Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Spinning Against OpenDocument Via Fox News

srwalter writes "As previously reported, Fox News previously ran an article by James Prendergast criticizing Massachussetts for switching to OpenDocument format. Today, Fox News has distanced itself from that article significantly. In a new front page story they post several emails in defense of Massachussetts and OpenDocument in general, as well as apologize for not acknowledging that Prendergast's organization is funded by Microsoft."

18 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. Fair and Balanced... by delcielo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good for them. For once they truly seem fair and balanced.

    --
    Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    1. Re:Fair and Balanced... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I know, Fox News does not have a policy of being biased.

      What they do have is a policy of being *extremely* inflammatory.

      They will always make it a point to mention the truth as a 'viewpoint'.

      They'll also announce every other viewpoint, true or untrue, and the headline will be the one to prompt the greatest amount of reaction, positive or negative.

      Obivously, one can see where this develop its own sort of bias.

      Fair and balanced? Technically, yes. They don't outright *lie*. They don't even particularly advertise one cause over another, except as-is necessary to generate viewer interest, positive OR negative.

      Fox News understands that they can get more viewer by being extremist. Conservatives watch because they can toe the party line. Liberals watchs so they can dispute it. Fox News wins both ways.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    2. Re:Fair and Balanced... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I know, Fox News does not have a policy of being biased.

      That's because Fox News doesn't have a policy of having news. Seriously, almost all of their on-air staff are right-wing guys with their own talk shows and books - some with shady pasts (Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo are both from old-school sensationalistic tabloid shows that set the bar for the last 15 years). Hannity, Gretta Van Sustran (who has a nightly rundown on what cute little rich blonde girls have been kidnapped), O'Reilly - then those annoying women (I can't remember their name) have a stupid "talk show" for a couple hours during the day time in which they're INCREDIBLY biased.

      I'm one of those people who saw how clear the "liberal bias" used to be in news. In the last six years, I've become one of those people who has witnessed the shift and now see the insanely biased conservative slant. And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts? (These are all people that are ROUTINELY on the show to provide analysis of news events).

      To say fox news isn't intensely biased (and barely news-based) is just plain crazy. It goes beyond just being extreme and sensational.

    3. Re:Fair and Balanced... by g_adams27 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      We Report (incorrectly), You Decide (based on bad information), We Report Retraction (which you don't see).

      It would be unfair to apply that motto to Slashdot.

      They don't post retractions.

    4. Re:Fair and Balanced... by b17bmbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the difference is they didn't cloak the story as a news item, but rather, made it clear it was opinion. unlike, say, the ny times which mixes the op-ed and the front page at will.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    5. Re:Fair and Balanced... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure FOX has liberals on. But debate between right wing nuts and left wing nuts is not news. It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports". And you notice the only "liberal" types they have on FOX are the ones that are on the extreme? And then they try to make them look bad in comparison and it makes the crazy slanted right-wingers on the station who are put up against them look legitimate and sensible.

      Anyway, I can't give any weight to a network that had their "news anchor" interviewing the guy who wanted to take the pledge of allegience out of schools (since it was only dumped into schools to indoctrinate kids and scare the godless communists a few decades ago) - and the woman (I think it was "linda vester") asked the guy "what the hell is your problem?!". Yes. That's very professional investigation, interviewing and news reporting. If he had been a conservative complaining about videogames or half-assed attempting to justify killing abortion doctors, do you think she would have said "what the hell is your problem"? Nope. That extremely biased and unprofessional comment would never have been heard.

    6. Re:Fair and Balanced... by jrumney · · Score: 5, Funny
      1. We Report (incorrectly)
      2. You Decide (without RTFA)
      3. We Report (duplicate)
      4. ....
      5. Profit!
    7. Re:Fair and Balanced... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Sure FOX has liberals on.

      And when they do, it tends to go something like this:

      Liberal commentator: "Well you know, Bill, the IAEA found that..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "What! So now you're saying that some commie-loving commission, a commission run by an Arab for Christ's sake, is telling the truth to the American people - people still suffering from the shock of seeing newborn babies falling from the windows of the Twin Towers. I know for a fact that the IAEA is receiving funds directly from Osama Bin Laden himself!"

      Liberal commentator: "Now, that's just not true..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "I've seen the checks!!! When are you lefties going to start loving your country? Or are you only gonna be happy when all of us are dead or worshipping Allah?"

      Liberal commentator: "Now, Bill, don't you think..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "Shut UP!!! I'm not finished talking here! You open your lying liberal mouth one more time spouting your hatred of America and I'm gonna cut of your mike!!!"

      Liberal commentator: "But I . . ."

      Bill O'Reilly: "I'm not gonna tell you again, you pinko bastard..."

      Liberal commentator: "...but..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "That's IT!!! You and me! Outside!"

      Liberal commentator: "...what the..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "Shut him off, Ox. And take his sorry ass outside!"

      Liberal commentator: "...put me down....you can't do this!..."

      Bill O'Reilly: "Well folks, looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue. We'll be back after this commercial break, brought to you by the fine folks at 'People for the American Way'."

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  2. In other news... by zwilliams07 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today during a recent survey funded by Micro$oft. Playstation 3 will give you brain tumors, and Nintendo Revolution gives you Cancer.

  3. What teh..!? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    "FUD"?
    "Microsoft has a long and well-documented history of not supporting standards."?
    "embrace and extend practice"?

    O.O OH boy, those ARE slashdotters' comments!
    Guys, we're on FOXnews! :D

  4. Re:Government != Role Model by Feneric · · Score: 5, Informative

    While I agree that a government is not equal to a role model, saying that the OpenDocument standard is virtually ignored by the constituents of Massachusetts is ill-informed. Many of the individual communities in Massachusetts made the switch in advance of the Commonwealth itself; Saugus is probably the best example as it probably made the switch first and has a lot of info online:

    There's more info buried within the various Saugus sites, too. This isn't a change decreed from on-high, it's got quite a bit of grassroots support as well.

  5. Re:Government != Role Model by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Massachusetts will likely learn that even the most open format is considerably more proprietary if your customers don't use it.

    They're not customers. Most everyone the state deals with wants something for free or wants to sell them something. They can use the format the state specifies or take a hike.

    When the project required changes to our customers' standards, by State Decree, the costs ballooned.

    It's a one-time cost. After the conversion is complete, everyone will save money because they can buy tools to work on documents on the free market, not from a single-source vendor.

  6. OpenOffice.org can write to MSWord format as well. by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, if the state chooses to install OOo Writer, they can read and output not only the Open Document format, but all the legacy documents written in MSWord. For $0 per workstation. Seems like a no-brainer to this MA resident.

    In this case, it would appear that someone in Massachusetts state government is trying to do the "right thing".

    For another example of someone in MA state government with a clue, surf on over to http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm and check out the free online mapping resources. I can't believe it. Usually you have to pay through the nose for current high resolution geo-referenced aerial photography. Here, MA has put it all online for free. Nice going!

  7. HowTo Letter an Editor by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The message FoxNews reprinted, from "Bob Halloran of Jacksonville, Fla", in their article, is a perfect example of how Slashdotters should reply to bad articles ourselves. It's strongly worded, but not hostile. Every sentence contains a fact or direct logical point. The counterexamples aren't sweeping worldview declarations, but clear alternatives that speak for themselves. The points are easily quotable by the editor in a followup article. It's brief.

    In short, Halloran's message makes it easy for the editor, and a followup reporter, to change their story. It doesn't require FoxNews to change anything else, or admit anything else (like the unprofessional journalism that saw the original astroturf article published). We rant among ourselves here on Slashdot, but when we mix it up with the normals, we must abide by their weasel ways. Because that's what works - for Halloran, for the many FoxNews consumers he's reached, and for us, who he represents (if mildly, and not all of us ;).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  8. Re:Politics? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

    "For the record, all my liberal friends tell me constantly that Fox News is oh-so-biased and CNN is oh-so-great, without EVER citing a single example for either case."

    Then your liberal friends are morons. CNN is also skewed in its coverage.

    Do you want examples? Are your fingers broken? Any search engine can help you out.

    If you want a biased, but truthful, look at examples of conservative bias in the media, check out http://www.mediamatters.org/

    Yes, Bill O'Reilly has lambasted Media Matters on his program... which is a pretty good recommendation, for my tastes ;)

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  9. Re:Headline? by VidEdit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmmm...did Microsoft manipulate the news by funding the "think tank" that James Prendergast as executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership speaks for?

    Yes.

    That is the whole point of the organization. To add the false imprimatur of impartiality to Microsoft's propaganda.

    --
  10. Re:Politics? by Krach42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I grew up in a right-wing home. I know this for certain. Anyways, I was brought up my whole life "knowing" that "The Media" was left-wing biased.

    Then one day, I talked to this very left-wing girl, and she was telling me that "The Media" was right-wing biased.

    Then it occured to me. If someone is reporting fair and balanced news, then it would come up as middle of the road. And to a right-winger, that looks left-wing, and to a left-winger that lookes right-wing.

    After that point, I take claims of bias in "The Media" to be stupid useless political griping. Essentially both sides being upset that the view point isn't theirs.

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  11. Re:Government != Role Model by OneSeventeen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the sad thing is, when shifts in something as large as document file formats, the Government almost has to be a role model.

    For the past 3 years I have been using OpenOffice.org, and I switched to version 2.0 as soon as the beta was released. Guess how much that impacted the way society, the society I am a member of, views documents? Not at all. But, when a government body offering documents to the public shifts to a different file format, people are forced to change. While this would normally seem bad, this change is in a positive direction. This change brings equality to the table. I cannot afford, nor would I purchase if I could afford, Microsoft Office. On top of that, it does not run on my Operating System. By switching to something that makes electronic documents available to everyone with a computer, we are bringing society one step closer to the government, making the government less of a tryant capable of offering us documents we are entitled to with a large $300 string attached.

    Now that they have decided on OpenDocument, any user can use any software that supports it. This is one of the few cases the government being a role model for society is going to benefit everyone (except Microsoft). It will only be a matter of time before OpenDocument format is viewable with a simple browser plugin, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an AJAX powered OpenDocument editor pop up on the web soon either.

    I am currently working to change my university to OpenDocument, so we can become a role model to our community. Imagine trying to fill out a form for Financial Aid, or to apply for a job, but having that form require a piece of software that you can't afford. I understand OOo can read .doc files, as can other office suites, but what happens when Microsoft finally gets their patent on their file formats and does not allow 3rd party companies to reverse engineer their filetype? I for one would rather tie myself to a standard offered and accepted to the global community that is freely available to anyone than to tie myself to a format that is offered by a single company that is notorious for suing its customers and requiring new software to view new versions of its documents.

    If governmental role models are required to shift us from .doc to .odt, then I welcome it with open arms. But I think we miss the point to say the government is trying to be a role model here, I think they are doing the exact opposite. They have realized they were being a role model, and imposing restrictions on the use of documents that are public domain, and they are now cutting those strings, meaning it is up to us, the end user, to choose what software to use.

    If your software doesn't support the new format, then that isn't the government's fault, that is the software manufacturer's fault. Every developer is free to use the OpenDocument standard, including Microsoft. So why don't we yell at Microsoft for trying to be a role model instead?

    --
    "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis