Slashdot Mirror
NY Times Tries to Untangle Analysts and Shills
twitter writes "The Register and others are examining a New York Times effort to eliminate bias from technology reporting by not echoing paid opinions. (Other coverage here.) They target Microsoft specifically. InfoWorld has an insightful summary of the two sides of this old debate. Fake think tanks, dubious sponsored research, and Astroturf are not considered but should be. Companies using these tactics deserve to be held at arm's length, but that's hard to do when the company is also a monopoly able to make or break any 'expert.' It would be refreshing to see the New York Times discover the FSF, opensource.org, EFF, and other sources of computing expertise."
...just as well as I know the bias of the NYT.
One of the basics of journalism is understanding that as a journalist you can't elminate your bias. What you can do is try to minimize your bias and in cases of opinion and analysis declare your bias as well as the bias of your sources. The Reg said it best in this case, "A better policy might insist that the Times disclose the ties between an analyst and a vendor, leaving the reader to make the credibility judgement." . So if I see a Microsoft enginner quoted I'm told he is an MS engie and when I see TurdFurgeson quoted I'm told he's Linux zealot.
Thats really the best the NYT can do as a responsible organization, if you eliminate all bias you remove your writers humanity and create a lie. While removing bias your own mind will fool itself and think you've removed them when really you've magnified them. Biases are what lead to needed critiques, so long as those biases are dealt with openly and honestly we should be ok.
*Note I'm not a journalist, but the points here have been beaten into my head by several close journalist friends. The bias question was also material for an elective journalism course for me at college.* - There see. I declared my bias. I like and trust most journalists because I know some good ones. I've also pointed out that I lack formal training in the area, so I might know enough to contribute but I shouldn't be quoted as an expert source.
The ideological bias theoretically shouldn't be a problem for the NYT since they deal with it on a much grander scale each day in politics. Not that I'm saying they are particularly successful, but at least they have an idea what to look for.
As far as the technical aspects go, I think the big problem that any media organization has is that they have journalists writing about subjects they don't have a clue about--so they take the advice of experts like Microsoft and echo them in their articles. This is sort of a tricky problem to solve because the obvious solution of hiring technically educated persons probably isn't going to work (because they will be significantly more expensive than ordinary journalists). It is sort of a gamble. They can hire expensive people who have a strong education in science and technology and print much more thorough and unbiased articles or they can go cheap and hope the lack of quality doesn't hurt their sales.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Any one article may contain bias, but the point is that bias in one article is subject to peer review and the results are reproduced by someone else under similar conditions. It's part of the process, bias and systemic error are eventually removed.
If the IT, computing profession want to be taken seriously, then they have to take a leaf from science, engineering and start taking a more rigorous approach.
Deleted
That's what's missing. It's downright dishonest to present a report without citing sources and any financial connection. So long as that's out there, and the reader can make their own judgment, there isn't really a problem. Unless, of course, all reporting comes from the same source(s), but if they're cited, then at least that fact will be obvious.
That's also where EFF and the like are ahead of the corporate pack. Regardless of what you may think of their biases, they're up front about them, and up front about their sources. That's often a symptom of not being afraid if the truth comes out.
Here is what I responded.
"I've been watching the analysts in the IT field for about 7 years now. On Microsoft areas, they usually give the vendor the benefit of the doubt, frequently just parroting marketing blurbs. Even when as Cairo and Longhorn played out it became increasingly obvious that there was no product there, and never had been. The analysts still don't admit they were had. Neither do most of the press. And it's still going on.
The same analysts were constantly predicting things for Linux that were about 2 years behind where the systems really were. That's why the server surges cought them so much by surprise. It's now repeating on some desktops. Is Linux ready for the desktop? Yes, for about 3 years now. No, If you want Microsoft total compatibility, you still can only get it from Microsoft. That won't change, as Microsoft is a moving target that never has really defined the file formats. The new XML 'standard' still doesn't. How is that an advantage as we are constantly told? Why is having my data a hostage to a vendors product plans a benefit to me? That is never even addressed. It's just assumed and glossed over.
Apple has it's boosters, but the 'mainstream' seems not to care. Wham, Ipod hit when they least expected it. Do they even know what Apple is up to now?
The BSD's don't seem to even be on the analysts radar, even though when Microsoft's servers get overloaded, that's what they use. No stronger testimonial can be found. For anything.
In all, both analysts and the press that uses them seem to have a very poor track record.
You could probably beat it by flipping a penny. Heads the trend will increase, tails it'll decrease. You'd average 50% right, which is better than the industry average.
Like weathermen, it's just hard to predict the future. Honesty about past results would be a nice change. That might destroy the industry though. It'll never happen."
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.