eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) (12/09/88)
In article <6023@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <5999@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) had written: >>The press already has most people who've heard of bulletin boards >>convinced that only white supremacists and child molesters use them; > >In article <1942@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) has written: >>*Who* is disseminating this info? >> >>My wife has even heard the latter ("it's how they get in touch with >>other, and share ideas and methods, etc."). She won't say where she >>heard it... > >"The mass media". Meaning: network television news, the major >newsweeklies, and the wire services. I haven't been hearing it much >lately, but about three years ago it was quite common, and as your wife >shows, such first impressions leave a lasting effect. I fear the >Richmond action may lead to a resurgence. Allegedly the mass media is disseminating incorrect information about various electronic communications media (USENET and bulletin boards included.) Let's sit back a moment and think of potential reasons why they would do such a thing, and then see if there is something we could do about them. For a start, I can see two reasons for this alleged occurence: One: Ignorance. News professionals do not know about USENET and bulletin boards, and if they did, they couldn't understand them anyway. Computer professionals often flatter themselves into thinking that they hold some special 'magical' ability to understand the uses of their computers that 'mere mortals' could not possible achieve. This, more often than not, leads to a condescending attitude towards non-techies on or off USENET. Take a look around you. Computers are being used everywhere by non-computer professionals, ESPECIALLY THE NEWS MEDIA! As far as the news professionals are concerned, I don't see this argument holding water, although it seems prevalent out there in net-land. Any comment from news professionals out there? Two: Power. The news professionals wield incredible power over people through their control of the mass media. People talking to each other limits the news professionals' power, and increases that of the average person. Since USENET and bulletin boards are not controlled by news professionals, they cannot wield their power over them (except by trying to give them a bad name in their own media.) Also, in this country, at least, power == money. News Professionals may see themselves loosing money, (in the form of lost subscriptions, etc.) to entities such as USENET. Although it seems premature to start yelling conspiracy, we may be seeing the leading edge of a very dangerous trend. Any comments? Is there anything we can do about it? -- Eric J. Johnson, Amperif Corporation. UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP Perhaps, once upon a time, some Devilish hacker planted a bomb deep in the human brain such that it would only trigger upon a certain thought passing through the mind... Perhaps this explains spontaneous human combu*****
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (12/10/88)
In article <885@hdr.UUCP> eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) writes: | . . . For a start, I can see two reasons for this |alleged occurence: | | One: Ignorance. News professionals do not know about USENET |and bulletin boards, and if they did, they couldn't understand them anyway. | |Computer professionals often flatter themselves into thinking that |they hold some special 'magical' ability to understand the uses of their |computers that 'mere mortals' could not possible achieve. |This, more often than not, leads to a condescending attitude towards |non-techies on or off USENET. Take a look around you. Computers are being |used everywhere by non-computer professionals, ESPECIALLY THE NEWS |MEDIA! . . . Yes, computers are everywhere, and people use them as tools. But what they don't understand, most of them, are networks. I believe computer communications media like Usenet go way beyond what a user who does his or her newpaper article or checkbook on a computer might comprehend. Communications to them is dialling a number to download the stock market data or upload the article. /JBL UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
kean@tank.uchicago.edu (keane arase) (12/10/88)
In article <885@hdr.UUCP> eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) writes: [Previous Postings deleted] > For a start, I can see two reasons for this >alleged occurence: > > One: Ignorance. News professionals do not know about USENET >and bulletin boards, and if they did, they couldn't understand them anyway. > (Stuff deleted about how we flatter ourselves :-) > > Two: Power. The news professionals wield incredible power over people >through their control of the mass media. People talking to each other >limits the news professionals' power, and increases that of the average person. > (More reasonable argument deleted) > >Any comments? Is there anything we can do about it? > >-- >Eric J. Johnson, Amperif Corporation. UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP >Perhaps, once upon a time, some Devilish hacker planted a bomb deep in the >human brain such that it would only trigger upon a certain thought passing >through the mind... Perhaps this explains spontaneous human combu***** How about this? Give a major newspaper(s) a feed to usenet. Let them (or a particular reporter) run around reading the news. I'm sure they will find: 1) a wealth of knowledgeable people, 2) a great source for diversified opinions 3) a gathering of people interested in a particular field (i.e. rec.guns, soc.*, macintoshes, ibm's, unix, etc.) 4) what this network is really about. Agreed that a reporter using news may be inappropriate within the charters of the net, but wouldn't that free up many confused or ignorant conceptions about us? -- Keane Arase, Systems Programmer University of Chicago Computing Organizations Acedemic and Public Computing, Technical Project Support kean@tank.uchicago.edu syskean@uchimvs1.uchicago.edu ** Please file the standard disclaimers here **
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/10/88)
eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) writes:
Allegedly the mass media is disseminating incorrect information about
various electronic communications media (USENET and bulletin boards
included.) Let's sit back a moment and think of potential reasons
why they would do such a thing...
One: Ignorance. News professionals do not know about USENET
and bulletin boards, and if they did, they couldn't understand them anyway.
Computer professionals often flatter themselves into thinking that
they hold some special 'magical' ability to understand the uses of their
computers that 'mere mortals' could not possible achieve.
When the Internet worm was making the rounds in the first week of
November (we were not infected, but stayed very much on top of things
just in case), people on our staff were interviewed numerous times by
various media entities. With a lone exception, every single one was
badly, horribly done. The technical content, even reduced to what Joe
SubAverage Computer-NonUser can cope with, was a semantic null.
A particularly objectionable flaw to me was that the Columbus Dispatch
printed a front-page, half-page story w/photograph...of CompuServe.
CompuServe is not on the Internet, never has been. CompuServe runs
DEC-[12]0's, which were not susceptible to the worm. They run TOPS,
which was not susceptible to the worm. The photo was of their machine
room. The article dealt with passive Macintosh viruses. Completely
missed the point of an active, aggressive worm such as the Internet
was suffering. They (CompuServe) went to great pains to describe just
how "safe" they were from anything of the style of the Internet worm.
The temptation to create such a worm and unleash on it CompuServe
itself is extremely strong. The only things preventing me from
actually doing so are ethics and a certain fear of legal consequences.
More of the former than the latter; I am confident that I could hide
my malevolence sufficiently well that I could not be traced.
What a load of crap. The media are consummately ignorant, stupid, and
irresponsible in that they positively flaunt their ignorance and
stupidity.
--Karlchuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/10/88)
>How about this? Give a major newspaper(s) a feed to usenet. Let them >(or a particular reporter) run around reading the news. Some do. Which is one reason why the New York Times beat the rest of the country in reporting the Internet Virus. (hi, guys!). >I'm sure they will find: >1) a wealth of knowledgeable people, And a wealth of loud, over-opinionated, under-informed, stubborn people with axes to grind and special interests to put forward. >2) a great source for diversified opinions Only as long as you agree with the folks in (1) above. (Reference: rec.humor.funny) >3) a gathering of people interested in a particular field (i.e. rec.guns, > soc.*, macintoshes, ibm's, unix, etc.) And a gathering of people who *think* they know what they're talking about and don't. But are willing to shout louder than anyone else to prove it. >4) what this network is really about. It's about a few people who put in a lot of time and energy to try to help the large number of people who quietly read and appreciate what they do. And the few people who do everything they can to screw it up for everyone else. Whether that be personal abuse heaped on any and everyone they disagree with (or THINK they disagree with); massive, random blatherings at great length that drown out with the noise any information in a newsgroup; thoughtless, selfish attitudes (the infamous "I don't like it, so it's useless" mindset); or just being plain noisy and/or obnoxious. It's the small percentage of noisy idiots who make life miserable for everyone else -- the one or two people who think it's their right to shut down newsgroups because they disagree with them, or restrict postings because they don't find them interesting, or who simply try to out-yell anyone who stands between them and their firmly held beliefs. That's what the network is about. Envy, sloth, stupidity, stubborness, ignorance, racism, greed and hate. Also love, caring, joy, happiness, working together, cooperation and friendship. The net is, for better or worse, about life. The problem is that the noisy twits are a lot louder and noticable. It's sometimes hard to remember all the good things. Until the idiots drive all the good people away and win by default. >Agreed that a reporter using news may be inappropriate within the charters >of the net, but wouldn't that free up many confused or ignorant >conceptions about us? What charters of the net? We're getting back into implicit ethical agreements for the use/abuse of USENET, and the reality is there are none. They're welcome to use this stuff any way they see fit. If you don't agree with that, just try to stop them. Rules without police is like having sex from across the room. The sex sounds like a great idea, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I leave you with a little parable. A dog and a cat were sitting on a beach, talking to each other. The dog looked at the cat and said "I'm a better animal than you are because I can dig a hole in the ground faster and deeper than you!" The cat thought about this a second, and then replied "But I'm a better animal than you are because while I my hole digging is slower than you are, I can still dig the hole eventually. But I can also climb trees, which you could never do." At this point a duck walked up and looked at both the dog and the cat. "I'm better than both of you!" he declared. "For neither of you can swim as well as I can, and that's only skill that matters!" The Dog and the Cat both laughed at the duck. "We can swim as well as you! And let us have a race to prove it!" So they agreed to swim from the shore to a buoy that was anchored a distance away and back, and the winner would be declared the best animal of all. All three animals jumped in the water and swam to the buoy, neck and neck. When they reached the buoy, however, they found they were in a massive rip-tide. "Woe is me!" cried the dog. "What shall we do now?" "Oh, did I mention that I can also fly?" asked the duck? And he took wing and flew to the buoy, where he sat and watched the dog and cat float out to sea, where they drowned. I leave the moral to you. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/10/88)
>Yes, computers are everywhere, and people use them as tools. But what >they don't understand, most of them, are networks. I believe computer >communications media like Usenet go way beyond what a user who does >his or her newpaper article or checkbook on a computer might >comprehend. Communications to them is dialling a number to download >the stock market data or upload the article. I'm not sure I'd generalize this far. Not only do I know of a couple of TV stations on the net (as well as the New York Times) but I know of reporters and other workers from many of the major news-services who are attached in some way or another to networks like CompuServe or GENie. It's not a good idea to look at ANY organization and make generalizations of the few and shove them on the many. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
grant@looking.UUCP (Grant Robinson) (12/11/88)
A quote I culled from rec.motorcycles recently:
"Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor
of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated,
it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
- Oscar Wilde
--
grantroger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com (12/11/88)
All this media bashing is besides the point. First, computer expertise is NOT easily picked up; if it was, why spend so much time training computer professionals? And journalists are supposed to jaunt in, spend five minutes interviewing a computer whiz who can barely articulate the concepts intelligibly to fellow computer and they are expected to get everything down letter perfect? Gimme a break... Second, the extremely defensive attitude of most computer users are not helping. It behooves computer users just as much to strive to coimmunicate their facts intelligently as it is for journalists to get it down right. That means taking a step back and realizing that journalists write for their audiences---which include both well educated people, people who are not educated and people who don't normally give a flying leap about computers. If computer professionals are NOT prepared to communciate their information effectively, then we deserve all the garbage we get. A lot of this entails writing up USABLE information releases, establishing consistent press contacts and EXPRESSING matters so that the widest possible audience understands it. None of this excuses the shoddy work done by the Murdoch paper in Boston, but this MIGHT explain why the Columbus paper ran a sidebar paper on a local business explaining how and why it was affected or not affected by a national story.
ran@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert A. Neinast) (12/12/88)
In article <KARL.88Dec9174137@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > ... > A particularly objectionable flaw to me was that the Columbus Dispatch > printed a front-page, half-page story w/photograph...of CompuServe. > CompuServe is not on the Internet, never has been. CompuServe runs > DEC-[12]0's, which were not susceptible to the worm. They run TOPS, > ... > What a load of crap. The media are consummately ignorant, stupid, and > irresponsible in that they positively flaunt their ignorance and > stupidity. Also, self-serving. Since CompuServe is headquartered in Columbus, they had to make sure they included the "local angle", despite its having absolutely nothing to do with the true story. I read somebody making the following comment, and I have also found it to be true: Whenever I have attended any event covered by the news media, their covering of the story has been materially different from what I have seen. Reminds me of one time Jack Ford (Gerald Ford's son) was giving a talk (1980 election). Somebody in the crowd asked about Ford's pardon of Nixon; Jack responded with the standard reply that Ford wanted to put Watergate behind the nation. One person in the back of the room shouted, "Bullshit." The local newspaper reported this as, "The crowd responded by chanting Bullshit." Bob -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (cblpe!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
ehr@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl) (12/13/88)
Regarding the extended recent extended discussion of the news
media's abilities to report on computer issues and/or motives
for reporting what they do:
1) Background: My own background includes considerable journalism
experience. That's what my BA is in, and for about five years I
worked for United Press International (UPI) as a general assignment
newsman. I was manager of a small UPI bureau at the time I left
the organization in the mid 1970s. The story of how I got from
journalism to computing is too long to go into here -- and you
probably don't care about it anyway -- but, I still do a considerable
amount of freelance writing and photography, so, I've kept some
contact with the business, though not with daily news reporting.
2) Comments: I don't think you can find any sinister motive for
what gets reported -- or for what information gets mangled in the
reporting of complex issues, of which computing is only one among
many. You'll find a wide range of people in journalism, ranging
from the competent and dedicated to those with neither of those
attributes. In addition, deadline pressures and the need to
compress complex stories to fit a specific space/time slot
(particularly in broadcast journalism) compound other problems.
Unfortunately, incompetence happens. And it happens more in
some situations and organizations, depending on the management
climate. One of my areas of special interest -- in which I've
had quite a bit published -- is railroad transportation. I'd
hate to have to try to list all the incidents where I've seen
reporting of issues related to that subject mangled in the general
news media. One of my favorites happened only a couple of years
ago when a local television station showed a particular graphic
while reporting about a minor local railroad accident. The
graphic? A drawing of a 19th century steam locomotive.
Another unfortunate aspect of the news business is that good news
is generally not news at all. Problems/scandals/disasters are
what makes headlines.
3) Suggestions: So, what can you do try to avoid having
information mangled? If you do get contacted by a reporter to
comment on or explain some issue, try to make sure you have
enough time to explain things. And, above all, GET FEEDBACK.
Asking someone if he has understood what you just explained is
fairly useless, because, to avoid embarassment, that person will
usually say, "Yes." Or, he may genuinely believe that he
understands things when he really doesn't.
But, if you can manage to have the interview take place in an
unpressured situation, there are other ways in which you can ask
the interviewer to give you back the explanation you've just
given -- in his own words. A competent interviewer -- especially
if he's not an expert in the subject being discussed -- will
normally do this on his own. ("Let me make sure that I
understand what you've just told me. You're saying that ....")
If nothing else, try to impress on the interviewer that the issues
he's asking about are more complex than can be explained in a few
minutes -- not that they are too complex for him to understand!
Sometimes this message will even get through.
The best way to get better reporting about computer issues is to
develop better contacts with the news media. Even if a reporter
calls you under deadline pressure for a quick comment, you may
be able to suggest that he get back to you later, at a less
pressured time, for more background information. He may learn
some useful things, you may make a useful contact, and you may
both contribute something to the cause of better understanding
of computing issues.
That's my two cents worth for now.
-- Ernest
--
My opinions are my own and probably not IBM-compatible.--ehr
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) (919) 684-6269 w; (919) 286-3845 h
Systems Specialist (Tandem System Manager), Library Systems,
027 Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706 U.S.A.wfp@well.UUCP (William F. Phillips) (12/14/88)
In article <1116@tank.uchicago.edu> kean@tank.uchicago.edu (keane arase) writes: [quotations deleted] >How about this? Give a major newspaper(s) a feed to usenet. Let them >(or a particular reporter) run around reading the news. >I'm sure they will find: >1) a wealth of knowledgeable people, >2) a great source for diversified opinions >3) a gathering of people interested in a particular field (i.e. rec.guns, > soc.*, macintoshes, ibm's, unix, etc.) >4) what this network is really about. >Agreed that a reporter using news may be inappropriate within the charters >of the net, but wouldn't that free up many confused or ignorant >conceptions about us? I am (or would normally be) in a position to do that very thing, and had even been toying with the idea previous to reading this message. I'm a System Co-Administrator of New York City's only full-service Public Access Unix system (dasys1, which is currently down), and I have an old friend who is on the city desk of one of the major dailies here. He happens to be moderately knowledgeable (sp?) about computers and might be intrigued by the whole thing. He is also a lawyer, and seemed to find the JEDR case interesting. I think I'll sound him out, and (if and when we're up again) get him a free account for a while if he's willing to look around. William F Phillips (usually wfp@dasys1) wfp@well System Co-Administrator, BEC Public Access Unix, New York, NY
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/14/88)
->One: Ignorance. Yeah, that's it. All those students who flunked calculus had to major in *something* if they wanted to graduate. If you can't deal with cold, hard logic, you may still be able to pursue a career in myth-making :-)
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (12/15/88)
In article <12470@cup.portal.com>, roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com writes: > > All this media bashing is besides the point. > > First, computer expertise is NOT easily picked up; if it was, why > spend so much time training computer professionals? And journalists are > supposed to jaunt in, spend five minutes interviewing a computer whiz who > can barely articulate the concepts intelligibly to fellow computer and they > are expected to get everything down letter perfect? Gimme a break... Wait a minute! If the journalist conducting the interview doesn't understand, why can't he/she just (heaven forbid) say "I don't understand... please make this point clear." Instead they apparently smile, nod their heads and then run back to the office and rewrite the news until it fits their understanding of the event (which in this case is nil). So what if you don't understand what's going on? You can MAKE things understandable! > computers. If computer professionals are NOT prepared to communciate their > information effectively, then we deserve all the garbage we get. A lot of > this entails writing up USABLE information releases, establishing consistent > press contacts and EXPRESSING matters so that the widest possible audience > understands it. MIT graduate students can't spend hours preening for that next big story. The onus is on the news journalist to extract and report consistent facts. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611 "The only thing more useless than a Faberge' egg is a coffee table picture book about Faberge' eggs"
flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (12/15/88)
> > Whenever I have attended any event covered by the news > media, their covering of the story has been materially > different from what I have seen. > One exception: the Economist's coverage of the Farrakhan [sp?] in LA fiasco. Let's _not get into a dsicussion of whether (or how much) he's anti-Semitic, but _if his speech there was anti- Semitic, it was so in a vastly different way from the way it was reported by TV, radio, and the two Times. And only the E. got the centralpoint, which is that the guy's looney. He got from the American negros as the Chosen People to underarm deodorant brands in fifteen minutes. And he's a hell of an impressive speaker, better than anyone but ol Ron Himself. -- From: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Portal,MacNet: FlashsMom
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (12/19/88)
In article <787@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) writes:
: > Whenever I have attended any event covered by the news
: > media, their covering of the story has been materially
: > different from what I have seen.
: One exception: the Economist's coverage ...
The Economist is very high on my list of Must Read. Whenever I've
been able to check what they say, they've been mostly accurate.
They had an article on the Internet Worm; their biggest gaffe was
supposing that the GNU project's UNIX clone would in some way help
solve some UNIX security problems. Not likely, if what I hear about
RMS's beliefs about security is true.
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill