🚀 go-pugleaf

The Washington Post, which earlier ran
a Hearstian front-page attack on the "vast 
and unregulated" Internet, has struck again. 

This time it's a flame in today's book section 
against my pro-Net book, NetWorld!: What 
People Are Really Doing on the Internet, and 
What It Means to You. I'll be charitable 
toward the Post and assume that the reviewer 
is a freelancer; but regardless, I do find it
dismaying that such slop could pollute any 
paper's ink.

NetWorld! contains tens of thousands of words 
about the good things happening on the 
Net--an electronic toy store, K-12, suicide 
prevention, you name it--but you'd never 
be able to tell from the Post's diatribe.

Among other things, it attacks my
treatment of Cliff "Silicon Snake Oil" Stoll. 

Most of all, however, the Post rants against
my 'tude toward Bill Clinton's Net-hostile, 
Hollywood-friendly copyright policy--a boon 
to many of his big political donors. 

Bruce Lehman, Clinton's intellectual 
property czar, is an ex-copyright
lobbyist famous at many top law schools 
for his bias against the Net; but the
Post couldn't care less. NetWorld! tells 
how Lehman has tried to rig copyright policy 
to favor Hollywood and the big media
conglomerates. And the reviewer fires 
back. All three graphs in the Post 
review--a few hundred words long, complete 
with the misleading opener "To give David 
Rothman the benefit of the doubt"--allude 
to Lehman by name at my expense. 

In fact, almost the whole review is 
on my government chapter, as if the 
reviewer really didn't bother with
more than a skim of the rest of the book.

At least I titled the media chapter just
right: "Pulped Wood Versus Electrons: Can
the Print World Learn to Love the Net?" Maybe
the Post will in the future--some individual
reporters are quite Net-hip--but for now the
answer seems to be "No." Just for fun I'll 
quote from Page 106 of Chapter 4, where
I wrote briefly about the Post's book section:

"When a Washington Post writer did a 
gossipy little item on Cliff Stoll's 
net expose, the journalist said book 
editors were looking forward to reviewing 
Silicon Snake Oil as 'confirmation
of what they hoped was true all along.' 
That may or may not have been a joke. 
Whatever the case, a war is going on 
between pulped wood and electrons. 
Can commercial publications, from 
newspapers to book publishers, learn 
to love the Internet, and what does 
this mean to us readers?"

Any anti-Net conspiracy at Book World
or the rest of the Post? Hardly. Just the 
usual journalistic ignorance and 
technophobia on L Street, and among 
some freelancers who just may be 
fixated on the Net as a threat to copyright. 
The irony is that Lehmanesque laws would 
actually hurt us--I myself am a freelancer--by
jacking up our research costs. 
Post-style conglomerates with massive 
archives would be the real winners here, though 
even they could lose out in the end if 
enough voters caught on and made
the feds overcompensate. A fair copyright
policy would benefit all, regardless of what
prejudices the reviewer may hold.

I will credit the reviewer with some
balance in write-ups of other books 
on the same page; but it's 
totally missing from the review of 
NetWorld!, raising the question of 
whether he might have had 
some hidden personal agendas. 

To her credit, at least the Post's 
ombudsman acknowledged the present
conflicts between Net and press and wrote a
pretty clueful column on the Page 1 
editorial. It's too bad this Netphobia 
is a continuing story. A more Net-aware 
publication might have demanded higher 
standards of people reviewing Internet 
books.  Outspoken reviews are laudable
--no tact needed!--but not when they're 
so awash in ad hominem slop. The Post 
reviewed my opinion of the White House 
Net policy and Czar Lehman, rather than 
covering my whole book. 

A big thanks to the Post anyway for 
spelling my name right.

Just in case anyone's curious to see
what book got the Post a-rantin',
NetWorld! (ISBN 0-7615-0013-8) is on sale 
at many major bookstores or you can 
phone Prima Publishing at 
800-632-8676 or 916-632-4400, or order 
from Book Stacks Unlimited
(http://www.books.com/scripts/view.exe?isbn~0761500138).

-David Rothman | rothman@clark.net | 703-370-6540
 http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/bias.htm
  
NOTE: I've been trying for weeks and 
weeks now to respond to the Washington 
Post's hostile references--in several 
articles--to e-books and related 
technology. No luck so far. I can get
my views into an MIT Press information
science collection, but so far the Post
op-ed section hasn't given me one column 
inch. Gatekeeping in action! Following the
unprofessional diatribe against me in the 
book section, I'd hope the Post would show 
a little fairness.

==================================

A FEW QUESTIONS (AND OPINIONS) FOR THE 
WASHINGTON POST REVIEWER

You more or less accuse me of waging a 
"flame war" in print, as if your fiery, 
ad hominem-heated review doesn't 
count. Below are a few questions:

1. Since NetWorld! lived up to its name and 
told "What People Are Really Doing on the Internet," 
I am curious why you didn't allude to that many of 
the activities about which I wrote. You 
noted the protests against the Clipper chip, 
the "decency" act, and copyright policy; that 
was it. NetWorld! includes thousands and 
thousands of words on such topics as online 
newspapers, education, business, and 
entertainment, and love (not just sex), but 
except for seeing the subtitle of my 
book, Post readers would never know it. 

2. What did you think of Silicon Snake Oil? 
Stoll, of course, did get it wrong; can you really 
believe a book that said of the Net: "It 
is an overpromoted, hollow world, devoid 
of warmth and human kindness"? Huh? 
"Devoid"? Just a little sweeping, no? And
isn't it just possible that Stoll has helped set 
the agenda for many in the media--and that 
I should refute his falsehoods? I give examples 
of "warmth" on the Net in such areas as 
suicide-prevention and even tell of an
Anglican priest who takes confessions 
electronically. 

Not that Stoll is my book's primary focus; I did 
mention him on page 1, but his name appears on just 15 of 
325 pages (index excluded). For the most part, 
I refute him simply by telling the story of the 
Net. He's a handy news peg, and, yes, a rather 
deserving "bete noire"--given that his own "screed"
helped pave the way for Exonian censorship by 
tearing down the Net. 

3. My experiences advocating TeleRead--online 
and offline experiences--show what a 
farce "electronic democracy" has been 
as now practiced; why is it whining to attack the 
huge gap between reality and Clintonian 
promises? Of the 37 people appointed 
to the National Information Infrastructure
Advisory Council, just one was a librarian 
and just one was a K-12 educator. A bunch 
of NIIAC members, on the other hand, came 
from such librarylike outfits as CBS. 
Coincidentally or not, some of the NIIAC  
people were associated in major ways with 
massive political donations. People
linked to West Publishing, the firm of
NIIAC member Vance Opperman, have given more
than $700,000 in contributions to Clinton-Gore and
other politicians. A Minneapolis paper wrote 
about it. And when a public TV show discussed 
campaign finance, it noted the prominent role 
of big donors in the NII. Why, then, shouldn't I
be grouchy about this? How hypocritical of you 
to criticize my outspokeness, then hurl invective 
at me for attacking Clinton et al. in a Net context.

4. So what would you do about the problems  
of keeping information affordable, 
encouraging kids to read text-intensive 
material, compensating writers and publishers, 
and avoiding the creation of a copyright 
Gestapo? And how to promote the development
of affordable, book-friendly technology that 
could be cost-justified through the popularization of 
electronic forms? That's what TeleRead is all 
about. You didn't critique the proposal, just the 
fact that I objected to politicians' refusal to 
consider it.  Love the Post's openness to 
new ideas. In the context of various chapters 
I mention TeleRead and built up to the point 
where readers will wonder about its fate in 
D.C. But you're too obtuse to notice. I'd almost
wonder if you skimmed the book as a whole
and really read just the government chapter.
Needed a little speed here? Post not paying you 
enough?

5. As for Bruce Lehman, the White House's
intellectual property czar, isn't your 
review a little bizarre? All three graphs in 
the review allude to my treatment of him, 
even though, outside the government 
chapter, where copyright policy is 
terrifyingly relevant, I mention him by 
name on just two pages. But as long as
you've made this a focus, I'll oblige. 

Just why is a reference to Lehman's gayness
--in a political context, not a truly sexual one-- 
so out of place? He was, after all, appointed 
amid heavy pressure from gays to be represented in the 
Clinton Administration; and many IP professionals 
wonder if he was the best man for the job. Isn't it 
a little disturbing that sexual politics prevailed 
over the needs of schools and libraries on the 
Net? As noted, the man is a former copyright 
lobbyist for Hollywood and the rest, and still thinks 
he is in his old job. 

He isn't the biggest First Amendment 
booster, by the way. Just recently, Lehman
threatened to rip the throat out of a law 
professor with whom he disagreed, and to 
try to get the man denied tenure at American
University. Gotta keep those uppity law
professors in line, no? I'm curious why 
you go after me for attacking a martiNet 
like Lehman--he richly deserves the honors. 

Needless to say, if this bully had been 
an Arkansas pal of Clinton, I would have 
noted *that*--why should I deprive my 
readers of context? No partisanship here. 
I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.

Perhaps eventually Clinton himself will 
wake up and realize that his copyright policies 
will harm the schools. They're spending just 
$125 per pupil on schools each year on 
intellectual property, and they could 
suffer grievous damage in a network era 
from unduly restrictive copyright laws.  

Simply put, Clinton's NII copyright priorities
are anti-Net--and anti-child, too--and I won't 
pull punches to be CC (Clinton Correct) 
or PC (Post Correct). 

David H. Rothman | rothman@clark.net