Klarinet Archive - Posting 000298.txt from 2006/01

From: o4rmondtoby@-----.net (Ormondtoby Montoya)
Subj: RE: [kl] new Mozart finds
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:42:31 -0500

Dan,

I have been holding my tongue because, given the limited information
that I have had until just now, I couldn't think of a way to talk about
this without sounding obstreperous or mean-spirited or (to quote you) "a
moron".

Please try to look at this situation from a partially-informed
observer's point of view rather than from your own point of view wherein
you know all the facts.

"Partially informed" is a key phrase because most of us on Klarinet know
about "Mozart Forgeries" whereas the 'average Joe' who picks up a copy
of the Mercury News does not.

Now that you have told us that the Mercury News (the reporter or the
reporter's editor?) was the party who decided not to mention "Mozart
Forgeries", I want to tell you (and to agree with Lelia and Rien) that,
to people with only half the information (as opposed to 'average Joe'
who has none at all) (and as opposed to your closest friends who have
all the information), a perception of "something's wrong here and needs
fixing" is inescapable.

Dan, there are _plenty_ of respected authorities in various fields,
ranging from the Middle Ages up through the present, who have also
published satire, and both their satire and their serious work are
praised because "this author knows the topic inside-out and is not just
spouting whatever he thinks will draw attention on the 5 o'clock news."

I don't know what should be done at this point --- sometimes an attempt
at follow-up makes things look even worse --- but as I've already said,
it *does* look bad to partly-knowledgeable members of the 'clarinet &
Mozart public' who know your "Mozart Forgeries" and who then see all
mention of it conspicuously missing from an apparently thorough news
story.

I have no experience with press relations, but I *do* feel (based on the
new information which none of us had 24 hours ago) that either the
reporter or the editor has not reported the story ethically. Whatever
their motives were, they have left you swinging in the breeze a bit ---
and I don't see how you can avoid at least some diminution of reputation
and respect as a result --- even if many people here are uncomfortable
telling you directly.

I want to repeat again that many, many respected scholars have engaged
in satire. As Lelia has posted, their satire has more 'bite' and is
read more carefully _because_ it comes from someone with real knowledge.
Regardless of their motive, Mercury Press has effectively set you up for
criticism because they did an "in depth" piece about you that included a
_glaring_ omission of fact of which apparently they were well aware.
Intentional or mistaken, it has happened.

One of the good things about the Internet is that it offers you a view
of other people's opinions which you would not receive otherwise. I
hope that you can take my and Rien's and Lelia's posts in this light.
We are telling you what the current situation looks like to those who
have some information, but not the full story.

Respectfully, and with good will which I hope you perceive,
Bill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOODWIND.ORG ANNUAL DONATION DRIVE IS GOING ON NOW! VISIT
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation TO FIND OUT ALL THE FACTS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org