The Failure of Tech Journalism 426
Belzebutt writes: "This is a great article that talks about something we already knew, but haven't paid that much attention to: most tech journalists are a bunch of corporate whores. It even mentions Slashdot, although not very favorably." Eh, we'll get over it. It's a good rant, something to consider as news sites fold left and right.
Shouldn't it read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Just Tech Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are the mod points when I need them?
Confusing Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
BUT, that's what Slashdot, THE COMMUNITY, has decided to be. Those AREN'T journalists. It's not CmdrTaco who's coming down and flaming people. There even exists many legitimate criticisms of Slashdot and Slashdot's journalism. But this guy, in confusing the whole issue, just comes off as stupid.
If you're going to say Slashdot is harsh, say it in an article about the environment of weblog.
If you're going to say journalism is bad, get on them for the all the times they've been had by hoaxes and post press releases for companies submitted by people with the same username as the company.
But if you're going to criticize /., at least do it fairly and in the right forum. Otherwise, you come off seeming like an idiot who doesn't understand what, exactly, he's writing about or what his subject is.
Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire? (Score:2, Insightful)
MSNBC have proven themselves to be pretty damn impartial. Slashdot cannot claim that. At all.
Simon
Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire? (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot journalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I've never thought of Slashdot as "journalism". Who are the reporters? Where are the stories they write? Where is the pretense of objectivity?
Every ed will say straight out they have a pro-linux bias, there's no attempt to disguise it. The anti-MS atmosphere isn't "Slashdot's dirty secret" as mod-losers like to claim, it's just part of the deal. Slashdot is a conversation, not a newspaper. I don't see why people criticize it for not being something it has never pretended to be.
Look At The Source (Score:3, Insightful)
I dare say that most Internet new sites (mainstream ones anyway, ZD/CNet, InfoWorld, etc.) look like corporate whores because they get their news from wire services that are corporate whores. Reuters, Bloomberg, Associated Press, and Dow Jones Newswire. Now those are a bunch of independent thinking and incorruptable companies, eh?
I also dare say that most of the bankrupt news sites wouldn't be in so much trouble if they actually wrote their own news instead of using the same wire stories all their competitors use. Go to Yahoo News, Netscape News, MSN, ZDNet, and PCWeek. Reuters feeds on every one of them, often the same stories. And some sites just use the same reports with a few words changed around so they don't have to credit the original source (or pay for the story - or admit they don't have any competent writers on staff.)
Creative, independent, and different-thinking companies don't always survive - but at least people will care if they don't. I couldn't care less if some Reuters rehash "news" site goes under because I probably don't go to that site anyway. But on the other hand I would probably get teary if The Register, Aint It Cool, Tom's Hardware, Mac OS Rumors, BetaNews, or TheStandard.com (what remains of it) went away because they at least have the guts to be different.
Shitty article (Score:3, Insightful)
ZD is by FAR the most biased, most useless source of tech information. I dumped my subscription to Computer Gaming World after 12 years when they bought it.
In a ZD article, you "coincidently" see and ad for a product around a positive review of it.
Don't believe anything you see on tv.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, look what happens when a Howard Stern fan calls in during the OJ situation...you have this guy sounding as hickish as he possibly can, and making comments that don't make any sense, and Peter Jennings eats it up. 99% of the people on television are toast without a teleprompter.
For that matter, here's another pet peeve...how come the media always asks actors what their political views are. Why do the opinions of a guy who never has a thought in his mind, a guy who's job is to do and act and feel and say what someone else tells him to, why do they ask him?
All media is propaganda.
Ethics and Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoring journalists are nothing new. Being online just gives them better opportunities to pimp themselves.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the most disinterested, apathetic attitude I've seen in a long time. Get over it? Is that how you respond to valid criticisms?
Three years ago, Slashdot was "The Place" to go for computer news. Slashdot broke stories way before any other sites covered them. The message boards were lit up with intelligent conversation and discussion.
Today? Some articles are duplicated twice, even three times. Slashdot lags behind other news sites in stories, the postings are heavy on opinion instead of fact, and the site has a tremendous bias. Stories are submitted days, sometimes weeks in advance, and are rejected only to be posted much later by someone else's submission. Articles are posted without so much as a second thought to grammar and spelling.
What did you expect? Congratulations?
Obviously, a lot less care is being taken to make Slashdot the place it used to be.
And you'll just....eh....get over it? Instead of sulking in the corner and trying to "get over it", why not attempt to CHANGE the negative aspects that make people say "You suck!" Start listening to the valid complaints and criticisms people send you, and take action. Consider suggestions. Be a little proactive. Sure, code updates are good, but people DO care a lot about CONTENT as well.
slashdot is not journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire? (Score:2, Insightful)
When they said that they provided "News for Nerds".
News should always be impartial.
Not to mention that even that title is wrong; it should be "Opinions for Open Source Advocates".
*shrugs* Your mileage may vary.
Simon
Re:Media Whores (Score:2, Insightful)
The print newspaper is the last bastion of moderate or unbiased reporting and it's going away fast.
If you think they are wrong I'd like to throw out a rant from the site in question:
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on Smirk?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Smirk?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it shouldn't read that way because there are no journalists working on Slashdot.
M$ Advocate - "I can't get my modem working" (Score:3, Insightful)
ohhh of course that excludes putting a desktop PC on almost every home users desk in the world right ? (if it wasn't for MS-Dos, their would be no PC-as-we-know-it)
Indeed. In fact, your quote of my original posting included the assertion that Microsoft has indeed has some practical uses.
And I will give Microsoft credit where it's due. Microsoft can be at least partially credited for standardizing the Intel x86 architecture, for one thing. IBM may have created it, but it was the clone makers selling it to run MS-DOS that standardized it. For sure, it was a dated kludge of an architecture even when it was introduced in 1981, but the fact that we don't have 18 different popular desktop platforms has terrifically simplified buying a computer. The adoption rate has been increased greatly as a result of Microsoft selling MS-DOS.
On the other hand, Microsoft did not invent Plug and Play. The Amiga had it in 1985, the Mac in 1984 and the TI-99/4 in 1979. They merely managed to make it work (sorta) on the Intel platform that IBM designed and they standardized.
Microsoft did not invent the Internet, did not invent TCP/IP, multitasking, multi-user operating systems, e-mail, etc. Hell, they didn't even invent MS-DOS [maxframe.com].
So, what does Microsoft do well? Sell their products and implement standards. Not good standards, usually.
Like VHS winning over Beta, Microsoft usually pushes the technically inferior standard, of its own or someone else's creation. Just on sheer volume. And again, like VHS winning over Beta, a default operating system and platform sure makes it a lot easier to use your computer.
Anyone else here old enough to remember trying to mount DOS diskettes on an Amiga, or Amiga diskettes on a Mac, or Mac diskettes on a TI-99/4A? That's the only part of Microsoft which has been a blessing to the industry.
As with most other people who've got experience with more than one operating system (and, better still, several hardware and CPU platforms), I've seen enough variety of computers to know that Emperor Bill has no clothes.
VHS versus Beta? Beta's still very much alive, thank you. Consumers don't know quality, but TV stations sure do [sony.com].
small minded ignorant linux smux, gotta love emI've yet to meet anyone with any degree of experience in multiple operating systems who still feels positively about Microsoft. If all you've ever driven is Hyundais, I guess it's pretty hard to understand how someone could like a Plymouth Superbird [aerowarriors.com] or a Porsche 959.
And, lemme tell you, Windows 2000 makes a nice daily driver. Disposable, just like a shiny new Hyundai Sonata.
Favorite linux user quote of the decade : "I can't get my modem working" hahahahahahahahahahahaha......True. It's so much better to have similarly incompetent people actually managing to get online, contract every dread e-mail virus known to man, and then continue to pollute *my* webserver (paid for with *my* money) through *their* idiocy [glowingplate.com], right?
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? Slashdot has been recycled links from day one. Sure, it was better 3 years ago, but that was when Taco&Co where still making their bones.
You should know that, you remember BoredAtWork.
Still, explain to me how you can break a story when all you have is a link to *somebody elses* coverage of it?
Re:Thank Taco for the moderators (Score:3, Insightful)
The one area where moderation falls down is sometimes coherent, well-written posts that are nevertheless uninformed, ignorant spouting of garbage get modded up inappropriately. Other than that, I think the system works reasonably well.
Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire? (Score:2, Insightful)
Readers.
Favorable coverage comes a distant second.
The fact that bigger companies can steer coverage is a windfall for them, not a requirement for the publication. Publishers have kowtowed to advertisers, it happens, it's common. And it makes advertiser's happy, until that publication tanks.
If you want -good- biased coverage, you go to a publication that just has biased and shameless editors, like the LA Times in the 60's (it was a media spigot for the GOP). Because they're still interested in their readers, and producing something that has value to the readers.
You want -bad- biased coverage you go to somebody who is looking to score bonus points with some advertiser, because they're going about things backwards in the first place.
Let me repeat, with some refinements I thought up as I was writing here...
-Smart- advertisers want their ads to be seen, and choose publications that put their adverts onto the eyes/ears of their target demographic.
It is a pure bonus to the Marketing department of those companies if they can control editorial content with the threat (made or implicit) of taking advertising dollars to other publications.
As a side note, somebody else already mentioned this, but Car & Driver has always seemed to me to be a fairly upright publication. Partly because they have a large readership and a very broad base of potential advertisers (how many different companies that manufacture spark-plugs want advert space in C&D?).
Methinks he doth protest too much (Score:2, Insightful)
Let us isolate some of his specific allegations and see if they are, on balance, true:
Linux skepticism is long overdue, but the missionary ideologues jump on your back and kick you in the balls. The kind of independent tech journalism needed to cover Linux doesn't exist.
If Oracle could run MS into the ground today, they would do it. Taking sides in such a battle is a core betrayal of everything journalism should stand for.
Consumer Reports has the right idea, but they are so stodgy that they are nearly useless to the average consumer.
Take Windows ME. What a piece of crash-daily crap. ME was a horrible OS. It barely worked...
Many dotmags were as ethically challenged as a Mexican policeman.
Now the San Jose Mercury News ... is run by some of the most gutless people ever to call themselves journalists
The reality is that everyone had their heads up their asses because they thought they were going to be rich.
Hell, there would be no Microsoft without the feds investing trillions in technology.
Do these statements sound like neutral and detached coverage that he extolls? Given the hyperbole, are his conclusions likely to be sound?
His point seems to be: The one lesson that all these online rags never got is that if you are a pimp today, when things get shitty, people will turn on you.
What perhaps he should explain is why the market place sometimes punishes the publications he calls unreliable and sometimes it doesn't.
And I can't let this overwrought assertion pass: Journalism is a noble profession when done right. And people get killed doing it every year.
Nobody gets killed writing about technology either truthfully and not. The worst that happens is that they get their backs jumped on or kicked in the balls by Linux zealots, who are a notoriously mean and ornery bunch.
Re:slashdot is not journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
This is news for nerds. There's plenty of room on the web for the kind of 'objective' [laugh] sites (Toms and Sharkey) that Gilliard likes.
I think he's correct about outfits like Cnews and Ziff-Davis. They're junk. They hire journalists based on their writing abilities first, and their technical know-how second. All their stories are mostly are tiny puff pieces which are filler between the ads.
Hands down, the best tech newsites are The Register [theregister.co.uk] and The Inquirer [theinquirer.net]. Van's Hardware, is getting pretty good, too.
One thing that I think escapes our Gillard is that IT is a big corporate swimming pool, and news is mostly closely-held secrets. Nobody speaks to IT journalists unless they have another wizz-bang product to sell. Investigative reporting in the IT industry is almost unknown.
Is it the fault of the Journalists or the Editors? (Score:1, Insightful)
I have written a number of reviews for industry magazines, issuing fair reviews and 3 or even 2 out of 5 stars, only to have an editor "suggest" that the rating should be higher. If a magazine can give a company the ability to say "5 stars from Magazine X," then both the reviewed and the magazine win as the reviewed company's marketing arm swings into action, requesting reprints of articles and full page ad space to accompany favorable reviews.
The 'impartial' industry analysts are no better. Forrester, Gartner, Giga, et al base their rankings not on the best product, but on who is going to provide them with the most collateral press and money.
But at the end of the day, THERE IS NO IMPARTIAL JOURNALISM. Disney owns ABC - how many unfavorable Disney stories will appear on that network. Time-Warner/AOL owns CNN. Moneyed interests control even the PBS entries. As long as magazines sell ad space, television has commercials, and corporations own both the creation of content, the content itself, and the delivery of the content, we will need to continue to read between the lines.
This guy needs a clue. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is news? Jesus, I knew this back in the days of "Compute!," back when they still published BASIC programs on paper. Bias towards one's advertisers is nothing new. Hell, this isn't even a restriction on tech journalists, as most mainstream journalists are also corporate whores.
The fact of the matter is that if you piss off the people who buy your advertising, there isn't a very high likelihood that they'll continue to buy the advertising that pays your bills. Using Dan Rather and the white house as an example of this is horrible. Of course the White House never paid Dan Rather's wages. That was done by Charmin.
Basically, all that's happened in this article is that yet another idiot has finally figured out what they should have known from the age of 10 - that the media is a big fucking sham and that none of it is to be believed. Get over it already and take it all with a big lump of salt.
Re:slashdot is not journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, they frequently are faxed, emailed, or read the contents of a corporate press release, which is then considered a primary, reliable source of information.
The only time the articles get really good is when it sounds like the writer has talked to Corp A before talking to Corp B and Mr. A says something about Corp B., so the guy at B says something about A, or implies rather crudely that Mr. A is lying. It's like watching fifth graders argue at recess.