Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:15:02 -0700
From: Saul Steier <sauls-AT-sfsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fisk, profits, prostitutions



The rhetorical ploy of trying to make it look as if the Independent's 
future were somehow truly connected to charging one pound per read 
for Fisk articles is disingenuous to say the least..
Academia is in the world and always has been-especially public 
universities. Don't know what planet you've been living on..You can 
count the number of branches of the San Francisco Public Library that 
subscribe to the Independent in print on the fingers of your 
hands.Even many college libraries don't and my students don't have 
access to Berkeley or Stanford.I am underpaid for the intellectual 
work that I do and I never suggested that Fisk work for free.Don't 
put words in my mouth.I'm not shamed by your accusation of not 
recognizing complexity.That ploy didn't work either.Worst thing you 
can say about an Academic isn't it.? You'd know best who you 
prostitute your self for.



>In a message dated 5/1/03 4:33:20 AM, 
>owner-postcolonial-digest-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu writes:
>
>>You're naive if you
>>think any of the money we will now have to pay to read him will go to
>>him.It will go to the owners and stockholders of The Independent.
>>
>
>
>So what if Fisk is a full-time journalist earning a decent salary? 
>How does this make my observations absurd?  Don't you expect a 
>decent salary for the intellectual work you do?  Do you do it for 
>free out of some kind of moral rigor?  I don't remember claiming 
>that charging for usage was an effort by Fisk as an individual to 
>leverage money out of internet readers or that the Independent was 
>turning around and cutting a check to Fisk for time logged on.  I 
>merely pointed out that in the transition from  print to  electronic 
>flows of information, we will inevitably see the commodification of 
>on-line news sources.  (In the hey-day of print, no one gave away 
>newspapers for free as they do now.)  The arch-demon owners and 
>stockholders of the Independent obviously disagree with your 
>prioritization of availability over such mundane issues as economic 
>sustainability.  It seems to me that the most effective strategy for 
>regaining access would be to write directly to Fisk voicing your 
>dismay.  The role he plays as a liaison between mainstream and 
>alternative news sources is an important one, and one he is able to 
>fill because he has access to the machinery of mainstream media. 
>Should he threaten to quit unless your unlimited access is restored? 
>Should he look for another paper?  Go out on his own in protest? 
>Maybe.   Do you and I know enough about all that's going on at his 
>paper to condemn this move?  I doubt it. 
>      My working-class students and all the residents of New York 
>have access to libraries and access to newspapers from around the 
>world, including those articles for which the ordinary user browsing 
>the web is charged.  If yours do not have the same access, then this 
>is also a problem that demands your immediate attention.  It is 
>probably one you are more likely to change.
>      Sometimes the world is more complicated than it seems from 
>academia.  If simply observing this makes me, as someone else 
>charged, a "capitalist whore," so be it.
>Best regards,
>Anne

HTML VERSION:

In a message dated 5/1/03 4:33:20 AM, owner-postcolonial-digest-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu writes:

You're naive if you
think any of the money we will now have to pay to read him will go to
him.It will go to the owners and stockholders of The Independent.

So what if Fisk is a full-time journalist earning a decent salary?  How does this make my observations absurd?  Don't you expect a decent salary for the intellectual work you do?  Do you do it for free out of some kind of moral rigor?  I don't remember claiming that charging for usage was an effort by Fisk as an individual to leverage money out of internet readers or that the Independent was turning around and cutting a check to Fisk for time logged on.  I merely pointed out that in the transition from  print to  electronic flows of information, we will inevitably see the commodification of on-line news sources.  (In the hey-day of print, no one gave away newspapers for free as they do now.)  The arch-demon owners and stockholders of the Independent obviously disagree with your prioritization of availability over such mundane issues as economic sustainability.  It seems to me that the most effective strategy for regaining access would be to write directly to Fisk voicing your dismay.  The role he plays as a liaison between mainstream and alternative news sources is an important one, and one he is able to fill because he has access to the machinery of mainstream media.  Should he threaten to quit unless your unlimited access is restored?  Should he look for another paper?  Go out on his own in protest? Maybe.   Do you and I know enough about all that's going on at his paper to condemn this move?  I doubt it. 
     My working-class students and all the residents of New York have access to libraries and access to newspapers from around the world, including those articles for which the ordinary user browsing the web is charged.  If yours do not have the same access, then this is also a problem that demands your immediate attention.  It is probably one you are more likely to change.
     Sometimes the world is more complicated than it seems from academia.  If simply observing this makes me, as someone else charged, a "capitalist whore," so be it.
Best regards,
Anne