Easy there, Oliver Stone. The black helicopters will be here soon enough...
serf, huh?
I don't know how familiar you are with the news business in general. First of all if you think ANY news is not under some corporate control, you aren't paranoid enough!
All news organizations (or at least the good ones)are in a constant stuggle to protect the editorial side (that is news, etc.) from the publishing/advertising side.
In every newspaper in america, you will find ad executives furious about how some upstart reporter daned to go and write an exposee that pissed off their client, and now they have to sweet talk that client or lose a huge customer that's a giant source of revenue, and don't these reporters understand that they shouldn't piss these people off?
But we do understand. All too well. And we are intentionally shielded from those ad people. Most news organization have strict firewalls to prevent reporters and editors from worrying about ads and revenue.
So no. Microsoft does not have hiring and firing power over me. No Microsoft representative has ANY input in my evaluations. And I believe firmly that if Bill Gates himself called Merrill Brown (the editor in chief of MSNBC) and told him to fire me, Merrill would say, "Bill, go take a flying fuck in a rolling donught."
You think us reporter-serfs who live, eat, breath, and deficate scrutiny and public disclosure really wouldn't notice influence if it were there?
How come you're not so worried about GE's influence? We are FAR more tied to NBC and CNBC from a content standpoint then we are to MS.
MS paid for half of MSNBC. True. They have revenue goals they want met. They want us to use their technology. But they have NEVER repeat NEVER altered our content and news judgement. I am very impressed with the quality of my editors (and I don't say that lightly as I have authority problems and my respect is not easily earned).
This is not to say that the scenario you painted has never happened at any news organization in America. Take Disney's influence in making ABC pull a story on the lack of safety at Disney's theme parks...
But what happens? The rest of the media chews them a new asshole. As I hope they would to MSNBC if a similar scenario ever were to happen.
I know I would be the first whistleblower. It's not like we make much money as reporters anyway... we basically have nothing to lose but our reputations and love of the truth.
Todd -- Did you read our daily trial coverage the day before? Brock Meeks covered it (he's our lead guy on the trial) and basically reported the same stuff that everyone else did. http://www.msnbc.com/news/279890.asp
Anyone who would accuse Brock of having a pro-MS bias is crazy! The MS flaks and lawyers usually run for cover when he comes to ask them questions. And Brill's Content (the independent ombudsman magazine) just wrote an article commending him for being impartial in spite of MS' partnership in our site (they weren't so kind with ABC's Disney affiliation a couple months back!)
Anyway, the story we wrote on AOL wasn't supposed to be about the jusge's reaction, but was a feature spun-off from the trial. The idea was to take a step back and sift through all the documents ourselves and determine what we could about the nature of this blockbuster deal.
So we'd already reported the part you said, and were trying to take the story in a direction that would add value for our readers. And to satisfy our own curiosity, as I (as someone who covers AOL and Netscape) personally found the documents fascinating.
And that email from Case you mentioned -- you should have been there in court. David Boies slowly stood up and waited quietly for Warden to finished. Then at a key moment, he introduced Pittman's respone citing a rule of evidence that it should be included since it was part of the same document technically.
By the time Warden was done objecting, both Jackson and Colburn (not to mention all of us in the peanut gallery) were so curious about what the response was, that Warden had no choice but to ask Colburn about it right then and there.
It ended up turning what was looking like a big point for MS into a huge score for the government. Boies is quite an attorney.
Hey all -- I'm the drone who wrote this story for MSNBC. I've really enjoyed the comments here -- you guys have some great insights. I especially liked the post about Ceaser and his slayers... very clever. Of course, no one noticed that the companies got it all wrong: Sun should have been Apollo, not AOL... guess Steve Case never read Bulfinch's
Anyway, for the record, when I first took the job at MSNBC, I shared all the concerns voiced here about the relationship between the news organization and Microsoft. I mean, I had just been covering the MS trial for the Mercury News, so it wasn't like I was ignorant about how MS goes about its business.
But I was very pleased to discover that MS has NEVER tried to influence the editorial content of the site. I know its hard to believe. But I know I personally never would have taken the job if I thought otherwise. Now, three months later, I am pleased to say my editors are tickled pink when I (or my colleagues) are tough on MS, and have never told me to slant my news in ANY way, let alone pro-MS.
Anyway, this story was really interesting to dig into. AOL/Sun/Netscape really look like they are trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft, in that they want to establish and control the standards, which has always been MS' game.
You expect that of AOL, but what puzzles me more than anything else is Sun's involvement. They have been pretty big open-standard proponents in the past and I'm a little surprised to see them in this role. Thoughts anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Easy there, Oliver Stone. The black helicopters will be here soon enough...
serf, huh?
I don't know how familiar you are with the news business in general. First of all if you think ANY news is not under some corporate control, you aren't paranoid enough!
All news organizations (or at least the good ones)are in a constant stuggle to protect the editorial side (that is news, etc.) from the publishing/advertising side.
In every newspaper in america, you will find ad executives furious about how some upstart reporter daned to go and write an exposee that pissed off their client, and now they have to sweet talk that client or lose a huge customer that's a giant source of revenue, and don't these reporters understand that they shouldn't piss these people off?
But we do understand. All too well. And we are intentionally shielded from those ad people. Most news organization have strict firewalls to prevent reporters and editors from worrying about ads and revenue.
So no. Microsoft does not have hiring and firing power over me. No Microsoft representative has ANY input in my evaluations. And I believe firmly that if Bill Gates himself called Merrill Brown (the editor in chief of MSNBC) and told him to fire me, Merrill would say, "Bill, go take a flying fuck in a rolling donught."
You think us reporter-serfs who live, eat, breath, and deficate scrutiny and public disclosure really wouldn't notice influence if it were there?
How come you're not so worried about GE's influence? We are FAR more tied to NBC and CNBC from a content standpoint then we are to MS.
MS paid for half of MSNBC. True. They have revenue goals they want met. They want us to use their technology. But they have NEVER repeat NEVER altered our content and news judgement. I am very impressed with the quality of my editors (and I don't say that lightly as I have authority problems and my respect is not easily earned).
This is not to say that the scenario you painted has never happened at any news organization in America. Take Disney's influence in making ABC pull a story on the lack of safety at Disney's theme parks...
But what happens? The rest of the media chews them a new asshole. As I hope they would to MSNBC if a similar scenario ever were to happen.
I know I would be the first whistleblower. It's not like we make much money as reporters anyway... we basically have nothing to lose but our reputations and love of the truth.
Todd -- Did you read our daily trial coverage the day before? Brock Meeks covered it (he's our lead guy on the trial) and basically reported the same stuff that everyone else did. http://www.msnbc.com/news/279890.asp
Anyone who would accuse Brock of having a pro-MS bias is crazy! The MS flaks and lawyers usually run for cover when he comes to ask them questions. And Brill's Content (the independent ombudsman magazine) just wrote an article commending him for being impartial in spite of MS' partnership in our site (they weren't so kind with ABC's Disney affiliation a couple months back!)
Anyway, the story we wrote on AOL wasn't supposed to be about the jusge's reaction, but was a feature spun-off from the trial. The idea was to take a step back and sift through all the documents ourselves and determine what we could about the nature of this blockbuster deal.
So we'd already reported the part you said, and were trying to take the story in a direction that would add value for our readers. And to satisfy our own curiosity, as I (as someone who covers AOL and Netscape) personally found the documents fascinating.
And that email from Case you mentioned -- you should have been there in court. David Boies slowly stood up and waited quietly for Warden to finished. Then at a key moment, he introduced Pittman's respone citing a rule of evidence that it should be included since it was part of the same document technically.
By the time Warden was done objecting, both Jackson and Colburn (not to mention all of us in the peanut gallery) were so curious about what the response was, that Warden had no choice but to ask Colburn about it right then and there.
It ended up turning what was looking like a big point for MS into a huge score for the government. Boies is quite an attorney.
Hey all -- I'm the drone who wrote this story for MSNBC. I've really enjoyed the comments here -- you guys have some great insights. I especially liked the post about Ceaser and his slayers... very clever. Of course, no one noticed that the companies got it all wrong: Sun should have been Apollo, not AOL... guess Steve Case never read Bulfinch's
Anyway, for the record, when I first took the job at MSNBC, I shared all the concerns voiced here about the relationship between the news organization and Microsoft. I mean, I had just been covering the MS trial for the Mercury News, so it wasn't like I was ignorant about how MS goes about its business.
But I was very pleased to discover that MS has NEVER tried to influence the editorial content of the site. I know its hard to believe. But I know I personally never would have taken the job if I thought otherwise. Now, three months later, I am pleased to say my editors are tickled pink when I (or my colleagues) are tough on MS, and have never told me to slant my news in ANY way, let alone pro-MS.
Anyway, this story was really interesting to dig into. AOL/Sun/Netscape really look like they are trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft, in that they want to establish and control the standards, which has always been MS' game.
You expect that of AOL, but what puzzles me more than anything else is Sun's involvement. They have been pretty big open-standard proponents in the past and I'm a little surprised to see them in this role. Thoughts anyone?
Anyway, thanks for all the insight!
-Elliot