Quote:
Originally posted by Betarulz!
First off, I have to wonder about talking to the media clauses. I went through all of the code of Beta Theta Pi and no where was any sort of reccomendation except in the case of a major risk management violation is there any mention of even talking to the media, let alone any sort of regulations about it.
Second, I have to question the motives of such policies...seems like there are many situations where regulations about talking to the media would be difficult to enforce. Any sort of blanket policy is bound to have so many loopholes that it would be ineffective at best.
Third, this project is for a high school student...in Austrailia. And from the sound of it, a "From the top" view isn't what she is after. If she is interested in "a day in the life of" a collegiate member, talking to fraternity officials is going to be not at all what she's looking for. Nor are most top officials really going to feel the need to spend time talking to a high schooler from Austrailia...maybe it's just me but do you really want your international officials spending there time on something like that?
Fourth, just because you don't think it's something you would do, doesn't mean that others out there feel the same.
If this young lady is willing to meet some requests to cover her sources in case something is amiss, I think that there are few reasons against agreeing to an interview. Especially since you get to see the questions beforehand, if it's not something you feel comfortable with, then just reply saying so. Also if there are things you are worried about "getting out" just keep them to yourself, and question what it is that makes you so uncomfortable about your actions.
|
First, you should wait until monday to contact your HQ, and ask them.
Second, a policy that is not fully understood is not necessarily invalid. Why don't you ask the author(s) of the Beta policy. I'm sure that a lot of thought, and real world experience went into it.
Third, assuming that she is exactly who she says she is, her report can still be inadvertantly used as negative P.R. Have we verified her ability to write a balanced article? Have we verified that the article won't be electronically published? And even though I believe that she is sincere, has anyone verified her IP address as Australian? As President Reagen once said, "trust, but verify."
Fourth, the issue is not whether one person is making a judgement call about the validity of the actions of others. The issue is that many, if not most NIC groups, would want to
at least be consulted before proceding further, and that many just might prohibit participation. Or not. Is waiting until Monday so unreasonable?