Just wanted to let you know that Sermo CEO Daniel Palestrant has answered many of the questions you folks raised about Sermo’s privacy policies here:

http://www.xconomy.com/2007/10/02/sermo-ceo-offers-answers-to-xconomy-readers-questions-about-privacy/

There seems to be a consensus on Sermo that Sermo is like a doctor’s lounge where doctors meet and talk about cases in their field, listen and ask questions and learn about other fields, discuss common non-medical practiced related topics and family and personal things. Doctors were aware of who might be listening in. Doctors know who is who and can evaluate what other doctors say about medicine, their CV and medically related things. This is probably the same as any group of similar professionals, such as journalists, would do. I do not know if, as Dr O said, his press pass and listing on Google puts him in the same class of journalism as the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or CNET.com, HuffingtonPost.com etc or not, but doctors can evaluate other doctors as I am sure journalists can evaluate his journalism.

Dr O has a problem with Dr. P and Sermo (Dr P is like the doctor-administrator of Sermo) and when Dr O did not get satisfaction, he went public rather than going to the other doctors in the lounge first to tell them of the problem. Add to this that he used his own web site (just as Sermo is a web site), which he wants to grow for his financial gain and that which raises questions coupled with the his medical (not journalism or Internet security) CV which the average doctor saw right through, and so it should not be a surprise that he was not welcomed as the savior but with some skepticism.

So just who should a doctor on Sermo believe. Dr P or Dr O. Taking into consideration the above, maybe Dr P has no pluses, but Dr O had negatives so it seems Dr P is ahead in credibility at this time

It seems to me that Dr O and medgadget.com have become part of the story and therefore may not be the best source for the rest of the story. Certainly worth reading what is said on medgadget.com , but I believe there is enough to raise questions of impartiality to justify looking to other sources for the continuing story.

I would have thought as a journalist, you would have wanted to present a “fair and balanced” report on your web site and present some of the postings of those who disagreed with you. I guess your site (which you view as part of the media) is one of advocacy rather than reporting. That is fine, just as long as the readers know that.

I do not know if you need it, but you have permission to quote me providing you do not edit what I say as you did on your web site. You can add rebuttals, but do not change my words.

If you’d like to be less anonymous, we’ll give full credit for the work.

I’m done.

Cheers.

Saw on your web site you added in brackets the following editorial comment:

“[nothing was added to Michael's writing. The quote he attributed to Bruder was inserted how it appeared originally. This was an action to prevent Michael from censoring Bruder]”

I am not a journalist and trying to learn, so hopefully you can tell me, but just how can a person in the public comments section possible censor someone from the web site. I do not have any control over what is NOT posted on the web site or comments sections?

Dr O was the one by mentioning his credentials as a doctor, not his qualifications as a journalist or his technical/internet/security qualifications, brought up the issue and now those pointing it out are the enemy.

Bruder -

General question: can the average, non-professional journalist, citizen have a legitimate opinion about credibility in the media?

Michael, really, do you any longer know what you want, what issue you’re trying to raise?

I keep expressing my view and get insulted back and respond and I am the one accused of being a troll.

Bruder let me save you time responding and perhaps ending this:

Michael:

You evidently do not have qualifications about anything and am not even sure if you know your gluteus maximus from your olecranon so just who are you to even be in the same web site with us professionals, no less for us professionals take the time to respond to your unqualified comments. Become a professional and then make comments

If Dr O had quickly realized what doctors meant about being boarded and the name of his second board, he could have quickly posted on Sermo, that he misspoke about that, then the discussion might have been more on the message rather than the messenger. He is being portrayed as the victim, but that is of his own doing.

I am not a political scientist or a professional politician, but it seems in politics politicians get into far more trouble by trying to cover up or dispute things rather than just admitting the error and letting the furor die down and moving on.

Far be for me to recommend what Dr O should do, but if he now realizes he was mistaken about the issue of boards and sees how what he said could be misinterpreted and posted his correction on his web site (not hidden away on a “back page”) and made a correction on Sermo, that would be a good start – of course as it will be pointed out I have no qualifications my opinion.

Please give me the web site in which your “Terms of Use statement” are and where it says that you can change, with no notification, what a reader writes in the comments section.

So everyone in the public who is not a “professional journalist” is not qualified to make an opinion about the credibility of a journalist, newspaper, radio/tv station or internet media site.

Being sarcastic again, “Hi, I am a professional journalist and you can trust me about my credibility” is what is taught to professional journalists.

You say that “The way that should be done is…” Exactly what are your qualifications to be telling a professional journalist how to edit his publication? What are your qualifications to read and understand our Terms of Use statement? I thought you were after credibility, disclosure, professionalism, and all that? Or do those things again not apply to you?

Editing seems to me to be changing what is said rather than simply taking something out of context.

All the same, even in an obvious straight forward story, credibility is still the backbone of journalism so credibility does matter.

Still without my comments on your website, how is the new reader to know that my comments, misquote and all, were changed by medgadget. Should not the reader know that?

The way that should be done is to add an editorial note to my comment, and perhaps add in CAPs what you added or to cite the whole quote or to make a comment below in rebuttal.

I do not know if Rebecca will get this far in reading this thread, but would like to know just what is xconomy’s policy regarding what is said in these readers comments and how xconomy and sites respond to misquotes or quotes taken out of context that they feel wrongly misrepresent them ?

Also, if there is a correction to a story on a web page, how is that handled?

You must have skipped that section where I said I did not edit a single word of yours. You were the one that edited me, and frankly, I think that only speaks to your methods and your moral code.
Anything else to discuss Michael? Shall we do another 100 comments?

Hmmm …. changing what someone writes in a web page where comments are welcomed and not letting other readers know what has been changed and why, raises the question of how does anyone know what is said in the other comments is what was said by the responder and not people at medgadget to make medgadget look better – isn’t that an issue of credibility?

If stories on your web pages are changed, is there a notation or an addendum like would be done in the print media or does the late reader not know it has been changed.