"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
-- A.J. Liebling----
Over the last several weeks, I have been
under a coordinated attack from multiple
reporters from multiple news organizations.
According to these reporters, I have been
secretly consulting for Network Solutions,
and my failure to reveal this relationship
has seriously compromised my credibility
in these debates.
One such reporter was Dan Goodin of CNET's
News.com.
Of course, he was mistaken. I *have* revealed
my relationship, it has been *widely* discussed
on the open lists, and I have even copied these
discussions to my private press list of over
*150* reporters.
Curiously enough, however, during the course
of our many day exchange, Dan revealed some
*very* interesting information:
- He has not been reading my postings anyway,
so there was no way he would have seen my
disclosures.
- He coordinates information with multiple
"reporters at other nationionally-distributed
publications" (who also apparantly don't read
my postings).
When you combine these comments, with the virtual
black-out of the Internet Governance implications
of ICANN and this debate, and you have a media
conspiracy that supports this illegal and immoral
take-over of the Internet.
This is not a new topic. Janet Kornblum and I
have had many exchanges about the biased coverage
at News.com. And even though she's moved on to
greener pastures, News.com is still one of the
most biased news sources in this debate.
For those who do not know, there will be a Congressional
Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?"
It is scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.
http://www.house.gov/commerce
With this email, I am hereby notifying News.com
that I will be monitoring their coverage of these
hearings, and any bias in their coverage will be
widely reported and distributed by yours truly.
Those involved in these debates are well aware
of the way that the Internet can change the world.
Fighting a media bias that supports the takeover of
the Internet should be our first order of business.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
P.S. Dan said "you should remind reporters of
your relationship with NSI from time to time."
Ok Dan, this one's for you ;-)
Once again, for the record, I've had an on again,
off again consulting relationship with NSI for
less than *one* year. I've been involved in
the debate for *two* and a half years!
Furthermore, my consulting for NSI is for a one
way flow of information -- from me to them. They
have never told me what to say, and I have never
spoken on their behalf. Every comment I have ever
made in this debate has been my own, including
this email.
P.P.S. This is not the first time that I've
had to go public with my suspicions of media
bias. Here's one from the archives:
>Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 03:27:00 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> NOTE ==> This posting is being made part of the public
> record so that historians can better understand the forces
> that contributed to the foundations of Internet governance.
>
> It is also being copied to my private press list, which
> includes over 50 reporters that have been covering the
> Domain Name debate. Most of the major papers of record,
> news, and wire services are on this list.
>
> At some point in the future, this press list may also be
> made part of the public record.
>
>
>Last week, Reuters carried an Article titled:
>
> "EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>I quickly wrote an email to the editor because I thought the
>article was misleading and biased. Specifically, the title
>implied that the European Union had made some critical comments
>to the U.S. Government, yet the article was really just a bunch
>of critical comments from Don Heath, president of the ISOC.
>
>I went on to question his qualifications to speak for the
>entire European Union, and pointed out that he was one of the
>lead architects of the IAHC plan, now more formally known as
>the gTLD-MoU.
>
>I went on to applaud their coverage of this important topic,
>and suggested a more *balanced* coverage of the U.S. Green
>Paper process.
>
>Finally, I referenced a recent Green Paper proceeding that
>described in detail some very serious problems that exist today
>in Internet management, and some equally serious suggestions on
>some ways to improve them in the new IANA, Inc.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Iperdome.htm
>
>The following day, a Yahoo search showed that Reuters had
>changed the title of their article to:
>
> "INTERVIEW-EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>Unfortunately, this is an example of too little, too late.
>The original title had already been copied in hundreds of
>news outlets throughout the world, including News.com and Wired.
>
>Today, Associate Press ran an article titled:
>
> "White House to release new Internet management plan soon"
>
>While it is more accurate and less biased than the Reuters
>piece, it still fails to cover the real story behind this
>debate, nor the potentially profound implications of its
>outcome.
>
>So, while the U.S. Government trys to find serious solutions to
>some serious problems, the press has resorted to covering this
>debate from the ISOC perspective. Why?
>
>I don't know. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge. Maybe it's due
>to a powerful PR campaign. Whatever the reason, it may have a
>profound impact on our collective futures, and should be part
>of the public record.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
> -- A.J. Liebling----
