Re: nytimes

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

this isn't about saving 3 days, this is about making sure we're still  
a real ongoing news item.  if we do nothing, that is how you get cut.

but, no worries ... I have enough ammunition without you.

Yes, Schultze gave his name, interviewed.  Don't think he's a big part  
of the story, but John likes him.

Did you see how successful this campaign has been?  The letter from  
Lambreth, for example, is a really big deal (he's the guy who told  
Cheney he didn't like the whole FISA thing and demanded that congress  
get briefed and several other concessions ... he's the chief fisa  
judge).    I think there is some real leverage that can be applied to  
flush out the remaining part of PACER.  Part of my aim is to flush out  
the nytimes, but I also want to make sure we've got an ask on the  
table when the profile of this issue goes up.

I'll continue drafting pieces to add to the uscourts.gov page but will  
keep your name out of it.  I do think we can't play to the press or  
they treat us like business stories ... this reverse embargo they  
pulled on this story is out of line and we'll loose their respect (and  
they will cut the piece way down) if we are just sitting around.   
Editors don't like to hear that the story they're reading was really  
cool 2 weeks ago.  :))

On Feb 10, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> Did Schultze give his name to Schwartz?
>
> I ask you not use my name until the Times piece is out. Any idea what
> the hold up is? Pushing them on this doesn't seem too smart; saving
> three days isn't worth the risk of losing the whole piece. This has
> been going on for months; it isn't going to get stale.