Gordon,
> whew..... kerry, I generally think you remarks are pretty
> reasonable but isn't jay damned if he does and damned if he
> doesn't by your remarks about.... we hear that the story is so
> complex that most editors won't touch it, yet when jay pares it
> down to its essentials you come back and say you might not run it
> because he oversimplifies things?
The question in the mind on anyone who works with what we can
call *balance is whether a submission makes the job easier or
more difficult. If its a complicated issue, then the overall trend of
coverage has to continually work towards bringing the complexities
out -- or else they never get balanced, and the vehicle develops a
'bias.' The tendency to oversimply is perfectly natural and
understandable, but excess in one direction is no easier to balance
than excess in the other -- and in fact its often more difficult to
bring in complexity once people get a simple picture in their head.
So I agree that Jay is doing pretty well by his responsibilities, of
acknowledging that he not only sees what is going on but has an
understanding of it which deserves to be expressed for others to
share. (That's more than some others are doing, despite their
apparently endless time for sniping and jibing and quibbling.) My
caution was only to the effect that throwing in 'red' flags
gratuitously and rather obviously, I thought, as an afterthought,
probably does his case for publication more harm than good.
Sure, if there are political ramifications to a story, dont deny they
are there; leave pointers to them on which to hang another story,
or another chapter, or whatever -- dont just plaster a label on them
and pretend that you've dealt with them.
===========
Jay wrote,
> When you look at all of the coverage provided
> to ICANN over the last couple of weeks, you will
> find that virtually all of the stories have been
> framed as a fight between ICANN's mission to bring
> competition to the name space, and NSI's desire to
> hold on to their monopoly (see below).
When Esther launched the public exposure in response to Jamie
Love's letter (was it in May?), she intentionally pitched it just that
way. That would have been the best time for a serious media
counter-exposure, if the budding journalists among us had been
ready for it. (As it was, I think we were all flabbergasted!)
Now that that stage has been set, you may see that my
comment about oversimplification is as germane there as to your
own piece -- and that generally speaking, your hypothesised 'media
bias' or blackout is nothing more than the logical consequence of
this kind of PR: the *easy was to combat simplicity is with still
greater simplicity: its a race to the bottom. Public journalism aims
at the mind of a 15 year old, and I dare say the target is set lower
every year. The job you're buying into is one of the toughest on
earth: to wake people up to their own capabilities, their own power
to interpret facts and draw conclusions. If you can do that in a
simple way, more power to you -- but I would not be very optimistic.
So whats a journalist to do? One way to balance excess simplicity
is to spread the complexity very thin (have you seen Ken Auletta's
coverage of the MS antitrust case?): a series, for instance, instead
of one-shot articles.
> The really important issues are those that
> transcend the Network Solutions monopoly --
> those that will remain after the NSI monopoly
> is devolved.
Quite so -- forget this momentary hassle, and start *framing* the
debate that is going to issue after Santiago, after 10 Sep, after etc.
It's only just been 4 years, after all, since NSI started charging
registration fees (*that anyone noticed* - who cared about cost-plus
government contract payments?) -- the concrete is a long way from
set up, and I dont see anybody pulling the forms off just yet.
> If these media outlets were sincere, however,
> they would simply publish "the other perspectives."
> But alas, when all is said and done, their coverage
> has not changed.
Your pessimism is showing ;-) Have you considered that what
writers, editors, publishers want is a *story*? War reports are
meaningless until one knows what one is (supposed to be) fighting
for.
===
As it happens, Jamie has just written,
> It is becoming clear that ICANN is an entirely new system of
> governance for the Internet.
...
> When we talk about "self governance," we need to begin to talk about
> who is the "self" and what is the "governance." We are inventing a new
> world government for cyberspace, but we are not creating a new world
> democracy in cyberspace, and this is the problem.
Now, is 'reinventing government' a story? Is the array of
approaches -- including utter Usenet-type chaos -- that have
emerged to this perplexity a story? Does the "new system of
reportage"under the Net influence tell us anything about the new
system of governance? (Its the 4th Estate, after all)
For that matter, who is 'we'? Who is *not being counted when
ICANN or WIPO or CTP or yourself use this pronoun -- is there a
story there, or just a rant?
Good judgement is that fine line between complication and
reductionism.
kerry
