Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."
Don't you think there's a certain irony about a poster on Slashdot saying to take anything you read on Groklaw with a pinch of salt?
> Groklaw is heavily censored and always has been. PJ deletes/
> hides posts on a regular basis.
Logical fallacy. Response posts have nothing to do with the repository of information and editorials.
In the world of Internet news, you don't need sources. You just need a handful of people eager to get in on the scoop, and whatever you say can proliferate quickly.
Clearcut case of failing journalistic integrity.
Let LinuxWorld know what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.
Make it polite, short, and to the point.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
> "unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more
> widespread readership than it otherwise would have received."
If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.
Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important, and as part of the self correcting nature of an unedited site, you get submissions like the one all the comments you're now reading are a response to.
In other words, the O'Gara article came out, and slashdot linked to it. Then the groklaw correction came out, and slashdot linked to it too.
Everytime a story involving Groklaw comes up these kind of posts appear on /.
They always claim that Groklaw is not a reputable source, make certain claims about the site, like for example that it has a nazgul posting policy and never, ever back their claims up with anything.
Also note that these kind of posts are always posted by ACs. (Just like my post, I know, but I simply don't have an account).
These kind of posts are neither interesting, nor are they insightful, they are plain and simple FUD!
+5 Interesting? Jeeze, it's a joke.
*crickets chirp*
Right.
Yep! PJ has a VERY important point. Slashdot has power and it uses that power like a MAC-10 with a rope around the trigger housing thrown into a room full of friends and enemies.
/. will lose the power to turn the public's attention to news that would otherwise languish in obscurity. In other words, /. has only a finite amount of power, power that will end. Afterward, people will look back on what /. accomplished and say "this part was all wanking" or "that part made a real difference" and you know it will be a mix of good and bad, but what mix?
/. more important, or you can help it move down the path toward being part of the news community of Rupert Murdoch, Drudge, Crossfire, and others who like to turn the spotlight on items like Maureen O'Gara, outrage items, three-headed frogs who predicted the Internet or Senators who secretly meet with bin Laden. In other words, what is the "Stuff that matters?" How much sensationalism do you need with your News for Nerds?
Sooner or later,
It's worth thinking about what PJ said because you can influence the mix, make it better, make
If you have any facts to refute anything posted on Groklaw, you can post them here.
If you don't, we have to assume you're just posting innuendo on SCO's behalf.
Slashdot does not claim to conduct primary journalism, it merely centralises interesting things that others have said. Which is fine by me.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
Here is what I think Slashdot did wrong yesterday when it first reported the O'Gara story. Remember, /. has great control over how a story is reported. It is NOT just putting up a link and that's it. A headline is created by /., and the editor posting the story has the ability to add editorial comments to what the submitter added. Finally, they usually get many simultaneous submissions, which means the one submission they picked is the one they think has the most interesting wording or the best links or something they feel makes it most post-worthy. With that in mind, let's see how /. handled this story yesterday:
The submission came from Ghostx13, and here is what he or she wrote that caught /.'s eye: "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"
OK, is this slanted? Yes. The loaded question at the end, the complete acceptance of the underlying Linuxworld story facts, all leads an air of acceptance of these facts. 'Does IBM have something to hide?" That's a laughable question given what the facts turned out to be, but it's a question that, left unchallenged, serves the wishes of SCO very well. That is precisely the sort of uneasy feeling they want us to have about IBM.
Did CowboyNeal add any editorial comments to this? No, he did not. On the one hand, that's good because he didn't choose to add any slanted thoughts to the already slanted submission. On the other hand, he didn't issue any caution about the submission as /. sometimes does. That, in itself, is an editorial decision that amounts to him implying that the submission stands on its own. Because they chose that submission over any of the others, it implies they were satisfied with it as it was.
Now here is the title that /. added to the story: "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code." Well, that is no longer true, is it, even if you read the O'Gara story at face value. So the headline refers to past circumstances that the actual submission contradicts. Again, an editorial slant that makes IBM look worse than the facts show.
Finally, go back and look at the comments to that story and see how many people contradict the idea of the story, point out the true facts, etc. So yeah, I do think /. made an "unfortunate editorial decision" to the story. They didn't just give a link, but they made a series of editorial decisions that gave extra weight to that link, weight it did not deserve. Did CowboyNeal do this out of ignorance of the facts? Probably. He may not have had the time to research this. Was it deliberate, to stir up the readership and get lots of angry comments? I have no idea. But it wasn't a good editorial decision, IMO.
Are you truly surprised that it would still apply?
This SCO story isn't just one instance of bogus journalism - it's a hypotypical example of the weaknesses of the journalistic profession as a whole (although I hesitate to lump that person in with the real professionals). This sort of thing isn't something that we're ever going to "get over", because it isn't just a "sign of the times". It's an endemic condition.
There's always going to be a difference between conscientious professionals and sloppy hacks. In any profession, not just journalism.
Caveat lector.
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen
There are good reasons for not giving it wide-spread attention.
First is that the judge sealed the hearing transcript. Probably because one of the SCO lawyers tried to read sealed material into the record. Sealed material is not for the public eye. Helping to spread it could even be an offence, but IANAL.
Second, links to stories that are debunked on Groklaw have a tendency to disappear, so the links could very well be dead soon.
Groklaw is dedicated to accurate reporting. Providing links to bogus articles could give the articles more credit than they deserve.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
I think you still are. PJ was not refering to /. linking to her site, she was refering to /. linking to the Linuxworld article thus boosting it's readership which she was not going to oblige.
Somewhere in the Groklaw archives is a report on readership stat's for O'Gara. Her page hits are usually abissmally low. The only time they seem to hit the 10's of thousands are when /. links to them. So the theory that /. is helping to perpetual journalistic rot like this has some merit.
OTOH, if /. is going to post about a story, I think they are under some obligation to link to it. In this particular case, Groklaw was specifically mentioned in a rather derogatory manner, so for it to not link back is fair because Groklaw has every right to defend itself against false and malicious charges without driving up the advertising dollars of those leveling the charges.
Is your head safer now?
Remember all the attention heaped on Rob Enderle by Slashdot? He brags about it. He thrives on it. Will it ultimately be good for his career? I don't know, but I prefer to take the "don't feed the trolls" approach.
PJ (sure, she's a bit strange sometimes, but she seems like a smart woman) is right that the best way to punish people for writing this kind of fiction is to ignore it, not to give it maximal Slashvertizing.
Giving her articles front page placement on Slashdot is exactly what she intends. It get tens of thousands of ad impressions, her bosses think she's writing controversial, hard hitting opinion pieces, and everybody is happy except a bunch of fuming Slashdotters. This is EXACTLY like Rob Enderle - these people desperately want attention, and they don't care if it's negative.
Please dear Slashdot editors, once it's been established that a particular writer is trolling for page views (i.e. they brag about how hated their articles are and exerpt Slashdot hate mail their publication has received) STOP giving them the front page placement they want, or you'll just encourage more of the same.
Although Maureen O'Gara is creeping quite lowly, I wonder if she is worth much attention as a person. There are enough prostitute scribblers in the media and they are totally immune to any moral outrage.
Instead, let us consider her role in SCO's delaying tactics. Last month, she was kind of announcing that SCO would charge IBM for fraud:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384.htm
And why? Because of a killer story unearthed from IBM e-mails SCO got during discovery. Well, if you have been following the SCO-IBM case from the beginning, you may recall that SCO charged IBM of fraud in the initial complaint of March 2003. They retracted the charge in the 2nd Amended Complaint of July 2003, which is the one currently valid. Just imagine, SCO would ask the judge for permission to revert to the initial fraud charge in a 3rd amendment. And they cannot simply amend the complaint, they need permission these days.
One month has elapsed since Maureen's Sept. 18 exercise, SCO is not murmuring any longer of fraud charges, nor is Maureen. What can they do to keep the FUD simmering and delay the case to the end of time? A 3rd Amendment would help. Maureen proclaims it is already in place (in other words, accepted by the judge after consultation with IBM) and under seal. This time the reason is non-licensed code included in AIX. Needless to say, the issue is another rotting carcass of zero importance. For details, please do a search on Groklaw.
At this point, let us refresh a few other details of the case. SCO succeeded in Summer 2003 pushing up the closure of discovery and the start of the hearings. But when Judge Kimball set November 2005 as new date for the hearings he also said very forcefully that there would be no further delays. However, a 3rd amendment would possibly make his position untenable both in respect of discovery and of hearings. If SCO gets a 3rd amendment, they will be able to request additional months for discovery and the case would skid to Spring 2006.
Parallel to the 3rd amendment dreams, SCO is also trying hard to disrupt operations of the magistrate court managing their discovery shenanigans. First they introduced papers at the very last minute before a discovery hearing so IBM could not respond. The magistrate judge postponed. They took a dislike to her and tried to get Judge Kimball to convene an emergency meeting to bypass her. He refused. In the discovery hearing on October 19, they read from confidential material and it takes two interventions by the judge to stop them. One week after the hearing, Maureen O'Gara helps spread confidential details plus blatant lies purporting to be confidential material. This is an attempt to trap the judge in formal procedural errors - from which the desired delays may hopefully follow.
Memo to los SCOjones: you will not get a 3rd amendment, not even if Maureen O'Gara and LinuxWorld present fresh fanciful reasons in November and December. The reality check is approaching, drop by drop. Next Spring one of the three pending Partial Summary Judgments requested by IBM will have been decided. It does not matter which one because that will be your end in any case.
Ladies and gentlemen,
If you write to LinuxWorld, that letter confirms that they have readership and ad views, which is a good thing, and encourages that behavior.
If you write to the sponsors and question their integrity for sponsoring such an article, THEY will contact LinuxWorld, and that will threaten LinuxWorld's income, which LinuxWorld will see as a bad thing. Hopefully this would discourage the behavior that you want discouraged.
Wouldn't an effective way to complain about poor journalism be to complain directly to the advertisers whose ads appear in association with the matierial?
A simple statement of "As long as you continue to support the publication of (insert description here) such as in/at (insert example here) I will aviod the purchase of your products, and encourage my friends and workplace to do the same."