Leaked Microsoft Dossier on Journalist

Ludvig A. Norin writes "Wired journalist Fred Vogelstein blogs about how he accidentally got hold of a dossier on himself produced by Microsoft's PR firm, Waggener Edstrom. While it's not unusual for PR people to create background files on journalists, it's notable that this one leaked, and got commented by Waggener Edstrom's Frank Shaw and Wired Magazine editor in chief Chris Anderson. Makes for an interesting read — there's lots to learn from the inner workings of the Microsoft PR machinery." Someone please send me mine? I bet it's really friendly!

Comments

It *wasn't* a dossier on the journalist!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a briefing memo for the PR encounter. Of course it'll talk about the journalist but that doesn't mean they watch his every move - it just means they read up on him for when they're going to cross paths.

It's a bit chatty in places - and this sort of work will always be subjective - but it reads to me as a good professional briefing by an efficient PR outfit.

amen

[artifex2004]

It's a bit chatty in places - and this sort of work will always be subjective - but it reads to me as a good professional briefing by an efficient PR outfit.

I totally agree. My first thought, before even finishing reading the memo, was, dang, how do I get these people to work for me?

Makes me wonder whether the "leak" was accidental, or they were getting free publicity :)
Speaking of, if you like this stuff, you should watch the BBC sitcom Absolute Power.

Re:Microsoft needs a good PR firm

[Locutus]

no no no, they've had this kind of high dollar PR since the early 1990s. Back then, it was only the printed press but they had quite the control on the press back then too. They were filthy rich back then too you know and being a company with 2nd rate tech, they knew they'd not win by competing on product merit. They are not dumb, just a very very good marketing company. IMO

LoB

Re:Mod Up, This Is So True!!

[six11]

Beats the hell out of me. I like it here too. The people that bitch about /. seem to fall into a few categories. You've got the pro troll, whose sole job is to talk shit everywhere, so he can be easily ignored. You've got the old-timers who got pissed off when this site grew from a chummy little linux hangout into what is is now. These people can safely be ignored as well. While you can easily argue that /. has changed, it's a lot harder to say whether or not the 2007 edition is any better or worse than the '97 version.

Speaking as a crotchety old-timer, from my perspective the 2007 version is basically just like the 1997 version. The distribution of trolls, nubes, people-who-spell-Microsoft-with-a-dollar-sign, Linux freaks, Apple Fanbois, physics nerds, Star Wars fans, ... ad nauseum (and I love you all, don't ever change) (except for trolls, who can bite me), seems basically the same. The only thing that has really changed is the sheer number of people involved. Fortunately, the quality of the filtering system has (in my opinion) grown with the popularity of the site. I use the friend-or-foe system along with a heavily parameterized moderation filter, so I generally get to read comments that I either agree with, or if I don't agree with, are at least well-reasoned.