Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher
NW writes "Tony Mobily, editor of the Free Software Magazine recently interviewed Fuat Kircaali, founder and publisher of Sys-Con Media. The interview revolves around the recent controversy surrounding the article written by Maureen O'Gara attacking Pamela Jones of GrokLaw."
In Korea, only old people call a Slashdotting a cyber attack.
Read the interview. I think this man is either underqualified for the job of CEO of a media enterprise, or is pretending to be.
/. effect):
Either that, or he's purely in the business-as-in-corporate side of things and not the business-as-in-journalism side of things. If that's the case, he shouldn't have been asked to approve O'Gara's ("I decided to publish the article"), or anyone else's works, that job should go to people with editorial responsibilities.
Here's my "favorite" example of confusing statements:
In one part, speaking of Pamela Jones being a blogger not a reporter, he says "The reporter's job is to report news." In another, speaking about O'Gara's hack job, he says "I decided to publish the article. It was published because it was an accurate news story." Are you as confused as I was?
My least-favorite part, if true and I sincerely hope he's mistaken (I think he's confusing a DOS attack with the
"The reason why we decided to pull it [O'Gara's hack job] was that when the content, style and the language of the story was perceived as offensive by a group of the readers, a denial-of-service attack was launched against our entire company, interfering with all of our publications and all of our readers."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
My email ("A problem with your advertising + SYS-CON Media website") was quoted in that interview. I'd like to set the record straight on what Fuat Kircaali discussed with me. I sent out email to SYS-CON advertisers, questioning them if they knew about the article. A few hours later I received a call from him. First he was yelling at me "I want to speak with the chairman of $MYEMPLOYER" Then he started threatening to sue me. It was only then that I said I he could easily discuss this with my lawyer. Only after his verbal tirade continued, did I choose to end the conversation with him. His claim that people "needed legal counsel" is a joke. He was threatening to sue people, they no doubt replied "speak to my lawyer". Mr Kircaali treated me in a manner which I find unbecoming of a CEO / publisher. He also did not know the definition of slander/defamation either. Another legal newb attempting to intimidate people. gg.
in the immortal words of Fuat Kircaali:
...
"The reason why we decided to pull it [O'Gara's hack job] was that when the content, style and the language of the story was perceived as offensive by a group of the readers, a denial-of-service attack was launched against our entire company, interfering with all of our publications and all of our readers."
Leaving aside the incredible moral blindness of missing what was wrong with the O'Gara article, this guy admits he is willing to dump "entertaining" and "accurate" reporters because of a DOS attack. Nice guy to work for
What a piece of work is Fuat Kircaali.
Maureen O'Gara carelessly tossed the accusation that there was some Identity Theft going on, with PJ as:
A) The Victim
B) A willing accomplice
C) Herself, but not really Pamela Jones
D) All of the above, more wild accusations to come in our next mogwash piece.
Completely apart of the deliberate slurs and slants, criminal accusations make for straightforward Defamation cases.
Mr. Kirkaali says that PJ should not fear thieves, but seems blissully unaware that his own jourmalist accused Pamela Jones to be a thief, and published it on-line.
Maybe he need someone to explain Remedial Ethics 101 to him.
So is this the new trick, if you're in a situation where you kind of look like the bad guy and you're trying to deflect attention, just claim somebody DDOSed you?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Bull crap. There's a big difference between opening yourself for lawsuits and being a tool. He goes well beyond being cautios. For example, he says that the only reason he pulled the story was because there was a DOS attack against his servers. He could have just said "In my judgement the story was reasonable but many of our readers and other staffers disagreed so we chose to remove it". If anything, he's really opened himself for a lawsuit by publicly endorsing O'Gara's invasion of privacy and stalking rather than disavowing it as a mistake she made that slipped through the system.
PJ has her own pointers regarding what O'Gara did over here. Her side doesn't line up with Kircaali's statement - and under the circumstances, I'd believe her first.
This sig no verb.
[alas, to many, the answer is yes, but I digress
Did you look behind the couch? When I lose something, that's where I usually first look.
Though I wonder if you've really lost them -- after all, the First Amendment says that `Congress shall pass no law' ... and while this has generally been interpeted as meaning that the Government shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech, in this case, I see no law having been passed. So what are you complaining about when you ask about your First Amendment Rights?
Hers seem to be perfectly functional as well. Did she lose hers too? Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. You own your press, and so you have freedom of press, and you used it. What's the problem?As for the story you posted, what did you think the response would be? I'm not talking about the DoS attacks, but just the general reaction from the more `moderate' people? Did you think that people would appreciate knowing who PJ was? Was that news?
As far as the DoS attacks go, call the FBI. You should be able to assign a large dollar figure to the damage being caused, and so the FBI will probably take your complaint seriously. Nail the bastards! Seriously. I don't approve of what you've done, but you've already given yourself enough problems -- we don't need criminals adding to them with DoS attacks.
As for the rest of the world (the people who are saying that you made a poor decision, in varying degrees of articulateness), well, you made your bed -- now lie in it. I don't feel sorry for you. You may have had every right to post the story (or maybe not -- it sort of looked like a threat. But I'll leave that to the lawyers) -- but the bad will you've just gained with a signifigant portion of the community can't be a good thing.
Yes, it does sound a bit like harassment. This is not a figure like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
If one of his writers had written an article published in one of his magazines, do you think he would let him or her just tilt in the wind?
It's one thing to have one's picture published. It's quite another to have details of one's life published for no related reason in an article (i.e., "he lives here [insert picture of rusted out single-wide mobile home] with his mother and grandfather, and drives this [picture of trashed '79 Cadillac Seville with 4 different sized tires, plenty of car cancer, a completely sagged down roof liner inside, and different body pieces from about 8 different cars]. Why is he writing auditing applications?" blah blah blah, in an e-mail sent to the guy's higher-ups and shareholders right before the shareholder meeting or promotion/evaluation time...
It's fine to publish details about Groklaw, and Pamela's role with it, who Groklaw and PJ are connected to, what those connections might imply.
But it's entirely another thing to go at other things unrelated to what was being discussed.
Does your magazine now publish a social column, where various Linux and Open-Source dignitaries have their pictures taken in their work clothes, details of where they bought their Cheetoes and Mt. Dew, etc.?
What if we were to pry into the backgrounds of Sys-Con's editors, and take publicly available records, tie pieces together with suggestive language, and then wash our hands of it and say, "hey, it's all publicly available information! we're not responsible for any conclusions or actions taken by someone else!" Of course not. But saying, "I thought I smelled smoke" doesn't get you out of yelling "Fire!" in a theater, either.
That's just lame.
Good thing that Sys-Con's linux rag isn't worth reading much, compared to Linux Format, Linux Systems Journal, Linux Magazine, or just about any other Linux-dependent publication.
To quote Fuat Kircaali, CEO of Sys-Con:
What does ethics have anything to do with professional reporting and journalism?
What indeed. And people wonder why so many CEOs are going on trial.
This notion that being a "journalist" justifies invasions of privacy of all kinds against all kinds of people may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for most Americans, and results in reigning in press abuses. One can only hope. For my part, while I don't normally approve of DoS attacks, in this case, they were probably the only effective sanction for bad corporate behavior.
Let's be clear: PJ threw the first punch at MoG by publicly accusing her of lying
Pointing out the differences between MoG's story and the actual facts is throwing a punch?
including its censorship policy
Whether you agree with them or not, Groklaw's posting policies seem completely clear, at least to me. I've never had any trouble abiding by them, and I post often (under a different name).
Groklaw community regularly attacked MoG in the most vicious and personal terms.
Private individuals posting to a website can freely express their disgust at the actions of a reporter. Perhaps you are new to trolling on slashdot?
If someone was anonymously running a web site attacking me, I sure would want to find out who was behind it.
Even if you did know who was behind a website, you have no need to publish their personal details.
I find it interesting that MoG can't argue any actual facts or issues. She can only resort to personal attacks. MoG doesn't refute PJ's arguments, she just publishes the personal address of PJ's 80+ year old mom, right before Mother's Day, an elderly woman who has no connection to the running of Groklaw; nor does PJ's brother. What do these personal details have to do with the problems in MoG's stories?
If MoG didn't want someone "attacking" her by pointing out the blindingly obvious problems in her earlier stories, maybe she should do some real journalism?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.