Jay,
You really don't get it, do you? The Reuters story is about ICANN dropping
the $1 fee and opening up its board meetings. I don't think the journalist
set out to examine the history or future of the namespace.
When people start shouting about media bias you wonder how long it is before
they start claiming that the journalists are being controlled by secret rays
from space.
Get real - this is standard journalism.
Ivan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 July 1999 07:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther Dyson;
> Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IFWP] Media Bias - Reuters
>
>
>
>
> Over the past couple of days, I've written
> about the existence of media bias at several
> news outlets, and how it is being coordinated
> to support the takeover of the Internet.
>
> For those who missed yesterday's posting,
> media bias is when one particular point of
> view is presented repeatedly, with a larger
> distribution, and broader coverage, than
> another.
>
> Tomorrow, there is a hearing being held by the
> House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
> This committee is going to hear diverse testimony,
> including complaints that ICANN has lied, cheated,
> and ignored its own by-laws in pursuit of their
> agenda to take over the Internet.
>
> Instead of some hard hitting coverage of these
> issues, we get more biased reporting from Reuters:
>
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/wr/story.html?s=v/nm/19990720/wr/intern
et_fee_2.html
Notice how the article has been written as if
only two complaints have been raised about ICANN.
Also notice how those two complaints have already
been addressed by ICANN. The reader is left with
the impression that ICANN has fixed all of its
problems, with funding as its only remaining issue
(to lay the groundwork for U.S. Government funding,
no doubt).
So why is Reuters downplaying the many other
complaints over ICANN?
These proceedings have the potential to impact every
Netizen on the planet, with issues as diverse as
access, privacy, freedom of speech, taxation without
representation, etc. -- for a very long time to come.
So why is Reuters downplaying the importance
of these hearings?
I don't know, but it certainly is media bias in my
book. And it is just another example of the bias
that I've detected in media coverage over my two
and a half years of involvement in these debates.
Tomorrow, I will be attending these hearings to
get a first hand view of the proceedings. And as
usual, my coverage will be admittedly biased.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
