At 05:54 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
>>At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
>>>
>>>> My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
>>>> Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
>>>> that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter
>>>> must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA,
>>>> from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
>>>> IFWP.
>>>
>>>That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the
>>>press is not educated enought to deal with the issues.
>>>
>>>We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number
>>>of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server
>>>admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing
>>>happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them
>>>had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious
>>>vulnerabilities.
>>>
>>
>>No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand
>>about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move
>>around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the
>>same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists.
>>
>>Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
>>
>>"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
>>functions from NSF to NTIA,
>>from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
>>IFWP."
>
>
>Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it.
>
>We are not talking about rocket science
>here, although framing the debate as the
>exploration of the size of a UDP packet
>certainly supports your claim.
>
>Bottom line, the story about ICANN is
>very simple: It's about the establishment
>of a governance body over the Internet, one
>that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up
>consensus building process, one that *isn't*!
>
>Show me *one* story written from this
>perspective that has made its way out
>to the broad audience of the general
>daily newspapers, and I'll admit that
>I was mistaken.
I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means
exhaustive!
I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with
writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved,
explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then
get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would.
I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested
last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back
shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this
subject" etc.
He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then
shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At
that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length.
Nick
>Anxiously awaiting your reply . . .
>
>Jay.
>
>
>>Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the
>>acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It
>>makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to
>>extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces
>>with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news
>>feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going
>>to happen, it goes against their model.
>>
>>Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that
>>doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so
>>fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present
>>and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days).
>>Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often
>>rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two
>>exceptions from time to time.
>>
>>What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not
>>the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say.
>>There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest
>>of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them.
>>
>>There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way
>>that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>>Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the
>>>problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon.
>>>The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of
>
>>>understanding the issues.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Jeff Mason
>>>
>>>--
>>>Planet Communication & Computing Facility
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext.
>1033
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________
>>Nick Patience
>>Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc
>>T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463
>>http://www.computerwire.com
>>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>-----------------------------------------------
>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
_______________________________
Nick Patience
Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc
T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463
http://www.computerwire.com
