Press Scrutiny

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

Over the last several weeks, I have made a coordinate
effort to point out the extreme bias the press has 
exhibited in their coverage of the ICANN fracas.

First, I revealed some exchanges that I had with a 
reporter at News.com who admitted that the press was 
coordinating their coverage, and how they were biasing 
their stories to make them favorable to ICANN.

Then, I summarized four theories why the press may be 
supporting this illegal and immoral takeover of the 
Internet.

Subsequently, I highlighted the few news outlets who
were willing to publish the "untold" story about ICANN.  
These include:
   http://www.searchz.com/Articles/0831994.shtml
   http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_36/b3645101.htm
   http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html
   http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue280/item6052.asp
   http://www.rain.org/~openmind/icann.htm
   http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5166/1.html

Unfortunately, for the most part, the vast majority
of media outlets are continuing their blackout.  [Is 
it any wonder that the reach of Network News is about 
half of what it used to be?]

But people are starting to ask questions.  

And rightly so!

What follows is an exchange between an angry Netizen
(one that, as far as I know, has never been involved 
in the debate before), and a large media outlet:

[The names have been removed to protect the private
nature of this exchange]


At 12:00 PM 9/4/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>Hello Everyone,
>
>I'm not sure why I've been added here, but I 
>suspect that it is due to my repeated claims 
>of media bias, and my repeated claims of a 
>blackout of the "true" story about ICANN.  
>
>So, FWIW, here's my two cents:
>
>During my two and a half years of active
>involvement in the Internet Governance debate,
>I've had the opportunity to work with virtually
>every news outlet, and over 200 reporters who
>have covered the debate at one time or another.
>
>In many ways, I share [Netizen]'s sense of outrage
>over the extremely biased coverage that ICANN
>has received.  Not only have the implications
>of ICANN been widely under-reported, but some 
>publications like News.com, ZiffDavis, and
>Reuters have been so blatantly biased, that
>their stories border on fiction.
>
>While I am not a subscriber to [Media Outlet],
>and I have not read any of their recent 
>coverage, historically I have found [Media Outlet]
>and [Reporter] to be among the *most* 
>balanced in their coverage of these issues.
>
>Of course, this being the Internet, [Netizen]'s
>claims can be easily verified.  Unfortunately,
>the for-fee nature of [Media Outlet] makes this 
>difficult.  Perhaps [Reporter] can post those
>articles that he feels addresses [Netizen]'s 
>concerns.
>
>In closing, the ICANN story must be told.  
>And slowly, thanks to input like [Netizen]'s, the 
>story is getting out.  Here's a list of current 
>articles that tell the "untold" story, and are 
>finally seeing the light of day:
>   http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_36/b3645101.htm
>   http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html

>   http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue280/item6052.asp
>   http://www.rain.org/~openmind/icann.htm
>   http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5166/1.html
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.    770-392-9480
>-----------------------------------------------
>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)
>
>
>At 01:46 AM 9/4/99 , [Reporter] wrote:
>>[Netizen]:
>>Looking back into the archives, all I can say is that you may be reading
>>headlines,
>>and not the text. If you are reading the text, then one of us is having
>>some trouble
>>with the English language, and I'll wager I'm not the one.
>>
>>Maybe you don't see these specifics in my articles, but you might check out
>>[Reporter2]'s articles, since once we hired him, I gave him the ICANN
>>beat.
>>You're obviously overlooking something because we did cover all these
>>things.
>>
>>You also should note that we will quote anyone who is relevant to the
>>issue, even if they do not agree with you.
>>
>>Maybe your problem with the articles is that we did not bias them in favor
>>of
>>Network Solutions, for whom you obviously are an apologist. In fact, we
>>don't
>>bias in favor of ICANN or in favor of Network Solutions, or Tom Bliley, or
>>Esther
>>Dyson or anyone. We are an objective news source that reports on things
>>that
>>happen. You obviously want a [Media Outlet]-style Cook Report, and you're not
>>going to get that here. Instead, you'll get dispassionate facts. That's
>>the whole idea
>>of news.
>>
>>Do me a favor and check your facts before making half-baked accusations.
>>
>>By the way, for whom in this debate are you carrying water? That might be
>>a rhetorical
>>question.
>>
>>[Reporter]
>>
>>ps - I should point out that I welcome your attack, because it does allow
>>me to
>>police my own work and the work of my bureau - after all, you could have
>>been
>>right, but after doing my own searching, I know you're not. Don't let that
>>stop you,
>>however.
>>
>>
>>[Netizen] wrote:
>>>
>>>I beg your pardon... I checked your archives.. I saw nothing in detail
>>>regarding the collusion between ICANN and the DOJ to pressure and
>>>discredit
>>>Network Solutions. I saw nothing in detail regarding the congressional
>>>hearings where Mr. Daniels of Network Solutions, looking back , told the
>>>truth  and the ICANN & the DOC people clearly distorted the facts. This
>>>distortion by ICANN & the DOC was quickly noticed by several congressman.
>>>Yet, I find nothing in your archives about the deception clearly
>>>demonstrated by the ICANN & DOC officials.. Why??????????
>>>I saw nothing on how ICANN said there would be no more behind closed door
>>>meetings,, Then closed their doors and gave Network Solutions only one
>>>seat
>>>on their board instead of the two they committed to earlier. No matter
>>>which
>>>way you paint it, they did not tell the truth.. This is clearly public
>>>knowledge, but when I read your articles, I see a blind eye focused on

>>>these
>>>clearly evident happenings.. Network Solutions is an excellent company
>>>that
>>>, in the beginning of the net, contracted with the DOC to implement a
>>>domain
>>>name system. It is apparent they did an outstanding job..  They risk
>>>hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and grow one of the best run
>>>companies on the net. Yet, ICANN thinks, now that they are bringing other
>>>companies into the domain name space, these companies should not pay for
>>>that risk, as Network Solution did.. And all under the name of fair
>>>competition.. I saw nothing in detail in your archives  about congressman
>>>Bliley's findings regarding ICANN's $1 tax on each domain name
>>>registered...
>>>That tax, ICANN calls it a user fee, would have went through, if it were
>>>not
>>>for congressman Bliley... On that point, this tax would represent over 10
>>>million dollars per year, which will increase about 10 million per year
>>>for
>>>the next ten years.. For what?? There is no added value brought to the
>>>table
>>>by ICANN, and anyone knowledgeable on this issue knows that!!!! Why not
>>>report on that?? ICANN's operation and tactics are quite evident to the
>>>peop
>>>le that follow this debate closely.. I just do not see that reported in
>>>your
>>>articles... Why??? Today, there are businesses that are contributing large
>>>sums of money to cover ICANN's enormous expenses they have incurred over
>>>the
>>>past few months. Why??? I'll tell you why. Those same companies may, at a
>>>some later date, have their people on ICANN's board.. All bought by
>>>money!!!! Do you not see a problem here ???????? Do you not deem this to
>>>be
>>>news worthy???Cisco and Sun Microsystems having their people influencing
>>>the
>>>domain name space. They bring no value to the the table,, ONLY MONEY !!!!
>>>Why not report on this???
>>>
>>>I only ask you to report fairly and truthfully. There are two sides here.
>>>I
>>>only read about ICANN's side from your articles. Network Solution is the
>>>only one in this whole mess that has demonstrated intregity throughout.
>>>Yet,
>>>when I read your articles, they are the ones that are always getting the
>>>negative one-sided reports..
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank You..
>>>
>>>[Netizen]
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>> [Netizen] - thanks for writing. If you check our archives, you'll notice that
>>>> we've reported -- exhaustively --
>>>> every single side of the ICANN debate, possibly more fairly than most
>>>> other news organizations.
>>>> [Reporter]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks for reading...
>>>> >
>>>> >[Netizen]



Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.    770-392-9480
-----------------------------------------------
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)