[12313] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: C&S&NYT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chetly A. Zarko)
Sun May 15 23:10:27 1994
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 01:35 EDT
From: czar@cyberspace.org (Chetly A. Zarko)
To: com-priv@psi.com, czar@cyberspace.org, willis@cs.tamu.edu
Cc: czar@cyberspace.org
Willis Marti writes:
I think you miss both points -- the first is, Is he *anywhere* on the net as a
'regular' user? ; the second is that rarely does one need to defend against
every flame. One or two good replies {if they could be made} or apologies, if
applicable, would go a long way. [He being Mr. Lewis]
No, I don't think I missed the points. I don't see how the
question of whether Lewis is anywhere on the is relevant. Does
he have to be on the net to report about the net? Do I have
to be on White House staff to report about WH staff activities?
Or do I have to be in Iraq to report or editorialize about the
war? Or actually in the crowd where the President gives
a particular speech? To suggest he has to be a regular
net user to report on it is take a very elitist approach to
net access and discourse.
Second, what if the good replies couldn't be made briefly
and why assume apologies. The basic question of advertising
on the net is one of opinion and political angle about the
role of private and commercial speech in our society. Why
apologize about basic political opinions. Every journalistic
effort takes facts (hopefully it reports them fairly and
accurately) and arranges them in an order that reflects the
journalists initial basic assumptions.
That brings me to your last point where you suggest he should
write "better other pieces" rather than more. Your opinion of
whether it is better or not is equally affected by your assumptions.
Journalism is encountering the same internal debate with the
Whitewater affair. To even report on it is to cast a set of
initial assumptions and to have an effect on public opinion that
some people don't like. The agenda setting power of the media
is both good and bad, but it probably won't go away for a while
until, ironically, the media becomes more decentralized through lowered
communications costs. *We* are currently involved in that process, right
here on the Internet. That's the good news from your perspective.
I suspect that the the bad, from your perspective, is that advertising
won't disappear with the decline of print and broadcast media.
(I agree that it should be regulated, but I am not sure how and to
what extent, yet; and I know it shouldn't be banned). Perhaps
the most powerful regulatator of advertising will be the
power of recipients to peacefully and legally protest it and
the power of private board owners to regulate it as they see fit.
Chetly Zarko
Freelance writer
Ypsilanti, Michigan
