RE: Theories on Media Bias

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 04:06 PM 8/22/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>Jay,
>
>Um, haven't you realized that very few people care about this stuff very
>much?  


Hi Antony,

I've realized that very few people are even
*aware* of this stuff due to a media blackout 
that has effectively prevented people from 
learning about the true nature of the ICANN 
debate.


>That's why there's the same old tired crap on these lists (how many
>subscribers are there?).  The fact that you care about it passionately adds
>up to a big "so what" in the press.


The press bills themselves as the voice of 
neutrality, as an "objective" news source,
as the deliverer of "all the news that's
fit to print".

Unfortunately, in this case, their bias is 
all to easy to see and document.  

For example, we have had about 1000 participants 
involved in the DNS wars since the U.S. Government 
got involved.  A large number of these people have 
considered this process as the establishment 
of Internet Governance.

Where has the press told their readership
about this?

THEY HAVEN"T, AND THAT"S MY COMPLAINT!!!

Who is making these decisions on behalf of
every news reader in the western world?

How are these decisions being made and
coordinated?

I don't know, but the media blackout
continues.


>They have to sell their reporting, which means that customers have to want
>to buy it.


This is a tired old excuse.

Show me one study that supports your claim
that, a media outlet that presents BOTH sides 
in a dispute is *LESS* likely to be purchased 
by consumers!


>Did it ever occur to you that ICANN is old news, that NSI is old news, and
>that to the extent it is not old, it is boring?


Is the establishment of Global Internet Governance
"old news"?  Is the media blackout of this "old news"?
Is the corruption in this process "old news"?

This *IS* a big story, one that the media simply 
refuses to cover.  I wonder why?


>"Man accuses ICANN of bias, claims substantiation."  If you're an editor and

>run with that story, you'd get fired for publishing the yawn of the century.


I am suggesting no such headline, only that
the press has a moral obligation to present
both sides in this debate, or publicly state
that their papers are admittedly biased, and
that they actively censor their news.

If they don't, then IMHO, they are guilty 
of the worst kind of false advertising and 
consumer fraud.


>When there is an announcement that new gTLDs are going to get added to the
>root, the press will wake up and that will be the time to let them all know
>about your important discoveries.


By then, it will be too late :-(

Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 

"All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is 
ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, 
it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)


>Antony
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:owner-domain-policy@INTERNIC.NET]On
>>Behalf Of TOM GABLE
>>Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 8:37 PM
>>To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>>Subject: Re: Theories on Media Bias
>>
>>
>>At 01:43 PM 08/16/1999 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>>It's been exactly one month since I first went
>>>public with my suspicions that the media was
>>>suppressing the story about ICANN.
>>
>>>First, I reported how one of the most biased
>>>news sources in the ICANN debate had admitted to
>>>coordinating information with multiple "reporters
>>>at other nationally-distributed publications."
>>>
>>>Then, I revealed the techniques of media bias by
>>>giving some examples from News.com, ZiffDavis, and
>>>Reuters.  After revealing this blatant bias, I often
>>>asked: "I wonder why?"