Subject: Guidelines for Posting Newsletters From: jvncnet!aol.com!StudioBrf Date: Sat, 01 Oct 94 15:48:36 EDT

Sender: jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sept. 30, Rex Ballard wrote:

> There are some simple guidelines for posting
> this type of information in newsgroups.

I am utterly horrified by some of the "guidelines" you say have been
established for posting information in newsgroups. Who has established them?
By what right? How may they be challenged?

> Make sure that the people you are about to send
> to want to hear what you have to say.

This notion would seem to run counter to the basic constitutional principle
that protects UNpopular speech, that allows for virtually unlimited
expression in public forums.

> JOIN. The internet community is more like a group
> of clubs. Each club or clique has it's own rules
> and conventions. ...
> Responding to a public article in a news group
> or mailing list publicly is completely
> appropriate.

Since when have newsmen been encouraged to join special-interest groups,
which is what these "clubs" very often seem to amount to? Since when have
they been advised to conform to the "rules and conventions" of such groups.
Certainly we ATTEND such groups from time to time, and may sometimes
contribute information to them in our effort to gain their recognition. But
to join in opinionated public discussions about subjects which we as newsmen
may be required to cover clearly represents a breach of professional ethics.

Your comments remind me of those of Otis Chandler, who, shortly after he took
over the helm of The Los Angeles Times in the early sixties, was asked about
studies indicating that the Republican Party received favored treatment in
his newspaper. He responded to the effect that the Times was a "family
newspaper" and that the majority of that family was Republican. Chandler was
thoroughly roasted for those comments.

> AOL is a private service and may not want you
> promoting newsletters on their feed. It would
> be like going to the local grocery store and
> setting up your own lemonade stand.

This notion also raises compelling issues about the nature of ANY online
service and its right to restrict access to the Internet. Shouldn't such
services be bound in the future (if they are not already) by the same rules
protecting freedom of expression that presently apply to common carriers?
Isn't the online provider more like the supermarket that maintains a
community bulletin board near its entrance? The courts have sharply
restricted the ability of the providers of those bulletin boards to control
what is posted on them.

> Using your internet provider to conduct
> business on a personal connection may be a
> violation of your service agreement. Business
> access ranges from $1000 to $7000 per year
> depending on speed, traffic, and services. AOL
> is not going to like you trying to run your
> newsletter at $100/year.

In my own case, my relationship with AOL is that I receive a small monthly
payment for their nonexclusive use of my newsletter in their Critics Choice
area. Additionally I receive virtually unrestricted access to the rest of
their online services. This allows me to monitor for my newsletter
information provided by other news suppliers and to e-mail the newsletter to
subscribers on the Internet. This relationship has existed for nearly a year.

At the present time, this relationship is probably far more advantageous to
AOL than it is to me. They are currently paying me an amount equivalent to
what I receive from just ten persons who subscribe to my newsletter via fax.
I had agreed to this arrangement initially because it had seemed to me that
it could be in my long-term interest to do so.

> Expect flames - Virtually any high profile
> commercial use of the internet is likely to
> result in various forms of retaliation.

Posting a newsletter in a public forum is certainly not my idea of "high
profile commercial use." Your comments suggest that the "various forms of
retaliation" might legitimately include being barred from access to the
Internet. That is a frightening proposition.

> Some of these subscribers are paying 25 cents
> per kilobyte to receive your mail. Make every
> byte count.

My general impression of the postings I have seen on the Internet in the
entertainment areas is that they generally concern trivial matters and
gossip. However, a significant minority of participants seem to care about
real news affecting the industry. Since my newsletter is directed at people
like them and since I believe it may help contribute to informed opinion that
might ultimately be expressed online, I decided to bring it to the attention
of the newsgroups.

I noticed your "dowjones.com" address. Well, what I am doing is not all that
much different from what Charles Henry Dow did when he began delivering slips
of financial news to brokerage houses in the 1880's to catch brokers'
attention, then assembling the notes into what eventually became the Wall
Street Journal.

> Be concious of the culture. Internet is an
> interesting culture. It is a network made up
> of several thousand brands of computers in
> several hundred countries, and in several
> million homes and businesses.

Describing Internet users as a "culture" is as nonsensical as describing
telephone users that way. I received the most enthusiastic response to my
newsletter from overseas members of a newsgroup devoted to discussions of
Asian motion pictures. The "flames" all came from U.S. members who, it would
seem to me, are interested in imposing such a narrow definition of
noncommercial access that, if applied to television, would make PBS seem like
HSN.

> At Digex, they just had a user send out a
> "green card" type mailing

I did no such thing. I posted the film section of my newsletter in film
newsgroups and the TV section, in TV newsgroups.

Finally, as a "newbie" I find the "guidelines" you have set down particularly
abhorrent -- and certainly unacceptable. And, if they have been widely
promulgated, I believe any journalist worth his salt who intends to earn his
future livelihood in online publishing should also speak out against them.

=Lew Irwin


From jvncnet!pipeline.com!netpoint@dowv  Ukn Nov  7 10:30:43 1994
Return-Path: 
Received: from eng.dowjones.com (dowjone) by dowv.eng.dowjones.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA08040; Mon, 7 Nov 94 10:30:42 EST
Received: from jvncnet.UUCP by eng.dowjones.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA09905; Mon, 7 Nov 94 10:11:38 EST
Received: from pipeline.com by tigger.jvnc.net with SMTP id AA19749
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for dowjone!dowv!rexb); Tue, 25 Oct 1994 16:10:47 -0400
Received: from pipe2.pipeline.com (pipe2 [198.80.32.42]) by pipeline.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA28399 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 16:10:16 -0400