[1032] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Reporting the net community
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (capital!taylor@uunet.uu.net)
Thu Jul 18 16:57:39 1991
From: capital!taylor@uunet.uu.net
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Thu Jul 18 16:45:54 1991
It seems unfair to critique the notorious Chronicle article after so
much time, but it raises a number of issues, and so do the responses
of some readers here.
I see several problems with this article.
1. It was not well edited.
a. The piece contains statements that any good editor would have
thrown back for insufficient support (examples in a moment).
b. The editor(s) also clearly lack any substantive knowledge of the
subject area. But this is very often (if not most often) the case when
sending reporters out to cover something specific, something with
technical strands in the fabric. In these cases, you must
rely on the skills, and judgement or your reporters. It is
equally true that you have to be doubly vigilant when confronting
details you don't understand and make sure the reporter does.
One of the advantages of investigative work is more time to
gets the facts straight and to write, although in the current era of
cutbacks, team members are probably also doing other work as well,
and the high pressure remains. It ain't easy.
2. I take it the article was prepared by an investigative team. The
temperment adopted by members of such teams often puts them into
a tough position and can make objective work difficult. Why?
Because the investigation is motivated
by evidence that somebody is doing somethin' wrong out there. As
a reporter, you have to steel yourself in order to put your
skepticism down in front of you like a snowplow and charge ahead.
And by the nature of the investigation, the weight of the reporting
and writing is going to fall into "what's wrong" with the subject.
3. The presentation of the material and the style of the writing clearly
indicate an intention to portray the net in a certain light. To
the reader, this Internet thing sounds immediately like an
extension of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Unfortunately, a lot of journalism - print and broadcast - often seems
to be produced simply to haul in the reader. And the lead of this
article surely does that. (And there is a mighty tug o'war underway
between editors/news directors and the business side as a result.)
4. "Were I the editor...": (a selected critique-in-hindsight)
- "the world's most sophisticated pornography ring" How do we know
that? Compared to what? What does this mean? "pornography ring"
carries real serious weight with it.
{ CATALOG OF EROTIC ART AND LITERATURE !! GROWS DAILY!! }
- the description of the Internet is buried too far down for the
reader to understand what in blazes Joe is writing about (other
than federally-funded porn). The graph describing how the nets
are linked needs to be much higher, in order for the reader to
have proper context.
- the Internet is presented as a singular lump of equi-connections;
(Steve Wolff does not, for instance, "oversee the Internet for the
NSF," [much as the image of Network Grandee may suit him... :) ]
What about the other federal agency networks?
{ HUNDREDS OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT STORIES AND PICTURES !! }
- so far as I know, the material is not "accessible to any reasonably
experienced computer user" - not without privilages on a host with
access to the net. (The implication is that any 12-year old can get
to it through Prodigy.)
- "the most significant technological innovation since the telephone"
How so? Who said that?
{ ALT
SEX
BEASTIALITY !!! }
- "experts no longer know the full extent of Internet, its value,
or who is using it for what..." 10 million users? $400 million
about to be spent on it? And nobody knows what it's good for?
Are you sure about that? Who says so.
{ Beastiality ??? Good Lord. }
- "up to 10 million people" is not even close to numbers that would
have been available from trade mags or via a phone call to
NSF's Grandee of the Internet.
{ VOLUMINOUS PORNOGRAPHY!!...
ADVISE ON RECREATIONAL DRUGS!!
SATANISM !!
PAGANISM !!
SEX SLAVES !! }
- "activity on Internet probably violates state and federal obscenity
laws, said Russel Turbeville...Harris Co. DA's office"
Was this person aware of the Internet before we contacted him?
"...probably..." violates? How so?
- "erotic stories posted in installments...chapters from a published novel"
Which novel? writer? publisher? What's the outcome?
- "Internet's capacity to support hidden theft of services"
Isn't this an overstatement of the problem of copyright violation
that arises in this medium?
- "x-rated pictures....scanned in...violation of copyright law"
Isn't this covered under fair use? Are they being re-sold?
- "MIT's electronic library....one of the world's most capable
instruments of pornography".............................
{ INSTRUMENT OF PORNOGRAPHY ! ! }
And in Outbursts to the Editor:
"We the experts hereby decide not to talk to yon scribe, else
he paint our picture faire n'gentle-like."
- no reporter in his or her right mind is going to let you see
the writing that's come out of conversations with you and/or
anybody else done in preparation for a story. If you don't care
to talk, that's fine. In the
event you play a role in a story (even if you aren't
aware you do), the writer will be able to say, "so-and-so
declined to comment for this article."
I am regularly chagrined at how little Americans understand
the role of the press. This is not like selling barbells
or automobiles, after all. Admittedly, the interest in
accepting the role of reporting and publishing is often
slapped silly when you or one of your interests seems to
be treated badly. But we can't give up on what the press
is supposed to be doing. Hold the writer and his editor to
to the fire. Editors don't like to hear that their reporters
didn't come close to an accurate portrayal.
The tone of the Abernathy article illustrates how important it is for
the other stories about the online community to get out. The fact that
some reporters and papers will focus on the "grimy" side of anything is
already well known. Did anyone write a letter to the editor of the
Chronicle at the time, offering to show what else is going on in the
net? It's not guaranteed to do anything more than put a little message in
the corner of the editor's mind, and it could do more.
Barry Shein writes that "there are dozens of high-tech journalists
and publications..." The problem is making the case for the lo-tech,
no-tech journalists (if there are any left) and their decidedly lo-tech
readers.
| Taylor Walsh
| Capital Online
------------------
| taylor@capital.com
------------------
| 202-466-0522
