Bulletin Survey - Early Results

Thank you for the many warm tributes and messages of encouragement we received. We also received criticisms about the way information is handled in the Bulletin and on its circulation. In today's issue we reply to these two points.

Why is the Bulletin politically correct ?

Many respondents reproach the Bulletin for a lack of objectivity and for being too politically correct to the point of being a propaganda organ. It is true that the Bulletin is not a newspaper, but rather a bulletin of communication (like SLAC's Beam Line). What is the difference ? A newspaper is objectively independent of the subjects it reports on, and when its reporters write stories they dig around for information from all parties concerned. The Bulletin is not that kind of journal, but is produced in-house. Its sources and writers are not independent of CERN. Contrary to a widespread idea, 90% of the front-page stories do not come from the Management but from those in charge of experiments, different units and the like, in a word, they are CERN staff. Obviously, they want to tell their colleagues about their successes not their failures. And it is only natural that they do not particularly want to reveal their problems to colleagues or bosses. Last but not least, the written article is not just checked by its source but also often by the supervisor, which does not encourage a critical approach. This does not mean that the information is wrong, but that it is presented in its best light. The Bulletin could obviously be a little more balanced if we all tried to realize that a credible story should take account not just of our successes but also of our problems.
Some of you have written in to us suggesting that room be left in our columns for free expression of your opinions. Others want to include a Letters to the Editor heading. We are trying to work out ways of giving space to more spontaneous voices.

What changes will there be to circulation of the Bulletin?

Those filling in the questionnaire seem to have been most concerned that a hard-copy version of the Bulletin should survive. Six months after launching the electronic version, 64% of respondents read only the paper version. We have taken due note of this concern. But in these days of budgetary belt-tightening, we think we can save a lot of paper by cutting down on the number of printed copies. Many of you complain of the waste of paper that the Bulletin represents, and so we are looking at ways of reducing the print run.

And what else ?

Next week we will answer other, more technical questions. Some of your many suggestions on its Internet version are now being introduced. Thanks again, and please keep those ideas coming in.