yes, there were two (that I know of) Microsoft PR flacks in the hallways
>chatting up reporters. John Pinette, public relations manager out of
>Redmond, and a younger fellow who was with him. The younger guy might have
>been with Microsoft's PR firm. Dunno.
>As a reporter, I'm glad the MSFT flacks were there. They weren't intrusive,
>and they provided a good balance to the NaderFesting.
>Full disclosure: Pinette offered to take some of us out to dinner, a common
>practice where (depending on company policies) reporters often pay for
>their own meals. The Silicon Valley reporter crowd went drinking instead (I
>think, since they never showed). I stopped by the dinner briefly with some
>friends -- I would have stayed but I had to to a TV show at 9 pm. The only
>two reporters who I saw, though some might have showed after I left, were
>from Washington state newspapers.
>At 23:19 -0500 11/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Guess you weren't there. I don't understand your message, BTW. It's
>>No reporters I know are aligned to the Microsoft camp. A very, very few are
>>paid by Microsoft, like MSNBC folks, but they try to do a good job of
>>critical reporting anyway. All the reporters I know -- and I know a bunch
>>-- are suspicious of the power of large corporations, including Microsoft.
>>And Microsoft's enemies too.
>>At 23:11 -0500 11/14/97, Erick Andrews wrote:
>>>On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:57:27 -0500 (EST), Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>>>Yep. Yesterday's panels were achingly boring. High point was the critic's
>>>>noon summit (that Ralph tried to lure reporters away from by having media
>>>>availability at the same time).
>>>Gee, Mr McCullagh, I heard that there were so many reporters there that,
>>>to be sure, Ralph Nader would have had a difficult time finding one
>>>outside those aligned to (or paid by?) the MS camp.Â But then again,
>>>I wasn't there or in the aisles.