[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
More Bias from Reuters?
- To: Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: More Bias from Reuters?
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:31:59 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <Version.email@example.com>
- References: <19990817020819.AAC4098@LOCALNAME><19990816210011.DED32F04F@ns1.vrx.net>
Either NSI has drastically changed positions,
or Reuter's is once again employing bias in
their coverage of the ICANN process!
Here's a recent Reuter's story:
>The process has been delayed by wrangling over fees and database
>access between the Commerce Department, Network Solutions Inc. and
>the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),
>that is meant to oversee the new structure.
Here's a slightly older Inter@ctive Week story:
>For its part, NSI has steadfastly refused to recognize ICANN,
>claiming that the organization is overly secret, is illegally
>taxing Netizens and is demanding onerous concessions in its
>accreditation contracts with registrars.
For those who missed it the first time around,
here is a description of "framing", and how it
is used to hide the real story from the masses:
At 11:14 AM 8/17/99 , Jay Fenello 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).
>That's like covering the trees in a forest,
>but never talking about the forest.
>The really important issues are those that
>transcend the Network Solutions monopoly --
>those that will remain after the NSI monopoly
>Framing the story as above gives the casual
>reader a mistaken impression of the debate
>that we are all actively involved in. To
>find out more about framing, please see
>"HOW THE MEDIA FRAMES POLITICAL ISSUES."
>Here are some excerpts:
>A frame is the central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events
>and suggesting what is at issue. Since electoral accountability is the
>foundation of representative democracy, the public must be able to
>establish who is responsible for social problems. Yet the news media
>systematically filter the issues and deflect blame from the establishment
>by framing the news as "only a passing parade of specific events, a
>`context of no context.' This "prevents the public from cumulating the
>evidence toward any logical, ultimate consequence."
>The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda
>of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by
>any law. It determines what people will talk and think about - an authority
>that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.
>First . . . objectivity in journalism is biased in favor of the status quo;
>it is inherently conservative to the extent that it encourages reporters to
>rely on what sociologist Alvin Gouldner so appropriately describes as the
>`managers of the status quo' - the prominent and the elite. Second,
>objective reporting is biased against independent thinking; it emasculates
>the intellect by treating it as a disinterested spectator. Finally,
>objective reporting is biased against the very idea of responsibility; the
>day's news is viewed as something journalists are compelled to report, not
>something they are responsible for creating. . . . What objectivity has
>brought about, in short, is a disregard for the consequences of newsmaking.
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)