5 ms·
How so? Can you point out passages? That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s happening and bring out the position of each side, wi
by ugh 15y ago
How so? Can you point out passages?
That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s happening and bring out the position of each side, with an emphasis on presenting the views of those who take part in today’s protest.
There is also a disclaimer, though you might argue it’s a bit far down.
- CWIZO 15y agoTake the title "Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest". I immediately read that as "wikipedia is supporting piracy". YMMV
- badclient 15y agoDon't blame CNN for that, we should blame ourselves. We should have called this the anti-jobs bill from the get go.
- joezydeco 15y agoCBS radio pretty much said the same thing. "..went black to protest anti-piracy measures". We're all so busy blacking things out we forgot that the media needs guidance in framing the issues.
- roguecoder 15y agoA press release calling this "the internet censorship bill" could have gone a long way. Possibly along with more comparisons with China and Iran; appealing to xenophobia and American exceptionalism seems a usually-winning strategy.
- etherael 15y agoGlad someone else noticed, was beginning to feel vaguely disgusted by this continuous barrage of evil foreigners out to take our god given American jobs propaganda passing without rebuke.
- kamjam 15y agoEven if you released that press release, what are the chances of the media reporting it that way. The article itself states it, CNN's parent supports SOPA... so don't you think the headline is written to grab attention and frame it as "Wikipedia and co don't support SOPA therefore they must support piracy". No way would they make the movement seem like a good thing!
- Scriptor 15y agoFor the average person who knows very little to nothing about SOPA, the phrase "anti-piracy" implies that the bill is specifically targeted against piracy-related matters. People might even assume that it would be effective against piracy. Imagine if voicing your opposition to TSA's expanding control and alleged infringements of rights was called, "So-and-so opposed to anti-terror bill."
- marknutter 15y agoTo be fair, the bill's goal is to stop piracy. Granted, it's crippling the internet in the process, but I think calling it an "anti-piracy" bill is pretty accurate.
- smokeyj 15y agoTrue, stopping the economy is one way to stop piracy.
- Sindisil 15y agoNo, it's not. If anything, continued or increased economic slowdown will increase piracy, as people have both less disposable income and less regard for increasingly abused intellectual property rights.
- gt384u 15y ago> No, it's not. I think you may be right, but only if you consider piracy to not be part of "the economy". My understanding at least is that it very much is.
- bediger 15y agoSure, that's what the name says and so forth, but haven't you ever heard to not judge a book by its cover? The internals of the bills are so weird, that you can't help but suspect that something else is going on there.
- eavc 15y ago
- twentysix 15y agoFrom the article, "If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. Search engines and other providers would have to block rogue sites when ordered to do so by a judge. " From my understanding SOPA doesnt require an order from a judge but rightsholders, ISPs, or the government could shut down sites with accusations of infringement, and without real due process.
- adamjernst 15y agoThe proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. — Wikipedia SOPA does require an order from a judge.
- onemoreact 15y agoThey use 3 images from the wikipedia page which prevents you from reading it. Wikipedia was among several websites to shut down at midnight in protest of anti-piracy bills now in Congress that critics say could amount to censorship. Wikipedia did not shutdown, people in France can read the French or English version of the site just fine. PS: I could continue but those are literally the first picture and first sentence of the article.
- Symmetry 15y agoThose seem like just the typical news agency sloppiness, not evidence of any sort of deliberate misrepresentation. News articles about subjects you have in depth knowledge of are always that bad, at least for daily publications.
- ugh 15y agoThey grabbed one of the first images that come up when you search for Wikipedia on Getty Images†. They were lazy, not malicious. And being wrong about one inconsequential detail doesn’t mean they are misrepresenting anything. They made a stupid mistake, that’s all. I don’t want to defend CNN but I think it’s about time turn confirmation bias down a bit. — † A link: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&ebd=2012-01-17&p=wikipedia http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&...
- onemoreact 15y ago"Internet companies are worried they could be held liable for users' actions." SOPA makes Internet companies liable for their users actions by removing safe harbor provisions. The only could is 'could be held liable' in a court of law. They also avoid mentioning how many websites are protesting SOPA. If this was breaking news that would be one thing, but they have had significant warning that this was going to happen.
- cpfohl 15y agoI completely agree. The article is primarily composed of quotes (in Chrome, doing a ctrl-f for a '"' character makes the page look like your monitors gone yellow). Aforementioned disclaimer: "SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner and groups such as the MPAA -- say..." While you can report something primarily using quotes in a biased manner. I'm with @ugh, this was relatively well done.
- atomicdog 15y ago"an all-out war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley." makes it sound as if this is simply two factions of lobbyists battling against each other.