Time/Newsweek Cyberporn Stories

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 00:34:59 +0000
To: com-priv () psi com
From: arctos () arctos com (The Arctos Group)


Yellow journalism, self-serving political pandering, and the
basic human need for hysteria are all alive and well on this
219th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.


As has been already noted here on com-priv, the July 3rd issues
of both TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines carried major feature stories
on the availability of pornography on the internet.


TIME elected to grace its cover with a shock-graphic of a
child peering into a computer screen with similar breathless
full-page art inside the magazine, including a stylized image of
a naked figure embracing a computer and an image of a stereotypical
child molester luring an innocent child into a dark alley with a
computer screen displaying a lollypop.  As lurid art, these images
are very successful at being viscerally disturbing without being at
all informative.


(NEWSWEEK was much more reasonable in its coverage of the issue,
using the banner "Sex Online: What Parents Should Know" at the
very top of its cover, just above the Newsweek name, and producing
a factual story with some useful information for parents.)


This summer, many parents will see these and other headlines on
the topic of kids and cyberporn.  Some may even read the stories.


While I found the Newsweek story helpful and balanced, the TIME story
was complete yellow journalism designed to titilate and to enrage.  It
is unfortunate that many educators who are trying to incorporate
online information services and internet resources into the cirriculum
will have to deal with parents who have been terrorized by the image
of the internet which TIME portrays.


I know that the development of a campus-wide network and internet
connection at my son's school has already been delayed a year while
the school attempted to study the issue and to placate the concerns
articulated by some parents that internet access would result in
seventh graders being solicited online by anonymous child molesters.


Below is a commentary from The Washington Post (which is owned by the
same company which publishes NEWSWEEK).  This commentary brings some
degree of reason back to the topic.  Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be
read by those parents who have been brought to hysteria by TIME's
irresponsible attempt at emulating the National Enquirer.


William Lee Roberts
The Arctos Group
Boston




---------begin forwarded text--------


(c)The Washington Post
June 28, 1995 - Page C1
-----------------------


CYBERSENSITIVITY?


Did the Media Overreact to Pornography on the Internet?


By
Elizabeth Corcoran
Washington Post Staff Writer


   Nudists and sadists and perverts, oh my!


   This week's cover of Time magazine trumpets a new study conducted
at Carnegie Mellon University about pornography on electronic networks.
The headline is enough to make any self-respecting parent's blood run
cold: "A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is . . ."
A pasty-faced, bug-eyed child stares out from the cover, mouth agape.


   The message: Keep your kids off the Internet.


   But, in fact, that's not what the actual study says.


   Instead, the paper, which will soon be published in the Georgetown
University Law Journal, mostly describes the kind of Pornographic
material found in adult "bulletin boards."  These services, which are
typically not connected to the Internet, are not casually stumbled
across.  They usually involve a long distance telephone call and require
that users supply a password.  Some require a fax of a driver's license
as proof of age.  Others require a credit card number.


   In spite of the haunting images in Time of a hand reaching out of a
screen to grab innocent users, the Carnegie Mellon study isn't about
what Johnny or Jane might accidentally see when they fire up their
computer.  It's about how frequently people purposefully download
pornographic material from bulletin boards and so-called "newsgroups,"
where people post messages for one another.


   "It's as if they had taken a study of adult bookstores in Times Square
and generalized about what was in Barnes & Noble worldwide," contends
Mike Godwin, general counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.


   Time editors say they feel that their presentation was fair.  "The
percentage of pornographic material on the Internet isn't the issue,"
said Time Editor Norman Pearlstine.  "It's whether any informed user can
access it."


   Newsweek, which is owned by Washington Post Co., also published major
report this week briefly quoting the Carnegie Mellon study, but presented
its findings with the less inflamed headline: "A parent's Guide to Sex on
the Net."


   Still the study -- and especially the Time story -- has Internet
experts fuming. Donna L. Hoffman, a business professor at Vanderbilt
University who received portions of the study from Marty Rimm several
months ago, says Rimm's data does not support any sweeping conclusions
about how widespread pornography is on the Internet.


   The study "is very misleading" she contended.  Based on Rimm's analysis
of pornography available on adult bulletin boards, she said, he makes
broad inferences about consumers' tastes.  But the study "doesn't tell
us anything about consumer behavior," Hoffman asserted.  "It draws our
focus away and helps give ammunition to those who would try to censor
material.  What we need is an open debate ... not scare tactics."


   A number of authorities are angry that Rimm, 30, has little experience
with such studies.  He was an undergraduate when it was written.  They
also point out that university law review journals, such as Georgetown's,
typically do not circulate their articles for peer review, as do
scientific or other professional journals.  Given the explosive nature of
the material Rimm was covering, they suggest, he should have sought --
and incorporated -- more comments from experts.


   Rimm contends that he played by the rules.  "We have, in-house at
Carnegie Mellon, about a dozen faculty listed in the footnote who reviewed
everything very carefully and are convinced that the study as written and
presented is balanced," Rimm contended.  Pearlstine said that editors at
Time discussed the question of methodology and decided they were
comfortable with Rimm's work.


   Others differ.


   "It's not a study," said Daniel Weitzner, deputy director of the Center
for Democracy and Technology, who was asked to review the footnotes before
it was published.  Like Hoffman, he feels his comments were ignored m the
final draft.  "It's a rhetorical piece about the evils of pornography.
It essentially goes to the red light district of the Internet and confirms
that there's a lot of pornography there and concludes from that we have a
gigantic problem."  Rimm says that he believes there is much to be learned
by studying what people are interested in seeing via electronic networks.
"Pornography news groups are accessed way out of proportion to their
number," Rimm said, both around the world and at Carnegie Mellon.  For
instance, of the more than 14,000 electronic news groups worldwide, only
200 carry naughty messages or pictures, as far as he can tell.  But
students at Carnegie Mellon, for instance, tend to peek, into the
pornographic ones far more frequently than others, Rimm said.


   "There's no question that by availability, pornography accounts for a
small percentage of what's out there on the Internet," Rimm said.  "But
one needs to look at it from the demand side."


   Rimm enters the picture just as the debate about how to protect
children from nasty electronic material has itself grown nasty.  Earlier
this month, the Senate passed the "Exon amendment," which would make it
a offense to transmit "obscene" material via electronic networks.  The
House of Representatives is weighing alternative amendments to the
telecommunications legislation, including a proposal for an extensive
study of just what is out there and what could be done about it.  Last
week House Speaker Newt Gingrich, asked what he thought of the Exon
amendment, said "I think it has no meaning and no real impact. . . .
It is clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the
rights of adults to communicate with each other."


    Meanwhile, the computer industry itself is getting involved.  After
long ignoring concerns raised about "indecent" material available on
networks, industry leaders including Microsoft, Netscape and start-ups
including Progressive Networks and SurfWatch are working on "filters"-
programs that parents could use to ensure that their children will not
reach certain images and discussion groups on the Internet.


   Today, the Information Technology Association of America, made up of
more than 300 high-tech companies, plans to announce a task force to
address ways the industry should help parents cope with smut on the
nternet.  "The industry is very ingenious and confronted with the real
public relations and marketing problem they have, they're going to get
even more ingenious" in devising solutions, said Harris Miller, president
of the association.


#####