Single-play DVDs a Hoax 227
psy writes "Ed Bott's blog states that in relation to a previously posted slashdot story "a hoax can spread just as fast as a genuine news story. That's the lesson from the bogus story published in an obscure UK business magazine yesterday that claimed Microsoft is about to unleash a new single-play DVD format.
Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without giving credit to the original source. Bink.nu picked up the story from Paul and reprinted it verbatim.
Techdirt commented on the original story, with attribution but without any fact-checking. So did John Walkenbach.
The funny part? There's no truth to the story. None whatsoever. In fact, the original story sparked a flurry of e-mails around Microsoft as people in different groups tried to figure out where on earth this story came from. After the head-scratching stopped, a spokesmen told me, they concluded that the story was not true. "It appears to be confusing an existing feature within Windows Media DRM that allows for single-play of promotional digital material. This has been an option for content owners to use for some time for the Windows Media format - it does not apply to MPEG2 content found on DVDs."
All the more reason to check sources (Score:5, Insightful)
phew (Score:4, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia, hoax spread you!
Re:phew (Score:2, Insightful)
You're just realizing it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike engineering or medicine, for instance, there is no penalty for those journalists who fail to do their job properly. The complete lack of accountability had resulted in most mainstream newspapers, magazines and television news programs being nothing but farcery.
single format please? (Score:0, Insightful)
So what we've learned is (Score:2, Insightful)
Got it now.
Re:Shock (Score:2, Insightful)
So wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the Slashdot retraction or apology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a shock (Score:2, Insightful)
Only someone who reads slashdot every other day would say that. The rest of us know it's much more common than that.
Re:Crap Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon [wikipedia.org]
They send out a press release with plausible deniability to see how their PR would suffer or improve if they took a certain action. Now they know it's a bad idea, and they don't have to go through the trouble of sticking their necks out, too. Politicians do this all the time.
It's a shame really. The single-use DVD merely gives people an additional option. You can buy the DVD for $20, or buy it for a single use for $3. All those who would pay $3 for a single use but not $20 for the full DVD now suffer, and those who buy normal DVD's are unaffected.
Good job guys.
Why is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this a surprse to anyone? All of the major news media got most of the facts wrong on the Superdome incident after the Katrina hurricane. And that was a story that really mattered!
And anyone that takes what is published on
Ask anyone that has direct first hand information on a news story that has been reported on just how many facts on their incident were reported correctly. I doubt that any story is ever reported 100% correctly.
And what is the deal with newscasters becoming part of the story instead of just reporting what is going on? News on TV has become nothing more than another entertainment show. "If it bleeds it leads!" The talking heads are full of themselves making important sounding noises, rolling their eyes, and making incredulous sounds on stories they obviously have strong opinions on. Add that to them only reporting the portions of a story they agree with or make people they don't like look bad, why do so many people believe them still? And they get to do this with no over sight. So Dan Rather retired a little early over that misunderstanding. The other talking heads have picked up the slack.
And while we are at it what the hell is the deal with Major League Baseball? Why they hell can't they set a no tolerance policy for steroid/drug use? One time and that player is banned. Why do they try these half measures giving they multiple times to try to get around the rules? [sorry, that last part just slipped out...]
There are still reputable journalists (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times [nytimes.com] has had its problems, but their reporters are some of the best in the business, and while there is an editorial slant, it isn't extreme. The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] provides good monthly material, and The Economist [economist.com] does so on a weekly basis. Those are my picks for daily, weekly, and monthly news, but there are other sources. The Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com] is a great daily paper, for example. You may agree or disagree with my picks, but the profession of journalism isn't dead, and good sources of news are available.
I would also advance the notion that just because the editorial bias of a newspaper is disagreeable to you doesn't mean that the organization is corrupt. Newspapers are run by people, and people sometimes make mistakes. Note that during the runup to the Iraq invasion, The Atlantic provided excellent coverage and made many warnings that the Administration's plans were misguided. To me that is proof that following only one news source is a bad idea. You have to read from more than one source, whose biases you know, and make your own assessments from there.
I realize that it's de rigeur to bash on the news media, whether you're attacking from the Right or the Left, but the media is a business, and it gives people what they want. Americans need to take responsibility for at least some of the sorry state of our media. We have consistently voted in politicians who allowed the media conglomerates more and more power. We watch trash like Fox News. We read USA Today. That's not proof of a lack of credible journalism. It's proof that we're lazy.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. Thumbs down to you.