Slashdot Mirror
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!
This guy needs to realize that he is also corrupted by the power that his writing has. For instance, saying "It also was strange to see just how many resources are aligned against me" is a complete giveaway of how highly this guy thinks of himself and how purposefully biased he is that he thinks MS's concern and attempt to show him things that might sway his opinion in the other direction is somehow being "against him".
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I'm not seeing anything sinister here.
I can only *wish* my PR and markettings guys did this good a job on their briefing materials before sending me into a room. I don't do much press, but I do the occasional analyst and a fair number of customers, and knowing the lay of the land before you walk into that room is critical.
Who in there is friendly?
Who in there is looking for an excuse to hate you?
What are folk's pet issues?
The more information you have, the better a job you can do with your pitch (and fundamentally most corporate to press communications are a pitch at some level or another). Once you reach a certain level in an organization though, you're sufficiently removed from the ground game that most pitches you walk into largely cold. The local rep knows what's going on, but you don't, so they have to brief you. All you know without a packet like this is that you've been flown out to Akron to talk to John Doe from ACME inc.
My underlying point being, I don't see anything remotely sinister here. Rather I see an efficient PR organization doing its job.
Wow, whoever put that file together, and it was a prep for a single phone interview on top of a general dossier, is top notch. If only I had a staff to put together stuff like that for my phone meetings!
I don't see the big deal here. Microsoft needs top notch PR people, they have an image issue as can be seen by the blatant anti-MS posts which consists of half the comments on any article dealing with Microsoft. Knowing this, no company wouldn't do their utmost to prepare their executives for an interview. As far as I could tell the summary was fair and provided in depth coverage. I'm somewhat amazed at the level of preperation that goes into these interviews and would like to know if they did it any time someone talks to the press but talking to someone from Wired and getting a positive article out of it surely is worth the effort that you hit on the right points. Not every company can afford it but I don't think Microsoft can afford not to.
This guy DOES look for sensationalism and tension where there is none!
The PR guys did their damn jobs. Good for them. There was nothing sinister in there at all.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I doubt it. Maybe they keep brief checks on posted stories (ie they recognise that /. is largely anti-microsoft), but I doubt they keep checks on users. Why would they? RTFA, the guy concerned is someone who gets paid to write about Microsoft in an internationally released magazine; he gets invited to accompany MS execs to big corporate events and trade shows. He's not some guy sat at home on his XP box moaning about something-or-other and saying how great linux is, despite only ever using it at a friends house. Once.
No, I think the great unwashed that forms the bulk of the Slashdot commentators (myself included) are largely ignored by the Microsoft PR machine. Although I'd love to hear otherwise.
I don't see many people saying this is sinister, I think most people are just interested in what type of information MS follows.
And you're right, everyone does this. Do you think a politician just blindly goes into a press conference? Do you think a coach randomly chooses people to ask questions? So yeah, this is pretty much business as usual, but still pretty interesting.
The only story here is that this information ended up in the wrong Inbox.
As has already been remarked by others above me there is nothing sinister about anything said in the briefing document. It's candid in places, perhaps a little chatty in others, but overall this what you should expect if not hope for in this kind of document. If a reporter has a history of "digging for dirt" then that's what the document should state.
It seems a bit disingenuous to me to take Microsoft to task over something like this when it is the standard practice in any PR-conscious company, you can bet that Wired probably has similar documents flying about that offered guidance about individuals in companies who are easier to coerce, more likely to reveal sensitive information, etc.
Some folks may not be impressed by this but after reading the whole thing I have to applaud M$ PR firm. They do their research extremely well and prepare the employee so thoroughly for what is going to transpire that I'm in awe. I've never worked for a huge company with a "good PR machine" and I've given interviews before -- what I wouldn't have done for this kind of prep!
What exactly is this whole: 'Slashdot's dead' stuff all about? I'm really interested to hear what's so wrong with this place that you still grace it with your presence. As can be guessed by my userid I am new here, and really like this site.
/. 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.
/. got sold off to VA (or whoever it was), nothing on this site can be trusted, the editors are all paid shills, etc. Some of these criticisms have some actual validity, but bitching about them constantly on main page articles is just wasting everybody's time.
Beats the hell out of me. I like it here too. The people that bitch about
Last, but not least, you've got the idiots who seem to think that ever since
I'll take this opportunity to welcome you here, as well as mention that we're not all crazy, there are a few pools of sanity in the great ocean that is Slashdot.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
"even though lots of the contributions start with "I hate Microsoft like the next guy, but ...". That's perfectly cool."
Yes. That's out of shilling for corporations 101.
There are a lot of people here who shill for MS. Some are paid to do it, some do it because they work for MS, some do it because they love the corporation (for whatever reason).
evil is as evil does
Wow! Microsoft's PR group really goes the extra mile to analyze and try to control a situation. Under the "Expected Q & A" section where they give the questions that they think will be asked and supply the PR approved answers they seem to have forgotten one:
Q: Have your answers been scripted?
A: No, we here at Microsoft believe in spontaneity. It is the true source of our innovation.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!