10 ms·
Everyone involved should still be stripped of their position/title. Totally unacceptable that this was even on the table. The WSJ editorial board had an Op-ed
by vxNsr 7y ago
Everyone involved should still be stripped of their position/title. Totally unacceptable that this was even on the table.
The WSJ editorial board had an Op-ed about this[0], and tried very hard to make it seem like it was an overreach by the AG and it was vital that ICANN go through with this. I was honestly surprised, they're generally level-headed and while they do side with wall street over main street they don't make fallacious arguments.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/working-the-webs-referees-11588200958 https://www.wsj.com/articles/working-the-webs-referees-11588...
- wavesplash 7y agoWSJ leans whatever way News Corp wants post 2007 acquisition.
- tankenmate 7y agoAlso of note, NewsCorp sends lawyers and strategists to every ICANN meeting, and has since at least 2010, if not before.
- stirlo 7y agoPossibly because they used to own MySpace and got in the habit?
- evolve2k 7y agoReally? that’s shocking. Do you have any sources you can share that confirm this?
- tankenmate 7y agoI think there are maybe attendance lists for some of the sub meetings? As to myself, I have first hand knowledge they were there; I talked to some of them face to face at some of the ICANN meetings. Anyone can attend most ICANN meetings, they are open and public.
- Pxtl 7y agoWSJ editorial board carried water for the ridiculous Bush government before that. It's been the print equivalent to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity for quite some time.
- Bahamut 7y agoIt was easily always the worst part about the WSJ.
- 0xy 7y agoAll sides of mainstream media are worthless in my book. Mainstream media is a net negative on society, and it's especially shown now with media trust at record lows. This isn't just one company or one side of partisan MSM. NYT lied about WMDs in Iraq repeatedly, WaPo lied about a Russian hack of critical US power infrastructure and CNN struggles to tell the truth when telling you the time of day.
- colejohnson66 7y agoWhat is “mainstream media”? Media that doesn’t fit your biases? Because I constantly hear this “mainstream media” trope from conservatives, but it is only applied to liberal news sources, never RT, Fox, Breitbart, etc.
- 0xy 7y agoFox, Breitbart, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. All of them. Which of the names that I've just mentioned hasn't made huge, glaring journalistic errors repeatedly? Even throw in the self-described 'neutral' outlets like NPR, Associated Press and others and you see the same thing. Repeated lies, walkbacks and egregious errors. I don't know why any person would apologize for corporate media.
- anthony_romeo 7y agoYou make it sound like you expect people to be infallible.
- egwor 7y agoTotally agree; they should resign immediately.
- ikiris 7y agoIf you expect WSJ to not be in favor of hardcore right wing / business interest, then honestly its a lack of perception. They've had that reputation for years. You might consider taking this as an opportunity to reexamine where you believe level-headed and balanced lie in light of this example that you're familiar enough with to see the very large problems in their arguments and general position.
- dannyw 7y agoAbsolutely. The general quality and of course objectivity of WSJ has gone downhill for years. It’s not a recent phenomenon.
- souterrain 7y agoIn this case though, one would assume zero objectivity from any paper. The piece referenced is editorial.
- paulgb 7y agoKind of a lazy one, though. And I say this as a WSJ subscriber who regularly finds the editorials worth reading even when I disagree with them. In this case, it's just knee-jerk anti-anti-capitalism without bothering to understand the nuances of the situation.
- sqldba 7y agoWould you say Washington Post is more balanced or about the same?
- twhitmore 7y agoI have found WSJ to carry one-sided articles with little factual basis quite frequently, actually. Such travesties as: Perfect market theory, Chicago School/ dry economics, ignoring the negative effects of monopolies/ short-term extractive capitalism. I know they used to be "reputable" but. Today large parts of America are a crumbling trashcan. Where is their acknowledgement of this problem, and how capitalism should solve it? I would recommend The Economist as a factually-based business & economics subscription.
- sneeze-slayer 7y agoI can second The Economist. I find that they also have a pro-business/free market stance, but at least I find that they have reasonable and factual reporting, which I sometimes find lacking with the WSJ.
- ardy42 7y ago> I can second The Economist. I find that they also have a pro-business/free market stance... To put it lightly. That stance defines it: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2019/11/how-economist-shaped-liberal-mind https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2019/11/how-econo...
- alteria 7y agoThanks for sharing, fascinating read.
- fastball 7y agoI dunno, I've found WSJ's reporting to be poor for years.
- hylaride 7y agoTheir editorial page has always been a bit of a joke (or eccentric, depending on who you ask). Their political reporting has been pro-business (no surprise), though people often confuse pro-business with pro-market. Their business reporting is mostly top-notch as is their investigative work (it was a WSJ reporter who exposed Theranos, despite Rupert Murdoch having a hundred million invested in it).
- PunksATawnyFill 7y agoStill doesn’t make up for ICANN’s other scams. The canned collection of TLDs should have been abolished years ago, but when it looked like ICANN was going to do it and allow arbitrary TLDs, they turned it into a gargantuan rip-off and sham.
- ohashi 7y agoWhen the issue of removing price caps first came up, I talked to a journalist at the WSJ about covering it. This was before they were even approved. The journalist was shocked at how this was all happening and could continue to happen. The story was killed by the editors. I can't read the WSJ article because paywall but there appears to be an effort pushing the narrative that ICANN has to remain independent. On CircleID there are 3 articles (and 1 comment reply 11 minutes after the article was published) by VeriSign affiliated/PIR affiliated folks. The comment is a reply to a former VeriSign lobbyist by active VeriSign lobbyist. I can't prove anything, but it's definitely suspicious that there seems to be a lot of VeriSign connected folks who were trying to stop this deal. Oversight is perhaps the biggest threat to their golden goose. I wrote about it here https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2020/05/01/reflecting-on-org-sale-being-blocked/ https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2020/05/01/reflecting-on-org-s... The WSJ hiding behind the editorial board making an this exact argument seems suspect. Their coverage was non existent and became not great once they did write about it. There are actual investigative journalists covering the issue with thought and depth. Kieran McCarthy at The Register, Timothy Lee at Ars Technica and more recently David Kaut at The Capitol Forum. Prepare for a lot more articles like this one though and think about who stands to gain the most from them. It's always about the money.
- CPLX 7y agoThe WSJ editorial team produces great, detailed, and often groundbreaking coverage of business topics. The opinion section, by contrast, is batshit insane. It’s an important distinction.
- tfigment 7y agoNews Corp is very good at manipulating the line. WSJ is not the same as it used to be. It is not fair and balanced. You can still still influence by omitting and focusing on key areas of stories. This applies to all media and News Corp orgs especially.
- 0xy 7y agoFair and balanced media is an unobtainable ideal and certainly doesn't exist among any corporate news rags. If you're trusting any corporate media to tell you balanced truth they're either lying to you and you don't realize it, or they're lying by omission (very common in MSM). Even the Associated Press has made some pretty egregious errors triggering retractions or walkbacks, especially in the last few years. Which corporate news outlet doesn't have a history of egregious lies and errors?
- colejohnson66 7y agoUnfortunately, for most of the population, it’s whatever they read/watch. For many conservatives, Fox News is gospel, and for many liberals, CNN is gospel.
- 0xy 7y agoInterestingly when Fox and CNN cover the same political event they can both come to opposite conclusions at the same time that present a victory for their side. It really is like there are multiple realities. But luckily enough, CNN and Fox are both more irrelevant than ever. There's a reason no young people watch. Young people get news from YouTube, Snapchat and other new media sources from people they trust.
- et2o 7y agoWSJ Op-Eds constantly make fallacious arguments in the service of big business and Wall Street.
- pradn 7y agoYou're much more likely to find level-headed business-friendly arguments in the opinion pages of the Financial Times than the WSJ. After News Corp bought it, its editorial section has become raggy. It's sad, because their regular news section is generally high quality (but with the same statist, status-quoist POV that the NYT and Washington Post have.)
- huebomont 7y agoThe WSJ editorial board is garbage and will fall over themselves to side with corporate America even if it means making untenable arguments.
- 762236 7y agoThe AG's letter is a good read (and makes one angry too): https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/AG%20Becerra%20Letter%20to%20ICANN.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/AG%20...
- didntknowyou 7y agonothing new. they constantly make quality arguments in favor of their bias
- buoyantair 7y agoWSJ articles are closed off behind a paywall.