[8347] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: WSJ Technology supplement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael McCulley)
Mon Nov 15 19:18:55 1993
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 16:02:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael McCulley <mcculley@is.internic.net>
To: Dave Hughes <dave@oldcolo.com>
Cc: Christopher Locke <clocke@panix.com>, compriv <com-priv@psi.com>
In-Reply-To: <m0ozDZy-000A36C@oldcolo.com>
David,
I concur. They missed the vision, the coming-together, the telecommunications
and computer revolution rolling down the pike....
Re: the "Who Ya Gonna Call?" Insert/Box on Page R6 of _WSJ_ 11/15/93:
Item: This section mentioned our InterNIC Reference Desk and published
our 800-number for starter help was listed under a big bold heading
_BULLETIN BOARDS_. Wrong, and incorrect to list us there.
Item: Under the big bold heading for _ON-LINE SERVICES_ were listings for
AOL, CIS, GENIE, and some others --all correct. They also listed here PSI
(Performance Systems International), The World from Software Tool & Die,
and Delphi. I thought these were service/access providers.
I didn't get the impression the writer(s) and editor(s) knew much if
anything about the networked world, and relied on the author of this
section (not on _WSJ_ staff) to have his facts correct.
I still want the national media to get the facts straight, from newspapers
to _Time_ and _Newsweek_. They reach important audiences, users, etc. and
we should expect them to get it right.
P. Michael McCulley, MLS
Reference Desk Supervisor/Librarian mcculley@is.internic.net
InterNIC Information Services
General Atomics
1-800-444-4345 / InterNIC Reference Desk
1-619-455-3905 / Direct - Voice Mail
1-619-455-4640 / FAX
On Mon, 15 Nov 1993, Dave Hughes wrote:
> >
> > Today's Wall Street Journal carries an entire section devoted to
> > online services, the Internet prominent among them.
> >
> > Is it just me, or did others notice a certain leaning to report
> > on the addictive, prurient, aggressive, trivial and
> > difficult-to-use aspects of the net? I learned, among other
> > things, that gopher is one of the most challenging of Internet
> > services, and that it is basically a library card catalog
> > system.
> >
> >.....
>
> Are we seeing confirmation here that the Journal perceives the
> > net as competition, and is positioning itself against the
> > inevitable attrition of readers it expects to this new medium?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > chris
> >
> > I read the entire WSJ section on 'Wired' Technology, and found
> it was very uneven. While a few pieces had some solid new information
> (like 40% of current PC owners have modems, up from %25 a couple years
> ago, and the numbers for gross business and projections) there were
> just too many personal-anecdotal pieces. I am getting mighty tired of
> reporters for national publications going online, and reporting their
> personal reactions to the medium, getting flamed, lost, finding a
> nugget or two, and palming that off as reporting. Like a reporter doing
> a national story on cocaine by sniffing some and reporting how it
> feels.
> So whether that is from an editorial nee publisher biases and
> fears, or from the lack of reporters who really have been on line widely
> enough to have perspective, I don't know. But the LAST place I will
> refer people to learn what this medium is all about, is to general national
> publications. I thought the WSJ, viewing it from an emerging serious
> business sector, would have done better.
> Of course virtually no US computer magazines have ever gotton it
> right yet either, so I guess its in its nature.
> For example, I didn't catch a reference to the current trend in
> publications going online, spending serious bucks doing it - as Time and
> several others have on AOL - complete with reporter/editor participation in
> feedback conferences, LA Times on Prodigy (?), others on CIS etc. A recent
> and fast moving trend. Overlooked by the WSJ reporters?
> Good coverage of the failure in Europe and Japan to join in,
> putting them years behind the US in networking of all types.
> But nothing of broad value about the looming 'convergences' of
> cable, telco, wireless with the nets. Potentially the biggest revolution.
> Just some isolated examples.
>
>
>
>
