Assessing Media Bias: Microsoft Vs. Everyone Else
snydeq writes "J. Peter Bruzzese questions whether Microsoft receives unfair criticism in the media, while Apple, Facebook, and Google seem to get away from missteps unscathed. 'I've noticed an unfair, ongoing trend: If Microsoft does something a little off, it gets bashed into the ground for it. But if Google, Facebook, or Apple (all three of which can be categorized, like Microsoft, as The Man in their own rights) missteps, it generally gets mild reprimands and even support from the media and those drinking the Kool-Aid.' Do you feel any inherent media bias in its coverage of the tech industry?"
towards Apple.
If Microsoft hadn't already alienated the world by trying to bully them, then I might care.
What you're describing is the difference between a giant, scary company with a good PR department, and one that has no idea how to sell their brand. I think it's that simple.
Are we really entertaining the topic of Facebook getting a free pass on PR? They get slammed every time a privacy issue comes up;
Likewise Apple gets hammered every time there's an iphone glitch or IOS issue effecting battery life.
Google? You mean the near universal punching bag for reasons why "do no evil" cannot be their motto?
Microsoft has been left relatively alone while Google and Facebook and Apple have faced the most severe scrutiny of late. Also the fact that conversation about the patent wars is dominated by Florian Mueller and people quoting Florian Mueller has meant Microsoft has got off very lightly, even in its extremely dubious attempts to collect royalty for Android based on software patents, and attemps at bullying smaller companies like BArnes and Noble: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296
Or the fact that despite anti trust rulings, we still get Windows bundled with all non Apple laptops with no option to avoid paying for it, and IE is still bundled?
No, they still get off too lightly.
This reads just like one of their whiny op-eds about the liberal media only focusing on republicans (and of course they're all lies or exaggerations).
It is the circle of life.
Once upon a time, it was IBM who had every misstep reported as evil and Microsoft was the could-do-no-wrong company,.
Twenty years from now, No one will talk about Microsoft at all, though they will still be in business. Everyone will jump on the evil that Google does, and no matter what they do, OCP (or the current new kid on the block) will do no wrong.
vi +
Exactly how far back does your memory go? For decades while Microsoft held power over all computers that mattered the press was overwhelming pro-M$. A big part of that was of course because they poured an enormous amount of money into the publishers' coffers. Even whole publishers owed their existence to M$ and never would be heard a discouraging word (ever heard of Ziff-Davis?). Then there was this little thing of being convicted of illegal antitrust market manipulation and a few folks woke up to the idea that it is possible that not everything M$ puts out smells all that sweet.
And they haven't really done anything that dispells that reputation. Their recent attempt at bullying with patents is a case in point.
But I still agree with the article. But that's because I don't think Apple or Google are appropriately taken to task for some things they do that are wrong. Particularly Apple.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It all depends on who you listen to and which negative coverage you 'notice'. Microsoft gets tons of praise and has an army of fanboys, just like Apple and Google and Facebook, each of which seems to feel that their brand is under constant attack while the 'others' get off easy.
Gartner couldn't be any more insanely pro MS if they were branded a subsidiary of MS.
In the media, sure. Apple is always launching new gizmos and the media eats it up like a child on Christmas morning. They can't help it if it's a slow news day.
But do tech publications have the same bias? Seems unlikely to me; there's always stories on Slashdot criticising Apple (and Google, and Microsoft.) Same goes for any other tech news site I've seen, baring 9to5mac and such.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
They are no longer seen as tech leaders but as a company that forces you buy from them.
While they get lucky with a few products their innovation generally appears as incompetent and poorly implemented (such as Win 8).
Most people don't like having to buy an updated version of windows and office every few years and start to think another company might be able do a better job.
Bullies have to work extremely hard to loose their reputation as a bully. Non-bullies who mess up are worthy of more lee-way.
If anyone thinks Microsoft is being criticized unfairly, the cure is easy. Just head over to Rob Enderle's website: www.enderlegroup.com. Here are some recent articles:
"Is Google Facing the Beginning of the End?"
"The New iPad: Apple lowers the bar"
"Windows 8 vs. OS X Mountain Lion -- why Apple Suddenly Sucks"
Your esteem for Microsoft will return to an all-time high.
Which of the following four companies is a convicted monopolist?
a) Microsoft
b) Apple
c) Facebook
d) Google
The correct answer is "a" (Microsoft). The leadership that festered that predatory behavior is still at Microsoft. Bill Gates is Chairman, Steve Ballmer is CEO. That's why Microsoft's actions warrant careful scrutiny.
It's unfortunate that the "editors" allowed themselves to be trolled this way.
I don't really see it. It looks to me like a Microsoft partisan is pulling the old "liberal media" trick of accusing everyone else to be biased so that he'll look less biased. The guy making the complaint is intricately tied to Microsoft (he's Microsoft VIP, and MSCE, a Microsoft Partner...), these are facts that he neglected to mention in the article because they might lead people to rightly believe that his reporting might have a pro-Microsoft bias.
Also I've never heard of the controversy he claims gets "so much attention". It's biased reporting of the worst sort.
Fanatically anti-fanatical