Some within ARDG have expressed the view that the ban on press attendance is necessary because many who attend ARDG meetings are not authorized to speak to the press on behalf of their companies. As a result, so the argument goes, many who would otherwise contribute to the ARDG discussions would be forced to remain silent if press were in the room.
The more you think about it, the less this looks like a valid argument and the more like circular reasoning. After all, any chill felt by attendees is occassioned by their companies' policies regarding the press. It seems that these policies need to be justified, rather than being relied upon to justify exclusion of the press.
But all of this may overstate the import of the issue. So, rather than questioning the company policies, I'd like to make a few observations regarding the context in which these concerns arise.
First, it has been my experience that the majority of engineers who attend CPTWG and BPDG meetings never say a word. To the extent this proves to be the case at ARDG, their employers need not worry about their remarks being attributed to the company.
Second, many who speak at these meetings are authorized by their companies to speak to the press. I have frequently seen Michael Epstein, Chris Cookson, Bob Schwartz, Brad Hunt, Jim Burger, Seth Greenstein, and others quoted in the press on topics relating to CPTWG issues. These fine gentlemen are expert at choosing their words with care and precision. Their employers and clients need not fear for their discretion should a few reporters appear at our meetings.
Third, to the extent some of the most important contributions come in the form of questions, it is not clear to me that companies need worry about a question to someone else being construed as a company position.
Fourth, it has always been my understanding that nothing said in these meetings is confidential, nor are attendees prohibited in any way from talking to press (or anyone else) about what transpires at the meetings. Accordingly, under our current rules, when someone contributes a bon mot to our meetings, that person's employer may see the substance of the remark in the next morning's press coverage.
On the other side of the coin, the recent experience with the BPDG suggests that excluding press makes it much more difficult for interested members of the public to evaluate the material that emerges from these groups. Despite the fact that the "broadcast flag" proposal, if adopted, would materially shape the future of DTV equipment in the U.S., I did not read any detailed analysis of its implications in Sound & Vision, The Perfect Vision, Stereophile Guide to Home Theater, Home Theater, or other consumer press. Hence, the consumers most likely to be affected by the proposal are hardly aware of it, much less able to adequately evaluate it. A similar outcome for the ARDG should be avoided.
So the question is whether the incremental burden imposed by admitting press is outweighed by the incremental benefit.
Posted by fred at March 26, 2003 03:25 PM