Thank you for the email. I'll keep that in mind as I write.

On 6/1/07, gwendontoo wrote:
>
> A short while ago I received a note from a writer for the LA Times.
> She also posted a note on the SoCal list wanting an interview from
> letterboxers that have been in the hobby for 10 years. She advised
> that she had done quite a bit of research, but since she was looking
> for someone with a 10 year track record I knew that she really hadn't
> done her homework.
>
> I have a basic distrust of reporters and that had more to do with the
> way I handled her request than anything else.
>
> I wrote her back in my regular tactless cut to the chase method and
> advised her why I wouldn't participate by being interviewed. I did
> emphasize that there had been other poorly written articles and
> challenged her to see if she could really capture the nuances and
> stealth that letterboxing needs.
>
> The article did appear in a Sunday suppliment, and to my surprise was
> very good and did contain quite a bit of information regarding
> secrecy and stealth.
>
> Sometimes you can get your point across by not participating, but you
> should always tell the reporter why.
>
> The bottom line is that most reporters could careless about
> letterboxing, as they only care about selling the story to their
> editor. The editor only cares about selling papers.
>
> Don
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo"
wrote:
> The article did appear in a Sunday suppliment, and to my surprise was
> very good and did contain quite a bit of information regarding
> secrecy and stealth.


Talk about an oxymoronic statement! lol

How did letterboxing ever grow and evolve in that period of time
between the Smithsonian article and the Time article without so much
publicity? Things that make you go "hmmmm".

Hi alwayschaos

I'm trying to figure out which part is oxymoronic?

Sunday suppliment? (which usually is huge and a paper onto itself)

Don's surprise? (even the great BSer can be surprised)

The article was very good? (That is a stretch for a conservative when
it comes to the LA Times)

quite a bit of information regarding secrecy and stealth? (how else
can they be discussed)

My note to the writer was less than agreeable as I took the time to
list many non letterboxing reasons why I distrust reporters. Most of
those come from a lifetime of keeping clients' secrets away from
reporters prying eyes. Also other times having first hand knowledge
how things get twisted when the press was furnished information.
While I mean no disrepect to the present reporter in this topic
there "can be" a slant to any reporter's story.

In the case I cited it seems as though the reporter used many of
the "fears" I had included in my note and ended up writing a better
story, or at least one that covered the sneakiness needed in
letterboxing. While I agree with the majority here that the best
story might be one that stays unwritten, never the less, if I had not
sent the reporter my note the story would have been written without
my input.
I do think that my note had an impact and she did not include our
names in the article as I had requested.

Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "alwayschaos"
wrote:
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo"
> wrote:
> > The article did appear in a Sunday suppliment, and to my surprise
was
> > very good and did contain quite a bit of information regarding
> > secrecy and stealth.
>
>
> Talk about an oxymoronic statement! lol
>
> How did letterboxing ever grow and evolve in that period of time
> between the Smithsonian article and the Time article without so
much
> publicity? Things that make you go "hmmmm".
>

Well, perhaps oxymoronic may have not been the best term to use, but
it struck me as funny to hear of an article published in a newspaper
that I assume to have large readership describing the secrecy and
stealth part of letterboxing while also telling everyone about it.

I'm glad, however, that your note to the journalist helped to ensure
that the secrecy and stealth were at least mentioned. I do agree,
however, that the best article about letterboxing is the one not
written.

Oh if I ruled the world... LOL


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo"
wrote:
>
> Hi alwayschaos
>
> I'm trying to figure out which part is oxymoronic?
>
> Sunday suppliment? (which usually is huge and a paper onto itself)
>
> Don's surprise? (even the great BSer can be surprised)
>
> The article was very good? (That is a stretch for a conservative
when
> it comes to the LA Times)
>
> quite a bit of information regarding secrecy and stealth? (how else
> can they be discussed)
>
> My note to the writer was less than agreeable as I took the time to
> list many non letterboxing reasons why I distrust reporters. Most
of
> those come from a lifetime of keeping clients' secrets away from
> reporters prying eyes. Also other times having first hand knowledge
> how things get twisted when the press was furnished information.
> While I mean no disrepect to the present reporter in this topic
> there "can be" a slant to any reporter's story.
>
> In the case I cited it seems as though the reporter used many of
> the "fears" I had included in my note and ended up writing a better
> story, or at least one that covered the sneakiness needed in
> letterboxing. While I agree with the majority here that the best
> story might be one that stays unwritten, never the less, if I had
not
> sent the reporter my note the story would have been written without
> my input.
> I do think that my note had an impact and she did not include our
> names in the article as I had requested.
>
> Don
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "alwayschaos"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo"
> > wrote:
> > > The article did appear in a Sunday suppliment, and to my
surprise
> was
> > > very good and did contain quite a bit of information regarding
> > > secrecy and stealth.
> >
> >
> > Talk about an oxymoronic statement! lol
> >
> > How did letterboxing ever grow and evolve in that period of time
> > between the Smithsonian article and the Time article without so
> much
> > publicity? Things that make you go "hmmmm".
> >
>