Comments on Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times Staff Reporter

She has a point.

Omigod! You guys are like SO cutting edge!!!!

You know what? Lornet is not a public figure, and I don't care if she called. Posting this is just exploitive.

The irony is that she wouldn't have ended up on Slog had she just sent a fucking e-mail. Writers don't post that crap unless it's a news item or just totally insane.

piss on her...if she's 'embarassed' to be on Slog and ergo being associated with the Stranger, but she wants info out of them for her own purposes, she gets what she deserves...

Lornet could have e-mailed and said: Not For Publication. People do that all the time, and the conversations don't end up on Slog. If Lornet hadn't made a deal about it to Brad, I'm sure Dan wouldn't have pulled his minor stunt.

@3,
Not a "Public Figure" ... "exploitive" ... ???
That's some high-falutin talk that isn't even relevant here. This isn't about libel or privacy. A reporter called and left a message. How is Lornet being harmed in any way by Dan's goofy post?

I don't think there's any harm in Dan's post...but now I'm curious. Why is saying "I don't want to end up on Slog" different that emailing "Not For Publication"? Quite frankly, if I were sending something to the Stranger, I would assume anything marked NFP would trigger a Slog post, just as Turnbull's verbal request did.

So are we going to see a mention of her article when it airs?

She's a writer at a daily newspaper and she's covering the pride parade fiasco. Not exactly a private person. She's playing a public role. And Dan's email is a good humored joke.

I don't really care about this specific issue one way or another, but I have a journalism question for Josh:

Is writing "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" and knowing that it will be respected an actual standard among journalists? I assume so if you say that she could have written the email and just put that at the top and not had to worry.

If the answer is yes, does that apply to phone calls, too? Can I say, "This conversation is not for publication" and trust that it will not be slogged? I think this is known as talking off the record. If yes proceed to next question.

By saying she didn't want the email slogged, wasn't she really saying she didn't want her call slogged, thus asking the communication to be off the record. If yes, wasn't slogging a breach of trust?

I am wondering because I wonder about contacting media about other important issues where I don't want to be named as a source. What if a journalist says, "Well, you said you didn't want the conversation on the record, but you didn't say anything about our phone call, so thats why your name ended up in the paper (or blog) today."

Just wondering.

this post is not for publication.

If she had written "NOT FOR PUBLICATION", Dan would have used a larger font.

I would have commented, but it's not for publication.

Oh, wait, I did.

Never mind.

Though I love this forum, I know how she feels...

Pfft. You call this "ending up on the Slog"? Hah! Pathetic. What, are you going to just stand there? You're going to have to do better than this to compete with the likes of me, Ms. Lornet Turnbull.

Jude@10,

If someone says the conversation isn't for publication, it doesn't get Slogged.

The thing I think is getting confused here is this: Turnbull didn't want a back and forth with Dan on Slog. She told Brad that. Brad told Dan that. Dan Slogged that.

Dan didn't Slog any off-the-record conversation he had with Turnbull.

I'm not sure if Slog-shy Turnbull would be willing to weigh in here, but my guess is that she'd agree: Dan didn't do anything that wasn't Kosher other than post a goofy prank.

This conversation is really weird.

Har har!
Dan really made fun of that person.

You see, the Stranger has ethics. It's off the record if they feel like, or don't. So if you don't get it, tough luck, we might Slog you, sucka!

Speaking of video, anyone see Josh at the P-I lately?

Doesn't the LGBT e-mail say, in essence, "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" on it? the fuck are you talking about, Josh?

@18, the difference is that the LGBT email wasn't sent to The Stranger, it was leaked to them. So, they aren't breaking any source/reporter confidentiality. Had the LGBT center emailed them directly, and asked them to keep the contents of said email confidential, they couldn't have slogged it.

If she had written "NOT FOR PUBLICATION", Dan would have used a larger font.

It would have been the same font, just a larger size.

Now if the Op-Ed editor had called, Dan would have acted MUCH differently. "Yes, sir, be right there sir."

That's his altar boy act