It is pretty hard for someone not deeply immersed in the particular jargon of the debate to understand what Lessig is trying to communicate in his public statements. For example, this quote from Lessig's testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee is quite ambiguous:
"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 of ranting on his blog, how about writing a nice letter to the editor? Newspapers screw things up all the time. I'm sure they would either a) defend the original story, or 2) issue a retraction.
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.
You are making assertions about what the man wants. Have you talked to him about that? Do you have any basis for your defamatory assertion whatsoever, other than observing that the WSJ has not yet published a Letter to the Editor from him?
As a reader for more than 25 years, I cancelled my subscription to the WSJ when it recently changed hands and haven't so much a as peeked at it since. Considering it's current ownership I'm not surprised by this distortion
The WSJ was once a great paper, when it stuck to business and financial reporting and before Bartley, Noonan, and the current scum took over the editorial page. One could read the WSJ, NY Times, New Yorker, The Nation, and The National review to get a good healthy mix and diversity of strong opinion. I shudder to think what will happen if Murdoch gets his hands on the Times. Just my two cents, YMMV :)
WSJ has some of the best journalism on the planet. The editorial page is crap, but no other paper has as many in-depth articles about global markets. Want to read about China's problem with renegade mayors? Want to read about how western fishing policies are decimating African octopus fisheries? You're not going to read about that anywhere else besides the Wall Street Journal.
The closest approximation to the Journal is the Economist, and that's a weekly.
Well I certainly agree with your comment about the editorial page, though it was far better years ago, even including serious opposing views for balance.
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.
I certainly have no evidence, as I mentioned I completely stopped reading it when Murdoch took over. Perhaps he will allow it to maintain it's quality. I've followed him for years, he used to own the South China Morning Post, at one point one of the few english papers available in Hong Kong. His flip flops with respect to the chinese government have certainly convinced me we don't share a lot of values.
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.
I too am a big Economist fan. I just asked because I'm always looking for good reads - didn't mean to sound like there was nothing else to browse for business news.
I still get it, but they just pile up on my desk. Not as fun to read now that the editorial page is an AEI loudspeaker. Much better content from my reader/tweetdeck.
real transparency in journalism would be, below the title of the WSJ article, an update (a la tech blog like TechCrunch or VentureBeat) and link to Lessig's commentary.
"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.