Re:What Firewall

[Charles Behney <charlesaugust@theriver.com>]

 In defense of Time/Warner, if they greenlight movies, they leave the
directors pretty much to the approved scripts. This allows the media to
criticize such projects as Oliver Stone's JFK, Nixon, and Natural Born
Killers. They are more concerned with market research than censorhip or
editorial controls. This leads to lots of charges from people who can
take cheap shots at Hollywood, having never worked on a set or location.

Same with Time Magazine. They have improved their reportage, while
bringing pieces that are more contemporary than the work of Newsweek and
US News. I admit that I mostly read Time pieces online now, but I don't
find  the blatant propaganda of the cold war years. I've hated a lot of
stuff from Time, but their days of writing center pieces for the State
Department and CIA are now less obvious, if non existent.

The coverage of all things Microsoft is taking on an increasing
complexity from all media sources. CNN's breaking news of the possible
preliminary injunction on W98 being brought by the state AGs is a
current case in point. They are from Time/Warner, and everyone from Lou
Dobbs to their editors have had tough questions and leads on Bill Gates.
They gleefully reported the plug and play fiasco on W98 last week.

In my experience, reporters get free rein on their stories, and the
editors above them determine what prints and what makes the kill file.
Just like a half dozen covers will get critiqued by almost everyone, but
the managing editor will make the final decision. Movies get their print
and advertising budget from prescreenings that determine what the
probable take will be. The 'Q' list determines which celebrities are
popular and well liked. It asks two questions: Do you know {this
person}? If so, do you like {this person}? Without this simple poll,
there would be less inbreeding of the pundit circuit, and morning and
late show formats. Covers sell news mags, and it is ratings that make
the TV sell.

So if Microsoft stories sell, then the public will get more stories than
the well oiled McSoft machine can handle. Because of popularity, these
stories will outweigh the negative outlays of potential MS advertising
dollars. Even as I speak, CNBC speaks of the WSJ piece on alleged MS
extortion of Netscape. Public interest determines those blurbs.

CAB



> Yeah, and I was one of the biggest critics of the TIME cyberporn cover back
> in '95. Didn't have anything to do with firewalls, though.
>
> Again, my experience has been that at Time Inc. (I write more frequently
> for the web site, as y'all know), I've never been told what to write or
> that a topic was off-limits. Not once.
>
> -Declan
>