Slashdot Mirror
Maureen O'Gara No Longer Welcome at LinuxWorld
flood6 writes "On the heels of yesterday's article about unrest at LinuxWorld, editor James Turner is reporting in his blog that Sys-Con Media has decided to purge Maureen O'Gara from the print and online publications." From the post: "Sys-con Media listened to what I and my fellow editors, their advertisers and the readership was saying, and made the correct decision. Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications. We have received this commitment in writing from Fuat Kircaali, the publisher." PJ at Groklaw also has commentary on this development.
It's not surprising, really, since MO'G's last article on Pamela Jones so clearly overstepped the bounds of decent, public interest journalist.
Incidentally, was I the only person who felt that insinuating that PJ's religion was wacko was particularly ironic, given that Maureen's paymasters at SCO were based in Utah, home of the not-exactly-christian-orthodox Church of the Latter Day Saints.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's not censorship, you moron. No magazine or website is morally, legally or ethically obliged to publish anything, by anybody. Especially considering O'Gara will expect them to pay her.
If O'Gara wishes to continue to spout her drivel, there are roughly 27 trillion channels remaining open to her.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Not really. MOG has the freedom to start her own "Groklaw"_alike blog and rant to her heart's content. No one will be reading unless she starts making sense, but them's the breaks.
SCO and its minions can never again complain about Linux "zealots", not without being laughed right off the stage, because compared to them and their tactics, it's clear now who are the pros at intimidation and terror.
Darl McBride and Laura DiDio have complained bitterly about receiving nasty email and late-night phone calls. That's kid's stuff by comparison. Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time, think about this: Have Linux "zealots" ever put up personal info on how to find Darl McBride's mother, with pictures of her home and the number on her mailbox so any stalker can find her readily? That was O'Gara's intent. Has anyone published who DiDio calls from her landline phone? Can you imagine the press conference SCO would hold, and what names they would call the FOSS community, if anything like that happened?
Who are the "extremists" now? The "cyberterrorists"? The violators of the law and of all things decent? Who are the enablers of stalking and violence?
But the big picture is this: it's official now, not just a guess, that my readers simply don't care who I am or what I am. They really don't. Groklaw isn't about me, and my work stands on its own. Anyway, they know me by now as a person, because in my writing they see my inner person, how my brain works, my heart, my ethics. We're old friends by now, and you always stand by an old, true friend. That is exactly what has happened.
Groklaw is exactly what I told you from day one, a blog written by a paralegal who became a journalist. I do it myself. All by myself. Well. Me and the entire worldwide FOSS community. All the rest is just their paranoid ravings and imaginings. Literally thousands of members and readers contribute to Groklaw, and millions read what we present.
You know why? In part, because I never take the low road. Really. That's the secret to Groklaw's success. It's a place on the Internet where we can speak to each other as adults, in a civil atmosphere, without meanness or ad hominem attacks and work together with a common purpose, regardless of our varied backgrounds and preferences in other areas. Politics is off topic. So is religion. And so are insults. I don't even let comments remain if they attack people like Maureen O'Gara. I once wrote an article to ask people not to attack her verbally, when others did so on another website. (In that article I wrote that she was a good journalist. I take that part back. I tend to be too kind.)
I have been flooded with emails of support and donations. I'd say whatever the dark side's intent, it has boomeranged. And I also want to thank everyone for all the words of support and the donations. I will try to write to you all personally in time, but I couldn't wait to tell you how touched I am by the overwhelming number of good wishes. Thank you. It means everything to me that you responded as you have and have seen through this latest and most foul attempt at intimidation and character assassination. Did you notice? They only attack me as a person. What does that tell you about the integrity of Groklaw that they were forced to stoop to that?
On a personal note: I've heard from several who are seriously warning me that they think SCO is setting me up so that they can arrange my "suicide". You know, like Val Kreidel allegedly was so overwhelmed by what was printed about her by Maureen O'Gara and others that she ended it all?
I have no experience in such things, so I can't evaluate their warnings, but I have taken note that three persons on the SCOX Yahoo Finance board, one known to be a SCO supporter if not an insider, have already predicted my suicide, two of them since this article.
So I feel I should say this, just for the record, just in case, worst-case scenario: I don't believe in suicide, and I certainly don't care what Maureen O'Gara thinks about me. So if you hear about my "suicide", it isn't one. And you can take that to the bank. She has
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/02 /22/the_jonesogara_feud.php
summary, mostly unbiased....
Groklaw = Site run by PJ. pro-linux, OSS, free software site. Particularly anti-SCO as well.
Maureen O'Gara = Journalist who is either a paid shill for SCO or just amazingly sensationalistic.
Apparently there was some mystery about exactly who PJ is and what her credentials are since Groklaw is such an influential site in the SCO/IBM case. O'Gara found out who she is, and definitely overstepped the bounds of decency by publishing street addresses for her and her son.
People were pissed, so O'Gara's articles have been pulled off some web sites. Apparently the publisher's sense of moral outrage only kicked in when facing advertising boycotts.
Tempest in a teacup, but interesting none the less.
> Shouldn't the editors and slashdotters here who scream censorship at every turn be unhappy about this decision.
... the real world does not work like that, as some principles are regarded well above others, including subjective ones like "merit", such as the merit of MOG's column.
No one is telling her she cannot publish. No one is shutting down her site. Sys-con is declining to purchase her column because of gross unprofessionalism. Firing someone for failing to perform the duties and responsibilities of their job is hardly censorship.
It's common among geeks to assume laws and principles are some sort of rigid inflexible code. if publisher.cuts_off($writer) $action="CENSORSHIP";
And doesn't it put the lie to your bait about us "screaming censorship at every turn" when "we" indeed do fail to live up to this charicature?
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Ms O'Gara has been publishing a series of articles on the ongoing IBM vs SCO case that were....unusual. She generally was pro-SCO, overlooked problems with the SCO case, etc, etc.
The trigger for this whole fiasco, though, was a recent article by her. It was, to be blunt, venemous, and dirty. It published details about PJ (the maintaner of Groklaw)'s home address, her mother's home address, some supposed details about her religion, and used all of this in a really nasty attempt at ad hominem to conclude that groklaw was run by crazies who wouldn't know logic if it hit them in the face.
It has, thankfully, blown up in Ms O'Gara's face, which goes to show that there is some small sliver of justice in the world.
Okay, let's think about this.
...and therefore LBN fired O'Gara, and you think O'Gara was censored?
Maureen O'Gara posts a story, which includes:
1. PJ's address
2. PJ's phone number
3. Some comments about PJ's car and the contents
4. Some snide comments about PJ's religious affiliation
5. Some snide comments about the interior of PJ's place
6. The address of PJ's mother
7. Pictures of PJ's front door
8. Pictures of PJ's car
Get a clue.
Well, both, but what really made everyone snap was that she began stalking Pamela Jones, taking photographs of her apartment from across the street, and dedicating her column to providing personal details of her life to the public. Here is a Google cache of the original article. It's rather sick.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
I know editor is a dirty word here on slashdot, but with a supposed profesionally publication where the hell were the editors?
Don't most people expect writers to bring drafts and editors tweak before publishing? I mean did NO ONE on staff read this article before it went live? Did they just hand her a publish account and let her loose?
She sounds like scum, but there's some serious procedure problems as well that allowed this kind of work to happen.
if she is in an IBM town her opinion is very tainted in my eyes.
How about if she shook hands with the brother of the boss of a programmer who went to school with a guy who later worked for a boss who once owned an IBM PC for a few years before replacing it with a Compaq?
I'd say she'd be discredited if she was actually paid by IBM, but just living in the same city? Give me a fucking break.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If I were P.J., I'd be filing charges on O'Gara right now. Her actions are likely sufficient to fall under 18 USC 875(c), the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. She traveled across state lines in an effort to violate the privacy of an individual who has quite reasonable fear for her safety. O'Gara may also be liable under New York's anti-stalking laws as well.
At the very least, I'd be filing for a restraining order by now.
Furthermore, Sys-Con was exceptionally negligent in ever allowing that sort of thing to be published. Not only is it a gross and blatant violation of journalistic ethics, but it's quite possibly opened them up to a devastating legal action.
It's beyond disgusting that something like that would ever be published - most bloggers wouldn't dream of pulling crap like that, but to have a supposedly "professional" organization allow potentially libelous and obviously private information to be disseminated is absolutely unconscionable.
Who exactly is she. . .
.
She is a paralegal. That means the value of her legal opinion is not that of a lawyer, but in excess of the general populace.
What she would be an expert at is the gruntwork of the legal profession. Knowing the ins and outs of the "system," which, as it happens, is her role at Groklaw, because. .
. . . why does her opinion matter so much in this case.
It doesn't. O'Gara is a pure opinion piece writer. Groklaw is fact based. They publish the court records. This is PJ's area of expertise. While commentary on the record is offered legal opinion is defered to lawyers, who, oddly enough PJ is in contact with and who actually write for the site.
The value and accuracy of the material at Groklaw can largely be judged by the fact that SCO and O'Gara choose to attack PJ on a personal level, rather than than attacking the validity of the material and opinions available at Groklaw.
Such is always the tactic of the irrationally vicious. Same crap as saying that if you don't approve of attacking Poland you're for terrorism and and against God and the Homeland.
You always know that someone is full of shit when they start resorting to this sort of thing.
Next thing you know they'll start implying that PJ's lying because her dog looks funny, whether she has a dog or not.
O'Gara and her ilk can say any lies they like, because they are speaking "opinion." PJ can't, because she is speaking the court record.
KFG
Speaking as an avid reader of Groklaw, the problem is not PJ per se. The problem is that Groklaw has been quite instrumental in digging out the evidence that gives lie to SCO's various claims (I wouldn't be surprised to find out after the case is done that Groklaw's research was used by both sides in their preparations).
Whether Maureen O'Gara acted under direction from SCO and company, or whether she is just a biased journalist, remains to be seen. But the recent spate of articles against PJ is more of an attack against Groklaw's effectiveness (and by inference in my opinion, free and open dialog). The fact that O'Gara et al have stooped to personal attacks in itself says a lot about their desperation (again, IMHO).
It's really comical in one sense, yet dangerously close to blatant hate mongering (I can't think of any other way to say it, sorry). For a professional journalist to publish personal details like Maureen O'Gara did is inexcusable (I'm sure Maureen wouldn't want her personal details published on a web page -- imagine all of the anti-SCO kooks out there that might use it for nefarious purposes).
In any case, apparently the only thing that SCO can come up with to counter Groklaw is to try and paint it as an IBM lackey or worse, and so both Groklaw and PJ has been under attack recently. All I can say is, when it comes to trust and integrity, who would you pick: SCO or Groklaw?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I do not believe the world works the way you think it does...