Lawrence Lessig: The made-up dramas of the Wall Street Journal
lessig.org
lessig.org
"As I testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of “Internet Freedom” first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement — a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently — setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access — they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such “access tiering” risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew it could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn’t, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service."
I understand how someone could misread that statement to support the view that Lessig is opposed to tiered content-provider access. I certainly did not get the point that Lessig wanted me to get when I first read his statement.
That said, journalists should try to get these things straight.
Instead he wants to have a one-sided conversation. WSJ journal readers deserve better, and his blog readers deserve better. Do the right thing instead of trying to make everything into something that's bigger than what it is.
The closest approximation to the Journal is the Economist, and that's a weekly.
However I would even caution readers with respect to the articles in the rest of the paper. I could no longer read an article about chinese mayors and give it any credence given Murdoch's ownership.
It was a sad day for me. The WSJ was the only online journal I ever paid money for.
Is there evidence of inaccurate reporting at the WSJ, or are you just basing this on the fact that Murdoch also owns Fox News?
I don't really watch TV at all, but occasionally view Fox in airports and such to keep up with what is on TV. I'm amazed that a lot of people actually watch that sort of thing as serious news.