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."
Why? Aren't they biased, too? Maybe not in Microsoft or Oracle's pocket, but they have a definite point of view that should be taken into account as well.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
``It would be refreshing to see the New York Times discover the FSF, opensource.org, EFF, and other sources of computing expertise.''
Maybe they should rather make up their own minds. Much as I agree with the EFF and the FSF, they do have their own agendas.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I don't get it. Are you saying that nobody qualifies as a computer expert without Microsoft's permission, and they'll revoke your expert status if you don't say nice things about them? And the NY Times should be looking at badvista.org for a more balanced perspective?
If the problem of technology reporting is that reporters don't know a damn thing and just repeat the words of marketing folks, the solution simple: Hire reporters who actually have a technological background. Is that so hard?
Shouldn't the reader be making this analysis anyway, no matter who the source? I mean, if we don't even trust our own President on his word alone (as we shouldn't), why in the world would we trust a newspaper implicitly?
Good for the Times, I say. It's a move in the right direction. You know all those movie posters that quote "reviewers" and give trash movies "four thumbs WAY up!!!1"? Remember when it was exposed that they were shills?
Sony ha
From the article:
What everyone seems to be missing here is that the problem isn't just restricted to tech stories; their track record is just as bad when it comes to real world news. Remember Judith Miller and the "proof" about Iraq's WMD--the one they wound up apologizing for, years after we'd gotten mired in Vietnam II? Of course, it's a step up from citing totally made up sources (e.g. Jason Blaire's "composite" sources), but not by much.
They used to be the paper of record, but now they're just another waste of dead tree pulp.
--MarkusQ
I imagine it's rather hard to find anyone to report on somthing, who has some sort of knowledge on the subject, that isn't one of theese three.
1. Involved with the product or the company producing the product.
2. Involved with the companies competition.
3. Being paid to do it.
If it's someone from the company, the competition cries foul stating the rep is only trying to make the product look good, which, if you work for a company that makes sense if you want to eat.
If it's someone from the competition, the company cries foul, again, if your competition is eating all the cake there's obviously going to be none left for you.
If they're being paid to do it, nearly everyone else cries foul, because they hadn't been informed there was going to be cake.
Who's left to report on theese products, who is also someone that would actually use them ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
It would be refreshing to see the New York Times discover the FSF, opensource.org, EFF, and other sources of computing expertise.
Somebody needed to try out the search engine on their front page.
Key quote being "had The Times known of Mr. Enderle's work for Microsoft, it would not have sought out his opinion on the product". I don't know if this link will work for everyone, since it's a search result link, but doing a search on the nytimes.com main page for "enderle" turns up this as the first result.
0 DE1DC1F3FF933A25752C1A9609C8B63
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=99
Editors' Note
Published: November 10, 2006
An article in Business Day on Tuesday described a decision by Microsoft to offer movies and episodes of television shows for downloading through its Xbox Live online service in the United States.
The article quoted Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, discussing the features that set Xbox Live service apart and its position in the market.
But the article did not note that Mr. Enderle had Microsoft as a client, a fact later pointed out by a reader. Mr. Enderle does consulting work for several of Microsoft's product groups, though not for the one developing the Xbox; still, had The Times known of Mr. Enderle's work for Microsoft, it would not have sought out his opinion on the product.
...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.
Nonetheless, Richard Stallman and the like are upfront/open on their (ideological) reasoning, therefor transparent, which make them very good experts.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
My god I'm sick of 'news' articles in our local media which are nothing more than thinly veiled adverts for companies and services.
In Melbourne, Australia we have a free daily 'newspaper' called the MX which is provided at train stations. It is created by the news outlet that creates the largest circulation paid for newspaper in the city (the Herald Sun) and shares a large amount of its content.
Every single issue there are at least 4 or 5 'articles' about 'surveys' or 'studies' which have discovered some new and exciting 'fact' about our populous. They headline and lead into these articles speaking as if the results are fact ('Australian workers love working longer hours', 'Women want more pampering'), and it's not until you read into the article that you find 'according to a web survey of 300 by recruitment company X', or 'says a study done by cosmetics firm Y'.
And people read the guff as fact, and reiterate it over and over.
And the number of ridiculous celebrity pieces of trivial shite that is reported that just so happens to be about some star of a movie that just so happens to be coming out next week...
These two types of 'news' really do account for about 50-60% of the content of this rag.
And the big brother of the MX, the Herald Sun... yeah, not so much better.
Sigh... will teach me for being a cheap bastard and not buying a real newspaper I suppose.
The achievements of these organizations are commendable, but portraying the FSF (or e.g. the EFF) as entirely neutral on technology issues probably wouldn't be "entirely accurate" either. ;-) And indeed neutral they shouldn't (even need to) be - journalists ought to be able to see (i.e. find and expose) the truth behind the whole range of different views, rather than exclude the ones with the most obvious bias (some of whom might be right nonetheless)...
You simply need peer review and reproducible results. The level of ojectivity in most computing journals is abysmal.
Deleted
Bias is opinion. Opinions are useful if you are aware they are opinion and can "consider the source."
Many news sources have an obvious political leaning, but the fact that their bias is obvious means that their bias can openly be considered when evaluating what that source is saying.
Anyone reading my stuff is also aware that I similarly have strong personal views on technology. Bias is only deceptive when it is hidden. The Wall Street Journal doesn't pretend to be liberal, and the NY Times doesn't pretend to be conservative. I enjoy reading both, because both offer viewpoints and interesting information without pretending to be something they are not.
Hidden bias is used by writers such as Paul Thurrott - he suggests he really likes Apple stuff, only to spin everything he says in a deceptive and negative way.
Microsoft is behind a huge wave of fraud marketing, and has a history of these tactics, from its attack on Linux and its affiliation with SCO, to its regular FUD comments against Apple - including Ballmer's suggestion that the company is not interested in selling Windows for Macs because they only care about "Real PCs." The Zune campaign is a new example.
Being biased can be entertaining and engaging - consider Jon Stewart. Even Rush Limbaugh, when he's not making fun of the handicapped, is fun to laugh at; however, pretending to not be biased and stating opinions as uncontroversial facts is misleading and slimy.
--
One interesting effort in ranking news is NewsTrust, althought it could conceptually be subverted by astroturfing.
It seems that people are far more gullable in believing anonymous hearsay than they should be. Facts can be "called into question" by the most rediculous claims, and those nebulous claims are given equal airtime. It happens in science ("global warming is only a theory!!!") in software ("vaporware vs a real product, we say wait to see how this vapor turns out!!!") and in politics ("global warming is only a theory!!!").
Just give me transparency about your sources, and I'll make up my own mind.
Interesting. So, in the past 5 years, what has changed at the NYT?
I find it odd that an organization the size of the Times would go from one extreme to another in just 5 years.
Maybe my tinfoil hat is a little tight, but I think something smells a little fishy here.
And they don't work through straw men to appear unbiased.
Asking Microsoft why they think people should upgrade to Vista is fine, and I hope New York Times will continue to do so. Microsoft is openly and obviously biased with regard to their own products, and getting their side of the story is valuable.
The problem is when you ask some "independent analyst" for their opinion on a possible upgrade, and that analyst happens to be funded by Microsoft.
Bias is not a problem, hidden bias is a problem.
Maybe they should rather make up their own minds. Much as I agree with the EFF and the FSF, they do have their own agendas.
That agenda makes those groups ideal sources of information for newspapers. Newspapers ultimately serve their readers or perish. The FSF, EFF and Opensource.org all have the user's freedom and prosperity as their goal. They are expert and impartial to industry interests.
The agenda of FSF and friends has little to do with pushing a specific program or platform. The FSF, for example, recognize BSD and Linux distributions as a free OSs, despite having their own kernel. They don't care who's tools you use, so long as they are free.
That perspective does not make them ignorant, or even impractical. All groups, to one extent or another, bow to practicality. GNU was written on non free software at one point because there was no other available. The opensource.org group are especially flexible in this regard and generally worry about performance before freedom.
The problem, from my perspective, is not that "mainstream" journalists can't make up their own minds, it's that they have not been talking to everyone they could. Making up your mind in ignorance is worse than doing nothing. The discussion of "alternate" operating systems never seems to get further than a brief mention of Apple. GNU is rarely mentioned, even though Apple, Sun and others use the GNU toolset. It's not even an ideological problem, if you buy into the "Linux is Communism" nonsense, because there are plenty of commercial Linux distributions ready to sell you non free software as addons the same way Michael Dell does. Informed decisions come from knowing the options. Something is clearly missing when a search for:
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The FSF has a clearly stated agenda of eradicating proprietary software, as it's immoral according to them. How is that not going to constitute a biased approach when debating industry topics ...
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Standing up for your rights is a bias but isn't that the one you want in your news? Would you prefer some kind of industry shill to tell you what's good for you? How can you even begin to equate these two diametrically opposed things?
The New York Times has decided it's not in their reader's best interest to pass on advertisements, aka paid opinions, as legitimate reviews. Good for them and good for everyone. As someone else pointed out, they are indeed discovering better sources of information. The Registry's hostility to this is as difficult to understand as your hostility to the FSF.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Blogosphere....blogorhea.....astroturfing by Sony.....analysts bought off by vendors (oh my!).
There isn't one truth, and never will be, as long as there are two people left alive. Yet, there are those that try, both in the blogodesert and in print-- (and The Online Edition)-- to get it right. Just the facts. No pre-judged bias. No orthodoxy. No guilt-driven blather.
Let's encourage them to be as truthful as we can, because as seen in too many places, bullshit just doesn't work well.
And it smells.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That's old, this is what the Register had to say about them in 2002: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/09/ms_softwar e_choice_scheme/ :-)
It's a good article to read actually, I recommend it.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
1. They are not being paid to have the bias they have
This is nothing against any of the organizations that are mentioned, but just a note about non-profits in general. Having worked at a non-profit I know that the people who work at them are better off (financially and social status-wise) the more people agree with them. Thus, they do have a vested self-interest in promoting their point of view. These days non-profit only really means "without shareholders" - it's naive to assume that non-profit status implies anything beyond that.
See also, Charity is Selfish
Maybe they should take the 2 by 4 out of their own eye first.
I didn't make that part clear enough. Fox News is just turning things completely on their heads. The old MSM was based on integrity, in that they wanted to find out and report the truth, and they also had to build their credibility, which is what the main article is actually focused on, in that the NY Times realized that their credibility was being destroyed by biased 'reporting'. (Not to imply that they had much credibility left.) However, Fox News never made any pretense of having any impartiality except for their bogus motto/logo. Fox just created something that looked like a news network and expected people to think it automatically had some credibility. Certain advertisers are willing to support the scam. I haven't checked, but I'd assume they're the same companies that support Rushbaugh.
Actually, the more interesting assault on reality involves the destructive redefinition of the linguistic modeling of reality. A very prominent example is that the word "liberal" has been completely redefined, but I actually received an interesting example in my email yesterday. Any form of disagreement with Dubya means I'm a Bush-hater, and my correspondent (a wealthy neo-GOP) insists that he gets to define my mental reality for me. He even included a list of new equivalences for "hate", stuff like disdain or disapproval or disrespect. Me, I think such word games are fundamentally intellectually dishonest. If I actually hated Dubya, I even think I'd be the first person to know it. The meaning of existing words should be respected, and if you need to describe a new concept (such as BushCo, Rushevik, Bushevik, and Rushbaugh), then you should go ahead and make it clear why a new term is needed--and then you should attempt to be consistent in how it is used to convey clear meanings, not to destroy old ones.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
Uhhh, no. Look at how popular religion is. Look at how many people believe political lies, and distrust scientific fact. Look at how many people believe common myths. Being honest or correct does not guarantee popularity. In fact, it usually means less popularity.
... and then they built the supercollider.
"Fake think tanks, dubious sponsored research, and Astroturf are not considered but should be"
Sounds like this applies to many areas of interest today, whether its politics, the environment, or terrorism.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.