 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Entry Archive
from the continuing-disappointment-that-is-the-NYTIMES department
So there's a view about the file-sharing debate held by most people who don't know anything about the debate. It is a view the recording industry likes most people to hold. It is a view far from anything anyone interesting is saying.
The view - call it the uninformed stereotype (US) view - goes something like this: that there are just two sides to this debate, those who favor "piracy" and those who don't. Supporters of Grokster are people who favor piracy, and who are against artists.
On Thursday, at the NYPL, I had the extraordinarily pleasure of being on stage with Jeff Tweedy and Steven Johnson, for a discussion titled "Who Owns Culture?" The evening started with 15 minutes of me and my "powerpoint" (actually, Keynote), and then a 50 minute discussion with Tweedy and me, moderated by Johnson. There was then time for questions from the audience.
It was an extraordinary evening. I had the chance before to talk to Tweedy, so I wasn't surprised. But he was extraordinary — funny, subtle, smart about the issues, and deeply passionate. Suffice it that neither he nor I (as is obvious to anyone on this page) subscribe to, or fit, within the US view. I explicitly denounced "piracy"; Tweedy -- in context -- said nothing to support the view that people should infringe the rights of other artists.
David Carr of the New York Times was at the event. He wrote a review. Everyone I've spoken to loved the piece. I think they loved it because it was a piece printed in the Times, and we're a culture that loves attention more than accuracy.
The review is filled with quotes from Tweedy, taken out of context, to support the US view. Nothing in the article suggests anything was said at all contrary to the US view. One reading the piece would think, there they go again, those supporters of theft, and haters of artists.
I'm not sure why there needs to be a NYTimes, if its role is simply to reinforce what people already think, especially with pieces like this. God forbid the Nation's paper of record should reflect something more subtle or complex than the crudest view of an important debate.
posted by [ Lessig ] on [ Apr 10 05 at 5:09 PM ] to [ bad code ] [ post diffusion: 2 trackbacks + technorati ]
« Back to Lessig News
« Back to the Lessig Blog
Comments on “from the continuing-disappointment-that-is-the-NYTIMES department”
It's good to have a first hand experience with newspapers once in a while. When you realize how they handle reporting of an issue/event you're intimately familiar with, it makes you look anew at everything else you've read from them.
I'm starting to believe we're actually better served by Fox News, John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and their ilk - when it's blindingly obvious what the motivations of a reporter are it's easy to take his reporting in context. Those who pretend to not have a position - they spread their ideology far more insidiously.
Lessig, that link to the review is 404ing, remove the br tag before it, tanks :)
I do not at all follow Lessig's argument here. If the "US" view were conveyed by the article, I would have read something in the article like "Mr. Lessig and Mr. Tweedy both favor piracy and are against artists." Will somebody explain that to me.
"What does it say about our democracy when ordinary behavior is deemed criminal?" Well, what does it? I have read Code and Free Culture. I thought I remember the argument from Code explaining that if government wants to control behavior through law, and if it is a legitimate government, it well can.
What is the "ordinary behavior" in this case?
Aaron Swartz gave a great panel mini-statement yesterday at the [BALSTC] on a mini-study he did critically examining the NYT's election coverage... it's classic: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001677.html
[BALSTC]: http://slata.stanford.edu/Conference05/
It isn't just the NYT. The LA Times wrote an editorial about the Grokster piece two weeks ago that was intentionally childish - making fun of the idea of the justices using iPods and listening to pop music. Also, one of the Wall Street Journal's lead columnists also write a piece about Grokster, dwelling also on the idea that the justices don't understand iPods.
Neither actually addressed the real issues.
So, I agree with your point, professor. If this is all we can expect from the America's best newspapers, we're in trouble.
Citing Swartz is non-sequitor. Try again. Can any of the subscribers to this blog (5,862 via bloglines) explain exactly what was wrong with Carr's piece. If there is a fact wrong, please state it, and I'll draw my own conclusion about whether the Times has an "extreme conservative bias," as Swartz concludes.
Jon: I see what Lessig is saying. Here's perhaps the "money quote" (pun unintended):
"I don't think anybody should make any money on music," Mr. Tweedy said at one point, only half joking. "Maybe we would pay audiences."
That undoubtably gives a very misleading impression of Tweedy's views.
It's always wise to examine the context of a statement or story or article. The NYT coverage of the "Who Owns Culture?" discussion at the NYPL was filed under the "Arts" section, as essentially a "performance" review. The subtext of the journalist's comments was the "buzz" of the event, not the technical or legal content.
Maybe the complaint should be why The Times chose to cover the event as entertainment rather than as business. I suspect that the problem is that the event was in fact hyped more for its entertainment and "star" value than as a boring legal treatise.
As the good professor notes, this was supposed to be "an important debate", but alas that's not how the overall event came across. The NYPL press release actually billed the event as a "discussion" rather than a "debate". If this event was actually supposed to be a debate, who was supposed to be on the other side? One-sided "debates" tend not to lead to enlightenment.
It's not at all clear to me that the NYT story itself was "reinforcing" any particular view about the law.
I read the professor's complaint first and then the article [I don't usually bother reading articles in the NYT "Arts" section], but I didn't feel that the article came across as pro-piracy. The main thrust was that here's a musician who chooses to encourage his own band's fans to download his band's music. But the important thing is that he made that choice of his own volition.
It could simply be that the NYT staff was Grokstered-out and wanted a change of pace. After all, editors are human too.
-- Jack Krupansky
Ok, fair enough Seth. Yes, the road to journalistic hell is designated with people giving directions and "half-joking" about them. Though I seemed to read this in the traditional trope of rock-and-roller's "half-joking." Google reports 245 links for "Bono half-joking." NYTimes search gives 110 references for "half-joking." Civilities.net has zero.
In response to Bill-- how many times do I have to read this line about "biased reporters are more honest" line? Though his first sentence is correct-- one's opinions about an event they speak at it will be entirely different from someone covering it.
Once in a while I'd like to read a confab report like this: "I said the same old stuff at this conference, so don't bother reading a newspaper report about it. One person had an interesting question X, and I came up with interesting new phrase Y, and my colleague said Z."
Jack-- thank you for your explanation. Yes that makes sense-- this was discussion, not debate; Arts not news. Yes, as well, the point about Tweedy encouraging downloading of Wilco songs was the thrust of the article, which was important to make.
Im not sure but if the standard is going to be 'capable of non-infringing uses' is it possible for a licence (including creative commons licence) to be granted over Grokster or are we just assuming that the first licence used to transfer the data to the Grokster system applies to all the other transfers?
So far as I can see if the architecture of the software doesnt allow for a licence to be granted how owuld anyone know that they weren't infringing copyright?
Although there may be an activce inducement as well I think that the head of the Beta max decision could also apply.
I understand this may be contrary to most of your views but no-one has really said anything definitive on this issue.
Jon - You inspired me to write a blog post on the topic:
Lawrence Lessig and "activist's frustration"
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000806.html
I think you were a muse, and will be amused:
"... the activist is then faced with the task of explaining exactly why the article is so bad, to varying amounts of receptiveness to the concept ("Gee, it said you wanted to eat babies? But how is that different from your well-known concern about infant nutrition? Nutrition is eating, right? Babies are infants, correct?")."
While reading the TImes piece, try substituting "cable TV" for downloading and internet. What impression does it give of those who want to use cable TV?
Are you writing a letter to the editor? If not, why not?
Who said it's Lessig that has to respond? Surely among the thousand of fans (and I am occasionally one of them), subscribers, and attendees, someone could explain. Jack's defense of the article, on the other hand, is solid.
I wish Lessig's post had been more of a conversation than a lecture. He should have simply said, "I didn't like this article; a free signed copy of Free Culture will go to the reader/blogger/flogger who can based explain why it is a disservice to my work or Tweedy's." Otherwise, we get the same trope of knock-the-Times, that incompetent pile of old media.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago on the March 28th post griping about the Times editorial where there are 65 responses. George Estrada simply asks for Lessig to link to the best response.
Incidentally, one of the people who linked to the Times article uncritically was the one by guy who links to news items on the front page of lessig.org! His concern is about whether the live stream has been archived.
Jon: That's a constructive suggestion, but there are some immediate problems:
1) Sorting through a lot of chaff to get a good response is not necessarily less effort than just writing it oneself.
2) It can backfire, depending on what you get ("Death to the Times!" No, *double-death* to the Times!". "I top you all TRIPLE FUDGE DEATH, to the Times")
Oh, the person who does the frontpage doesn't have the position to be critical. I wouldn't infer anything about his own feeling from that front-page link.
The Times piece was both fair and generous to the cause of open access to popular culture. Like the other commenters here, I'm baffled why Professor Lessig takes umbrage to positive press coverage - once again, without offering any explanation.
Let's take a step back.
There are two responses one can make in such circumstances when one feels the cause isn't being fairly represented. One is to mount one's hobby horse, beat one's chest, and berate the world at the injustice of it all.
The other is to take a deep breath and try and work out why the message isn't getting through. Why is one's advocacy inadequate?
Unfortunately Larry has adopted position #2, and preening is preferred to honest self-examination, and perhaps a little humility.
This is quite inexplicable -
"God forbid the Nation's paper of record should reflect something more subtle or complex than the crudest view of an important debate."
Well, sir. Fix it.
If you aren't up to the task, then step aside.
« Back to Lessig News
« Back to the Lessig Blog
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.