To Publish Or Not To Publish?

January 28, 1998

To Publish or not to Publish?? As many people are aware, The Slant broke a story last week regarding the uncertain future of the Enzian Theater and the Florida Film Festival. As a community publication (in which volunteer writers report what they see as news to us), we made the decision to publish what was essentially a letter by a film community member to the rest of that community, even though that person (for personal reasons) preferred to remain anonymous. We and the writer proceded with this unorthodox course of action in the belief that this story needed to be told - that people who have so much invested in the festival, that have sacrificed thousands of hours of their free time, have a right to know if it's threatened. It was never our intent to put the festival at even greater risk.

And the letter seemed to have the desired effect. Word spread through the town like wildfire, and the Orlando Weekly initiated an investigation of their own, culminating in the article from the January 29 edition, "Cast Changes But the Show Goes On", which presents the story from a more standard journalistic perspective. However, sources informed us that the anonymity of The Slant's writer threatened to destabilize a situation that was nearly resolved, placing the author, The Slant, The Film Festival, and Enzian employees in jeopardy. At this point, myself and the writer (all Slant articles are ultimately the property of our writers) discussed the issue and resolved to remove the letter.

As one of the first community publications, we have frequently encountered issues and situations that force us to struggle with what we are and how we differ from journalistic publications. This incident proved to be the most challenging we have faced so far: a writer who we deemed both reliable and well-intentioned with a controversial story to tell and the desire to remain unnamed. Further, the Slant has held a close relationship with the Enzian that dates back to 1994. Then of course there are the legal issues. We created The Slant in the belief that openly partial, biased members of the community make the best reporters on it. However, this opens a major can of worms. What are The Slant's legal responsibilities for the content that we publish? Are our writers bound by the same ethics that "impartial" reporters face? The fact is that we don't know the answers to these questions (of course we believe that different rules should apply, but we don't know what the courts would make of it), and - as a grass-roots, self-started publication - we didn't want to find out the hard way.

What would happen if we faced similar circumstances again? Well, we need to find a lawyer (willing to work pro bono?) that can give us the specific details of where our responsibilities and rights lie. This knowledge will allow us to package the same sort of volatile information in a way that serves the community by passing along important, credible insider information without endangering the freedom of all parties involved. I, as the one responsible for the decision, do not take such matters lightly, and I would not want to spread blatantly false information. I stand by my choice to run the article and to take it down. The next time this happens (and you can bet there will be a next time - the community always knows first), we will have the guidelines to ensure that the execution matches our intent. And if we or a writer wants to retract a story, we will do so in agreement.

Dan Leeds
I may have broken the dreaded 30 threshold, but internally I still feel like I stopped getting older some time around 25 or so. Yea, I've become more responsible and maybe even a little more ambitious, but not so much that I've lost track of my guiding ideals or my ability to play. While getting older may be inevitable, aging is much more relative. What else is there? :)