The Register vs Groklaw: Who Gets It Right?

microbee writes "Over the past weeks Groklaw has been running a series of articles on new discoveries about SCO and Project Monterey. Surprisingly (to me, as I love both sites), The Register published another article to counter the argument of Groklaw's serials, claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."" There's also a rebuttal on groklaw as well.

Comments

Is it just me?

[the_macman]

Over the past weeks Groklaw has been running a serials of articles

Shouldn't that be series?

The article was more M$ trolling

[tomhudson]

Look at the timeing - it was posted on a Friday so it would sit there all weekend without rebuttal.

Groklaw has already given a good debunking of it - including that the author of the article doesn't exist - its a nym for a M$ astroturfer.

Microsof tis scared, because features that were pulled from longhorn, which is delayed now until Christnas 2006, are already out in linux and tiger.

Re:Groklaw got it right

[k98sven]

Yes. PJ says she corrected a statement. The Register said she retracted the same statement. The poster here said there was no evidence of any 'retraction'.

I don't really care whether it qualifies as a 'retraction' or not, but it's an undisputed fact that PJ did change some of her previous statements after The Register published their article, which means that stating there's 'no evidence' is false.

That's all I mean. Personally I don't care much, because I don't really consider either Groklaw or The Register to hold very high journalistic standards. Although Groklaw is far better than The Register in that respect.
(Groklaw seems to at least try to use primary sources as much as possible. The Register almost never. Both are blatantly biased in their commentary. Groklaw somewhat less so, but at least it's clear that it *is* personal commentary, and not reporting.)