NY Times Tries to Untangle Analysts and Shills 179
twitter writes "The Register and others are examining a New York Times effort to eliminate bias from technology reporting by not echoing paid opinions. (Other coverage here.) They target Microsoft specifically. InfoWorld has an insightful summary of the two sides of this old debate. Fake think tanks, dubious sponsored research, and Astroturf are not considered but should be. Companies using these tactics deserve to be held at arm's length, but that's hard to do when the company is also a monopoly able to make or break any 'expert.' It would be refreshing to see the New York Times discover the FSF, opensource.org, EFF, and other sources of computing expertise."
EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Aren't they biased, too? Maybe not in Microsoft or Oracle's pocket, but they have a definite point of view that should be taken into account as well.
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:4, Funny)
Repeat after me:
Microsoft==Evil
Oracle==Evil
EFF==Good
FSF==Good
I'm glad we got this taken care of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They are not being paid to have the bias they have
2. They are not claiming to be an unbiased, independent third party
The problem with fake think tanks, astroturfers, etc. is that they are pretending to be an objective source when in reality they are being compensated to have the opinion that they do.
False: They are not being paid to have the bias... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing against any of the organizations that are mentioned, but just a note about non-profits in general. Having worked at a non-profit I know that the people who work at them are better off (financially and social status-wise) the more people agree with them. Thus, they do have a vested self-interest in promoting their point of view. These days non-profit only really means "without shareholders" - it's naive to assume that non-profit status impl
Re:False: They are not being paid to have the bias (Score:2)
Promotion is an expensive way to compensate for being wrong. Real nonprofits don't have the extra cash to pay to be wrong but popular, unless they're fronts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh, no. Look at how popular religion is. Look at how many people believe political lies, and distrust scientific fact. Look at how many people believe common myths. Being honest or correct does not guarantee popularity. In fact, it usually means less popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamental difference. (Score:2)
1.- Believe in a cause or idea.
2.- Spread the idea, convince skeptics.
3.- ???
4.- Profit (in social status certainly, I have not seen Richard Stallman's Ferrari, but I am sure he lives in hope).
Commercial company:
1.- Have a bussines, make lots of money.
2.- Identify ideas that harm profit, combat them with astroturfing and lobbyists pretending to be unbiased.
3.- ???
4.- Profit, of the monetary kind that allows for those Ferraris.
Cappice?
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vendors supporting DRM
----------------------
Company 1
Company 2
Vendors against DRM
-------------------
Organization 1
Pluses of DRM
-------------
* [Company1]
Negatives of DRM
----------------
* [Company1]
Presenting in this form would help prevent the nonsense answers that someone like Steve Balmer seems to dole out. "Uh, sir, we need a checkmark for yes or no in this box. What can I put down for you?". You could boil down interviews to answering a non-anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire with comments at the end. I know most or all of this has been done by certain magazines on certain occasions, but as a standard I think it would work well.
Determining who are the major players would require some thought as well. I notice that companies under the top 3 often get overlooked in magazine reviews: it's as if they don't exist. However, their competing features can be just as good.
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies hire these shillers to get quotes into newspapers and television, the only possible way to deal with them is to not quote them, anything else is giving them what they want. Because you see each citation of a shill, gets added to the shill's resume so that he can get even more citations. That's how crazy people like Jack Thompson get publicity. He starts by showing how many times he's been cited in the past to show his credibility.
Given those facts, it's entirely right that all news media identify and systematically ignore these people. An opinion that is bought and paid for is less than worthless to any news media. They're parasites who consume the credibility of whatever they're quoted in for the benefit of their masters.
Re: (Score:2)
As for yes/no answers, those are also insufficient. The world does not boil down to boolean algebra. I know we'd *like* it to boil down that far, but it doesn't. The best you can do if you want some kind of value on opinion is bayes'theorem.
Anyway, as a demonstration (and this applies to politics as well
Re: (Score:2)
A company that goes to the public tell its opinion should not be censored. An independent individual that goes to the public to tell his opinion shouldn't be censored either.
Now, a company that goes to the public covered as an independent individual shouldn't be listened. That is a lie, and there is no point on a newspaper reporting lies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not allowed to sit on the jury for my own court case. It's not sensorship. It's assuring a fair trial by filtering out people who have a high interest in the result. In this case, it's a finacial interest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are open about their bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking Microsoft why they think people should upgrade to Vista is fine, and I hope New York Times will continue to do so. Microsoft is openly and obviously biased with regard to their own products, and getting their side of the story is valuable.
The problem is when you ask some "independent analyst" for their opinion on a possible upgrade, and that analyst happens to be funded by Microsoft.
Bias is not a problem, hidden bias is a problem.
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the new Political Math brought to you by Fox News. If you take a raving lunatic from one side of an issue, and a raving lunatic from the other side of an issue, then you get two raving lun... err, I mean you get fair and balanced news!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:EFF and FSF unbiased? (Score:4, Insightful)
By that argument, creationism should be taught in schools.
Yes, I know it's easy to modify your quotation to make it more nuanced and more sensible. All that means is that "enough said" often isn't enough after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until we fix schools to train people to think and not just behave, Creationism has no place in that dictation environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly should be. If it were, there would be a lot fewer literal creationists and most of those that remained would at least have read Genesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. Unlike "technology analysts" who are on a Microsoft retainers while pretendng to be impartial. There's too much PR masquerading as news, and not a little gets posted her, for that matter.
There is a big difference. (Score:2)
Organizations promoting an agenda but not profitting from their activities can be taken serioulsy since theri biases are born out of conviction, not interest.
On the other hand, commercial organizations will go to strenous lenghts to show you black is white if doing so will increase their profits. The tobacco and alcohol companies and their paid for studies and lobbyists are the better known of examples of this.
Re: (Score:2)
They are biased, but their bias is largely orthagonal to quality/usability.
That is to say that the FSF is perfectly capable of saying that Microsoft Fiasco is a wonderful and useful product, but is unacceptable because it is crippled by DRM. When you are assessing quality and/or usability the FSF assessment of quality may well be free of intentional bias.
OTOH, some Microsoft funded 'Mongolian Software Progress Foundation' that consists of an Ulan Bator taxi driver an
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of ends and means. There is nothing wrong with the end of promoting Microsoft products, but doing so by deception is morally wrong.
Furthermore it is quite possible to pursue an end, but be open about information and arguments that contradict t
Re:100% in agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as the technical aspects go, I think the big problem that any media organization has is that they have journalists writing about subjects they don't have a clue about--so they take the advice of experts like Microsoft and echo them in their articles. This is sort of a tricky problem to solve because the obvious solution of hiring technically educated persons probably isn't going to work (because they will be significantly more expensive than ordinary journalists). It is sort of a gamble. They can hire expensive people who have a strong education in science and technology and print much more thorough and unbiased articles or they can go cheap and hope the lack of quality doesn't hurt their sales.
Re: (Score:2)
A.k.a. the least common denominator.
As far as I can see, it's a major problem of journalism everywhere.
And it's not going away either.
People who want thorough and unbiased articles read the specialized magazine of their choice.
Clueless people read whatever their newspaper of choice serves them. (Several years ago, a Croatian magazine for women[1] printed an article about buying a computer. It said that 256 MHz RAM was... well, whatever.)
And when someone informed reads the crap they printed and decides
RS upfront in ideology (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonetheless, Richard Stallman and the like are upfront/open on their (ideological) reasoning, therefor transparent, which make them very good experts.
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you supposed to tell your readers? Here are some guys opinions, but he is very left wing and hates proprietary software so everything he will say about it is negative? But don't worry, he will give a good review on open source material? That is a crock. So now the reader will read a bad review on a potentially good piece of proprietary software that would solve the readers requirements for a software package. And he might read in the same article a recommendation to use instead an open sourc
Re: (Score:2)
They have old-school instincts and corruption, which contrast with the fresh feel of new media sources.
yeah, you'd never get bias or an agenda in a blog. They always report impartially on the facts, and always thoroughly do their research and cite all sources.
They're just looking for new stunts by which to sideswipe the market in an attempt to keep themselves relevant.
Yeah, trying to improve the standards of their tech reporting is such a stunt. It's sure to be glitzy and appeal to the lowest-common-denominator, and not cost a single cent in extra work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when you attempt to A) hide the bias and B) give equal credence to bias that has no basis in any kind of evidence. Paid shills do A and B. Unpaid shills might do B, but that's easier to point out and notice when reading an article.
Opinions may be formed on evidence (controlled observation), empirical evi
Decide for Themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should rather make up their own minds. Much as I agree with the EFF and the FSF, they do have their own agendas.
Ideal Sources of Information, When Used. (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe they should rather make up their own minds. Much as I agree with the EFF and the FSF, they do have their own agendas.
That agenda makes those groups ideal sources of information for newspapers. Newspapers ultimately serve their readers or perish. The FSF, EFF and Opensource.org all have the user's freedom and prosperity as their goal. They are expert and impartial to industry interests.
The agenda of FSF and friends has little to do with pushing a specific program or platform. The FSF, for e
Re: (Score:2)
There is a world of difference between asking asking the opinion of organizations like the EFF, who are open about where they stand, and a supposedly independent analyst who is secretly paid by Microsoft to say what he says.
The problem is hidden bias, not bias. The opinion of people with an acknowledged interest in a subject is often valuable; for example getting a comment from Microsof
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ask anyone who's followed the SCO lawsuit saga and they'll tell you about the major Microsoft shills. Enderle (his own "group", just him really), Didio (garner), Daniel Lyons (forbes), and Maurice (sorry, didn't follow that part so well).
These folks know how to work the media. They appear quoted over and over again. They have massive bias. Enderle is the by far the WORST.
Of the many Enderle stories, he gave a keynote speech at some SCO develo
Is this true? (Score:2)
Re:Is this true? (Score:5, Informative)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=99
Editors' Note
Published: November 10, 2006
An article in Business Day on Tuesday described a decision by Microsoft to offer movies and episodes of television shows for downloading through its Xbox Live online service in the United States.
The article quoted Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, discussing the features that set Xbox Live service apart and its position in the market.
But the article did not note that Mr. Enderle had Microsoft as a client, a fact later pointed out by a reader. Mr. Enderle does consulting work for several of Microsoft's product groups, though not for the one developing the Xbox; still, had The Times known of Mr. Enderle's work for Microsoft, it would not have sought out his opinion on the product.
So what has changed? (Score:3)
I find it odd that an organization the size of the Times would go from one extreme [brainyquote.com] to another in just 5 years.
Maybe my tinfoil hat is a little tight, but I think something smells a little fishy here.
Fair and Balanced (Score:2)
It seems quite unlikely to me that any organization trying to eliminate such bias in its reporting would leap to consider the opinions of an organization that paints everything about as black and white as your most zealous televangelist.
Bah, reporters trying just to avoid responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
If the problem of technology reporting is that reporters don't know a damn thing and just repeat the words of marketing folks, the solution simple: Hire reporters who actually have a technological background. Is that so hard?
Garbage. (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't the reader be making this analysis anyway, no matter who the source? I mean, if we don't even trust our own President on his word alone (as we shouldn't), why in the world would we trust a newspaper implicitly?
Good for the Times, I say. It's a move in the right direction. You know all those movie posters that quote "reviewers" and give trash movies "four thumbs WAY up!!!1"? Remember when it was exposed that they were shills?
Pot calling kettle black (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-
The iTunes Vendor Lock In Myth [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like El'Reg has been correcting the BBC's weather recently:
London Heatwave [theregister.co.uk]
Snowy 20C Weather [theregister.co.uk]
Belfast Hurricane [theregister.co.uk]
The weather (Score:2)
The problem isn't just with tech stories (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
What everyone seems to be missing here is that the problem isn't just restricted to tech stories; their track record is just as bad when it comes to real world news. Remember Judith Miller and the "proof" about Iraq's WMD [huffingtonpost.com]--the one they wound up apologizing for, years after we'd gotten mired in Vietnam II? Of course, it's a step up from citing totally made up sources (e.g. Jason Blaire's "composite" sources [wikipedia.org]), but not by much.
They used to be the paper of record, but now they're just another waste of dead tree pulp.
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank god neither of us screw up, eh? That'd mean we suck, too.
Who then ? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Involved with the product or the company producing the product.
2. Involved with the companies competition.
3. Being paid to do it.
If it's someone from the company, the competition cries foul stating the rep is only trying to make the product look good, which, if you work for a company that makes sense if you want to eat.
If it's someone from the competition
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see bias in itself as being the issue. In fact, sometimes I'd rather see opinions coming from people who have enough conviction in their opinion to stake a personal outcome on it. The problem is whether that bias is genuine or not.
It's easy to check on facts. You can keep an expert honest by doing so. The problem is, there are so few simple facts. Most
It looks like (Score:4, Informative)
Somebody needed [nytimes.com] to try out [nytimes.com] the search engine [nytimes.com] on their front page. [nytimes.com]
Thanks. (Score:2)
Thanks for taking time to use the NYT search tool. Twenty three stories mentioning the free software foundation since 1981 is not bad for a newspaper. They even found out by 1989, that's impressive. I applaud the steps they are taking and can see they are working to represent the interests of their readers.
At the same time, not much is being written about alternatives to Microsoft [slashdot.org] by the news industry at large.
I know the Reg bias... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the basics of journalism is understanding that as a journalist you can't elminate your bias. What you can do is try to minimize your bias and in cases of opinion and analysis declare your bias as well as the bias of your sources. The Reg said it best in this case, "A better policy might insist that the Times disclose the ties between an analyst and a vendor, leaving the reader to make the credibility judgement." . So if I see a Microsoft enginner quoted I'm told he is an MS engie and when I see TurdFurgeson quoted I'm told he's Linux zealot.
Thats really the best the NYT can do as a responsible organization, if you eliminate all bias you remove your writers humanity and create a lie. While removing bias your own mind will fool itself and think you've removed them when really you've magnified them. Biases are what lead to needed critiques, so long as those biases are dealt with openly and honestly we should be ok.
*Note I'm not a journalist, but the points here have been beaten into my head by several close journalist friends. The bias question was also material for an elective journalism course for me at college.* - There see. I declared my bias. I like and trust most journalists because I know some good ones. I've also pointed out that I lack formal training in the area, so I might know enough to contribute but I shouldn't be quoted as an expert source.
Your bias is showing. (Score:2)
So if I see a Microsoft enginner quoted I'm told he is an MS engie and when I see TurdFurgeson quoted I'm told he's Linux zealot. ... The bias question was also material for an elective journalism course for me at college.*
"Linux zealot," What is that and why would you bother to interview one? I'm getting tired of seeing that meaningless insult slung around.
Of course, that's not what the NYT is complaining about. They are bothered by their sources pretending to be things they are not. Microsoft i
Re: (Score:2)
You're new here, aren't you? Read any story here about Linux, OS X, BSD or Windows and you'll see plenty of ill-informed, poorly-reasoned, frothing at the mouth comments from people either supporting Linux or denigrating Windows, all based on incorrect supposition, out of date information that is no longer true, logical fallacies and a hefty sprinkling of FUD.
Not to say that you don't also get Windows zealots, OS X zealots, BSD zealots,
Everyone is biased (Score:2)
The FSF is biased towards promoting freedom of speech and improving software quality. Microsoft is biased towards crushing competition and dominating the market in order to maximize profit. The Bush administration is biased towards gaining strategic influence in key oil producing regions
Re:Everyone is biased (Score:4, Insightful)
Many news sources have an obvious political leaning, but the fact that their bias is obvious means that their bias can openly be considered when evaluating what that source is saying.
Anyone reading my stuff is also aware that I similarly have strong personal views on technology. Bias is only deceptive when it is hidden. The Wall Street Journal doesn't pretend to be liberal, and the NY Times doesn't pretend to be conservative. I enjoy reading both, because both offer viewpoints and interesting information without pretending to be something they are not.
Hidden bias is used by writers such as Paul Thurrott - he suggests he really likes Apple stuff, only to spin everything he says in a deceptive and negative way.
Microsoft is behind a huge wave of fraud marketing, and has a history of these tactics, from its attack on Linux and its affiliation with SCO, to its regular FUD comments against Apple - including Ballmer's suggestion that the company is not interested in selling Windows for Macs because they only care about "Real PCs." The Zune campaign is a new example.
Being biased can be entertaining and engaging - consider Jon Stewart. Even Rush Limbaugh, when he's not making fun of the handicapped, is fun to laugh at; however, pretending to not be biased and stating opinions as uncontroversial facts is misleading and slimy.
--
One interesting effort in ranking news is NewsTrust [roughlydrafted.com], althought it could conceptually be subverted by astroturfing.
It seems that people are far more gullable in believing anonymous hearsay than they should be. Facts can be "called into question" by the most rediculous claims, and those nebulous claims are given equal airtime. It happens in science ("global warming is only a theory!!!") in software ("vaporware vs a real product, we say wait to see how this vapor turns out!!!") and in politics ("global warming is only a theory!!!").
Re: (Score:2)
Both are pro-corporate. I also said that the NYT is somewhat left leaning. The Wall Street Journal is the leading publication of the Business press; they directly represent the largest earing organizations on earth. The New York Times is the leading publication of the literate elite, a group with is mostly comprised of the same professionals and leaders that run corporations, but which also includes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I titled my post "Everyone is biased". Why would you suggest that I started from a neutral position!?
Re: (Score:2)
Its not just Microsoft (Score:2)
Extend beyond just 'tech' (Score:4, Insightful)
In Melbourne, Australia we have a free daily 'newspaper' called the MX which is provided at train stations. It is created by the news outlet that creates the largest circulation paid for newspaper in the city (the Herald Sun) and shares a large amount of its content.
Every single issue there are at least 4 or 5 'articles' about 'surveys' or 'studies' which have discovered some new and exciting 'fact' about our populous. They headline and lead into these articles speaking as if the results are fact ('Australian workers love working longer hours', 'Women want more pampering'), and it's not until you read into the article that you find 'according to a web survey of 300 by recruitment company X', or 'says a study done by cosmetics firm Y'.
And people read the guff as fact, and reiterate it over and over.
And the number of ridiculous celebrity pieces of trivial shite that is reported that just so happens to be about some star of a movie that just so happens to be coming out next week...
These two types of 'news' really do account for about 50-60% of the content of this rag.
And the big brother of the MX, the Herald Sun... yeah, not so much better.
Sigh... will teach me for being a cheap bastard and not buying a real newspaper I suppose.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose its editorial page is called the Peacemaker?
Sorry, '80s joke there, kids.
Expertise from the opposition? (Score:3, Insightful)
The achievements of these organizations are commendable, but portraying the FSF (or e.g. the EFF) as entirely neutral on technology issues probably wouldn't be "entirely accurate" either. ;-) And indeed neutral they shouldn't (even need to) be - journalists ought to be able to see (i.e. find and expose) the truth behind the whole range of different views, rather than exclude the ones with the most obvious bias (some of whom might be right nonetheless)...
Science publications solved the problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the IT, computing profession want to be taken seriously, then they have to take a leaf from science, engineering and start taking a more rigorous approach.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, media companies, keep your bias... (Score:2, Insightful)
At least the NYT is trying.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't one truth, and never will be, as long as there are two people left alive. Yet, there are those that try, both in the blogodesert and in print-- (and The Online Edition)-- to get it right. Just the facts. No pre-judged bias. No orthodoxy. No guilt-driven blather.
Let's encourage them to be as truthful as we can, because as seen in too many places, bullshit just doesn't work well.
And it smells.
At least the NYT is trying... (Score:2)
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=d14603c1e23
Good News! (Score:2)
I look forward to The Register's Andrew Orlowski explaining his utter hatred of iTunes, Apple and many other things some time soon. It could be that he's being paid by Microsoft, or maybe his bias has another source. It'd be nice for him to come clean and explain himself.
Of course, that's what he's going to do, isn't it? He wouldn't be wanting others to do something he won't try, would he?
The NYTs reporting on bias! ROFLMAOL (Score:4, Insightful)
disclose the ties between analyst and vendor (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what's missing. It's downright dishonest to present a report without citing sources and any financial connection. So long as that's out there, and the reader can make their own judgment, there isn't really a problem. Unless, of course, all reporting comes from the same source(s), but if they're cited, then at least that fact will be obvious.
That's also where EFF and the like are ahead of the corporate pack. Regardless of what you may think of their biases, they're up front about them, and up fr
NYT Shills (Score:2)
Read the Article, Responded. (Score:2, Interesting)
"I've been watching the analysts in the IT field for about 7 years now. On Microsoft areas, they usually give the vendor the benefit of the doubt, frequently just parroting marketing blurbs. Even when as Cairo and Longhorn played out it became increasingly obvious that there was no product there, and never had been. The analysts still don't admit they were had. Neither do most of the press. And it's still going on.
The same analysts were constantly predicting things for Linux that we
Fake think tanks, dubious sponsored research, and (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like this applies to many areas of interest today, whether its politics, the environment, or terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is this agenda clearly stated? I can't find anything about it on their website. (That's a genuine question, not sniping: if they're explicitly stated this goal, I'm interested to see how they present it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a project principally sponsored by the FSF. Certainly they have a close connection, but they're hardly equivalent.
Quote: " I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software...
Well, that's hardly a "clearly stated agenda to eradicate proprietary software" as you claim, any more than a "get firefox" button is a clearly stated agenda to eradicate Opera.
"... using a proprietary (18k characters) program... make a copy... saying ``No'' to pro
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.fsf.org/about [fsf.org] describes the FSF's "worldwide mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users". Is that what you were alluding to? It's the closest I can find, but it doesn't say anything about eradication.
That's where the lies and manipulation comes in. They publicly state that they are all about freedom, but their agenda runs much deeper than that. So, the NYT can quote that they are all about freedom, while neglecting to mention that most of them also want to eradicate proprietary software.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's side are you on? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF has a clearly stated agenda of eradicating proprietary software, as it's immoral according to them. How is that not going to constitute a biased approach when debating industry topics ...
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Standing up for your rights is a bias but isn't that the one you want in your news? Would you prefer some kind of industry shill to tell you what's good for you? How can you even begin to equate these two diametrically opposed things?
The New York Times has decided it's not in their reader's best interest to pass on advertisements, aka paid opinions, as legitimate reviews. Good for them and good for everyone. As someone else pointed out, they are indeed discovering better sources of information [slashdot.org]. The Registry's hostility to this is as difficult to understand as your hostility to the FSF.
Re: (Score:2)
If they truly stopped printing the opinions advertisers expect them to print there wouldn't be an NYT for very long. Or, more accurately, there would be a New York Times with a fresh new executive editor.
Re:The FSF, not biased ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
People already pick out TV/book/magazines that align with their beliefs. The internet is no different.
The only difference is that the "mainstream" (traditional) news can't define what "mainstream" as much as they used to. (If you really want to call the 11 o'clock even news on CBS/NBC/ABC mainstream instead of just corporate and mostly inane.)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, to a point. The difference with the internet is the granularity of those selections. The "mainstream" or shall I say "traditional" media is limited in how small a niche, or special interest group it can cater to, since there are only so many networks, radio stations, and newspapers, and each must appeal to a group that is large enough to support it. The internet, on the other hand, can be customi
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can stop worrying about that! People that read newspapers also select the newspaper that is in line with their opinion. As a businessman you'll buy a newspaper that will have
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but there is a flaw in your argument. For example, I read the Boston Globe because it has a pretty good sports section. And even though I happen to be significantly more conservative than the Globe political editors/commentators, I still read their (in m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a good article to read actually, I recommend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...and as I keep saying to anyone who will listen, that's exactly the same message as the one that gets promoted by the FSF...As I heard it put once, "Free as in do as I say."
My own definition of freedom includes the freedom to tell Richard Stallman exactly where I think he should go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)