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!
.... if Microsoft's PR firms do the same thing with sites like Slashdot? Do they keep track on what certain users say? Do they keep track of what topic are posted?
That would be interesting to know IMHO.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
/offtopic (sorry)
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.
/ontopic (sort of)
Although that doesn't detract from the fact that CmdrTaco probably isn't the subject of a Microsoft dossier. That's particularly evident if you read the pdf linked in the article. It's all about how to best manipulate the journalist into writing stories that are pro-Microsoft, how to avoid talking about sticky issues (is Ballmer really the missing link between humans and apes?), and notes on the journalists interviewing techniques. I'd wager CmdrTaco has never had an opportunity or need to interview a Microsoft representative.
The dossier itself is tame and probably a standard practice for large company PR firms:
Interesting, but hardly inflammatory. A dossier on CmdrTaco would be pointless and would probably consist of just one sentence: 'Hates Microsoft, avoid at all costs'.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
I would hazard to guess that most people do not like to be manipulated. That we are manipulated on a daily basis is immaterial. It's one thing to know it happens. Having proof of it presented to you is an entirely different matter.
It would appear that this reporter feels the same way. Surely a reporter who's spent any time in the Industry is aware of the marketing machine fronted by Microsoft. And in fact, you can be pretty sure Vogelstein is aware of this routine manipulation since he's involved Wired's current cover on the subject. But having the manipulation strategy sent to you would be more than enough to generate an "us vs. them" mind set. And it seems that this has put Vogelstein in at least a slightly defensive mood. I'd feel the same way.
In the grand scheme of things, this isn't that big of a deal. But it does serve as an interesting footnote to Wired's cover. After all, Microsoft's PR efforts have put a lot of stock to this new transparency. Its worth noting that despite this impressive change, there are still mechanisms in place just out of plain view. As the tired adage goes, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
What surprises me about this PR analysis is that none of it -- not one word -- is dedicated to selling the journalist on the quality of Microsoft's products. Not their web products, not their development environments, nothing. At a minimum, they could have said something like "Channel 9 will help us show developers how we make the best development products."
If you're going to make a video blog for developers, I'd think you would focus on the quality of your development products.
Instead, it's all a bunch of internal politicking about transparency and alleviating fear. Is that how Microsoft makes money these days? Selling transparency? Alleviating fear?
I think I've got some synergy and some new paradigms for sale too, guaranteed to be content-free.
Agreed. Nothing special here. A large number of Slashdot readers (myself included) don't mind being reminded from time to time that almost everything Microsoft does has a significant amount of skulduggery behind it. All companies seek to promote their products, all seek advantage over competitors, all cooperate with others only when it benefits them in some way. Microsoft it seems has made an art-form of doing maximum damage to others even when the resulting benefit to themselves is only minimal (if detectable at all). The company (seemingly) sees the world as a zero-sum game, they want all the marbles and want everyone else to have none, end of story. The Google motto "Don't be evil" is a direct reference to Microsoft. Even the company's (MS) most generous charity work (which hardly existed until the company had amassed more money than they knew how to spend) seems more like a trick to recover some level of respectability than a real attempt to do good. In a recent Dilbert cartoon (http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dil bert-20070316.html) Dilbert asks his boss "When we are done hosing our own company can we start hosing the competition?" His boss replies "Our customers are next". (It would have been funnier and more on-target if he has said something like "Our customers come FIRST!") But the message is the same, that there are companies, just as there are individuals who seem to delight more in doing harm to others than they do in doing good for themselves. Ballmer is rarely quoted as "Our product will be better", but instead likes to go on record saying "We will destroy them!". Any other company would have recognized him as a PR disaster long ago, but for Microsoft, his excesses go unnoticed as they would nowhere else. I found this quote from the PDF more interesting:
Now for the /offtopic...
My guess is that Slashdot readership is down, although I haven't seen any number on how much. It used to be the only thing of its kind, and quite frequently a link from a Slashdot story would take down, or slow to uselessness even fairly robust servers. Many forums have come and gone and had little impact on the size of Slashdot readership, but two things have recently (I'm guessing) for the first time had a noticeable impact: Digg, and the popularity of RSS feeds. About all I can say about Digg is that I tried it and didn't like it very much. I like having a top-level selection process for stories (even though I don't always agree with what Slashdot selects, or when) rather than the "pure democracy" approach that Digg takes (or pretends to take). I don't get my view of science from radio shows that run at 1AM, or my view of history from Oliver Stone movies, but my guess is that many Digg posters can't distinguish between "West Wing" and a documentary on the White House. People have been trying to "game" Slashdot for years, with mixed success, but in Digg they have found a system much easier to game, and by and large I think the typical Digg user is more interested in the game tha
Mark Martin, the Wagg-Ed guy who wrote most of that briefing document, is a detail-oriented pro. I've had plenty of contact with him, both during the work day when we're on opposite sides of the fence, and after-hours, when we stop thinking about work and have friendly conversations (often over a drink or three) about sports, family, politics, and other non-controversial topics.
:)
The only thing surprising to me about this "story" is that anyone is surprised to learn that Mark is just as good and thorough a researcher as the reporters he deals with all day long.
I would not be surprised to read one day that Mark has left Wagg-Ed and started his own PR agency -- and I would be even *less* surprised to learn that most of his clients were open source-based companies. He is often Microsoft's point man in their "Why proprietary software is better than FOSS" PR efforts, so he has an exceptional grasp of FOSS benefits. This knowledge will serve him well if and when he decides to leave the Dark Kingdom and join the Forces of Goodness.
- Robin