Jonathan Mirsky writes,
When the Dalai Lama visited Oxford, the head of one of the institutions where he spoke, who has connections with China, stipulated that the name of the place must not be used in news reports; nor could a picture be taken of the outside of the building while the Dalai Lama was there.
He seems to be deliberately avoiding stating the name of the Oxford institution. But they can’t really stop him from revealing it, right? I mean, what authority does “the head of one of the institutions” at Oxford have to “stipulate” what will be stated in news reports? Is there something I’m missing here???
{ 6 comments }
Perhaps the head of the institution could deny entrance to the building to reporters not agreeing to the stipulation.
Going further, perhaps the head of the institution could credibly threaten that the overall Oxford administration would bar or limit other access.
No authority except perhaps the authority of precedent: a number of seminars I went to were conducted under Chatham House rules, and this might be seen as Chatham House in negative.
I guess so . . . but I don’t see why Mirsky needs to play by these rules, especially in an article that is criticizing this sort of behavior.
Isn’t this just the same as when people who are interviewed for newspaper articles either stay off the record, or only let them use their first name?
Kenny: Sure, but there the enforcement mechanism is that the reporter won’t get to interview bigshots again after blowing their confidentiality. Is Mirksy really at risk of not getting invited to Oxford?
Yes, the threat is that the institution will not talk to the reporter/organisation again. Historically this threat has worked much better in the US than the UK (we see your MSM as sheep-like), but blogging is changing the way the world works.
Comments on this entry are closed.