Who are you calling 'obscure'?
So on the front page of the LAT, there is this story:Powerful Lawmaker's Relative Linked Financially to Contractor
WASHINGTON — A political fundraising committee headed by a defense contractor has paid thousands of dollars in fees to the stepdaughter of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) at a time when the contractor has been lobbying Congress for funding.
If you read through the story, you will find these graphs:
A November 1994 article in Federal Computer Week said Lewis "appears to have played the biggest role on the Hill as an Audre advocate," writing letters to defense officials urging them to expand the program.Obscure trade journal
The obscure trade journal also uncovered in financial disclosure reports that White, then Lewis' aide, had bought stock in Audre on Nov. 3, 1993, one week before the passage of the final bill.
???An update: So we have also had calls from the NYT and NPR. I hope we won't be obscure to them... and just in case you think that we are somehow unaware, it is exactly things like this 'obscure' reference that makes people angry with the press. In this case, it was just unnecessary. Obscure is, by its very nature, a value judgement. They didn't know about FCW, so it was obscure to them. What would have probably been more accurate is if they had just called us a government IT trade publication or a trade publication that covers government technology. If LAT readers hadn't heard of us, they could determine that we are obscure.
Posted by Christopher Dorobek on Jun 08, 2006 at 12:15 PM