-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/03/26/the-irritant-of-the-non-credible-journalists/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Get real. Do YOU do this? Did you even check out the 60% Code Rewrite journalist's credentials before slaming him and calling for him to fired?
I think his credentials are quite impressive. Or do you just simply dismiss him because he's Australian?
http://squash.wordpress.com/2006/03/25/who-the-...
Blacklist certain blogs and publications because we don't like what they say.
What's happening to you, Robert. Losing your own objectivity?
I can't believe you wrote the above post.
It's not about not liking what they have to say. It's about sticking up for objectivity and journalists who do their job professionally (like Om Malik, who writes for Business 2.0 magazine).
I've been reading the stuff you've been writing lately and it seems YOU have lost your WAY to figure out who is credible and who isn't. The fact that you are defending a guy, who Squash says, is "Richards is the most notorious and controversial technology journalist in Australia" and someone who has been accused of plagiarism and conflicts of interest says VOLUMES ABOUT YOU.
But, I guess there's a reason why those gossip magazines make lots of money: people like you buy this crap.
It's great to see you and OM pick up on this issue, as discussed on GigaOM. When I wrote my comments on Launching Products in the Age of Instant Analysis, I really felt that people were not checking their facts or were eager to be among the first to stake a claim on whether something was an accomplishment or a disappointment, even if the products had not yet hit the shelves.
It's too early to say that Origami is a failure, or that the iPod HiFi is a disappointement, or that Google Finance will never catch up to Yahoo! Finance. Myself, I was at first disappointed with iTunes music offerings, but since then, they've dramatically expanded their library, as they have also done with video. Services and products are continuously improved, often because of feedback from customers.
Whether it's from the blogs or from print and TV media, we should hold ourselves to a standard that we can be trusted.
News sourced to a single source, especially a source lacking a track record, should be handled with care, if at all.
Right on Robert.
They've been around for ages, and people pay attention to them because *sometimes* they get it right. Usually they're stories are either:
A) Completely and utterly wrong.
B) Completely and utterly common knowledge with some worthless commentary.
Once in a great while they'll post a rumor or prediction that will turn out to be true. For all I know, they're just guessing and by chance they're right at least some of the time.
In either case, you're right that they're pretty much tabloids like The National Inquirer and whatnot. I'd rather read The Onion, at least their fake news is funny.
Someone sic Oprah on The Register!
Sounds like a lynch mob. If they are non-credible, then link to them and let your readers decide.
I think we should deride people who suggest deriding people who link to sources that may or may not be credible. I have.
Your old policy, your best policy, is just "link and comment, or comment and link".
Policies like "deliberately not linking as a punishment" and "not linking because they don't deserve the traffic" is a sign that you are "giving your own links in too much respect".
Stop giving your links or anyone else's links any "respect".
Think humility, which is your stongest suit.
You link and comment in order to "add one more potentially interesting journey" to the web.
Not to "spread the truth according to St Scoble" or to "teach someone a lesson" in how to be a good journalist.
The moment you start to "set a standard" for what you will or won't link to, you restrict the number and diversity of experiences that you can provide for your readers.
It is NOT "what you link to" that defines the service that you give to your readers.
It is "what you say about it".
"Look at this STORY I linked to here, I personally don't think this is accurate" is a perfectly good piece of blogging, while either "blogger's silence", or telling people about the existence of something that you then tell them that won't link to, what kind of "naked conversation" is that?
You're much, much better than that.
I'm no expert on whether one blogger is more honest than another or contributes a ton of value, but I can say one thing, too many bloggers don't point to sources. I dislike running across an interesting story on /. for example, only to read the link and it points to a blog. Open the full blog and find it points to an earlier post on the blog, and so on. No actual link to the website or company blogged about is provided.
I'm not sure if that qualifies as shody journalism, but it certainliy makes it hard for me to take them seriously. Heck, if I'm going to blog about something Google or MS does, I could at least link to that company's own news release. If I'm just ranting about someone else's opinion, then I link to their blog post or article.
Anyway, though I sometimes have a hard time keeping up, at least you provide links. As to whether that makes you a good journalist...well...you know... :)
Todd
Dominic: I thought I was dealing with someone who has a respect for the truth. Obviously I was wrong.
The "60% rewrite" story link on Digg was submitted by someone with the nickname of "SCOOPOZ". Here is the link to his profile page:
http://www.digg.com/users/SCOOPOZ
Pay attention to the other stories he promoted on Digg.
It is important for the credibility of any accusation — be it the claim by Smarthouse or your accusation of me being untruthful — that it be supported by detail and evidence.
Just because you say something is true, doesn’t make it so, even if your name is Robert Scoble, or Bill Gates or Nelson Mandela.
You still have an onus to provide support for your argument. Otherwise you are just calling people names and acting like a childish snob brat: "You bad! I hate you."
Back it up, like backing up the non-official denial that 60% of Vista must be rewritten.
Because deciding whether to listen to someone based upon what they say, rather than who they are, is the precise opposite to something both you and I don't like.
That thing we don't like is something called "ad-hominem".
Not signing your name is no more likely to invalidate what you say, than your race, colour, gender, or anything else.
Ask any poet for the name to be found at the bottom of some of the greatest verse ever written: "anonymous".
I agree with you completely that all journalists, bloggie or not, should check three sources. But I can tell you, from personal experience writing and reporting on the staffs of both a paper and a radio station (both allegedly "credible") that this rarely happens. And it will continue to happen less and less as the pressure to fill up inches/minutes is the order of the day. As "credible" news organizations continue to consolidate, the bottom line (I mean profit at any cost) will contine to dominate. This is not just happening with the big guys. When a newspaper wants its reporters to write up to 5 articles a day? You can rest assured there will not be a single article with three sources.
Dominic: when you write headlines like this: http://irwebreport.blogsome.com/2006/03/26/micr... "Microsoft blogger Scoble wants to censor unfriendly blogosphere" that demonstrates you have absolutely no clue what truth is.
I never advocated censoring bloggers. Even unfriendly ones. If I did, I'd delete your posts here. I DID advocate not listening to those people who put crap out there. Glad you demonstrated that you don't know the difference. You misrepresented my point. Therefor you demonstrated you are NOT a defender of truth.
I applaud your passion for Microsoft and defending the company. The past week has been hard for you, as you have said.
You'd like to stop people writing rubbish or not linking to people who write what you think or know is rubbish.
You wish people would take your word for it that 60% of the Vista code in not garbage, or at least that it's impossible to rewrite that much before the deadlines.
You wish we weren't all so dumb as to believe a muckraking journalist who knows how not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I can fully understand how you feel. The powerlessness to stop the meme must be frustrating.
But you need to chill, recognize that people are not stupid.
Just give them access to all sides of the story, and let them decide. As an old editor or mine used to say, "the truth will out."
So your strategy should be to link to this guy's stuff AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to show people just what he's up to. And to show that you're not afraid to point to what he says.
How about you go through his site and pick out all the pieces he's written that you consider rubbish and write them up as "Is this credible journalism?"
Or you could just have the PR people put out a press release denying the claim and telling us exactly what is being done with Vista and why.
He also makes a dig at Bill Gates at the bottom of the post because the picture of Gates shows a Mac in the background. Gates used to be a huge cheerleader for the Mac and Microsoft continues to support the platform. Only in the the conspiracy-theory-addled mind of the Mac fanatic does Gates hate the Mac and want to destroy it. How many times have you heard Steve Jobs publicly dis Microsoft and Gates? Too many to count. How many times have you heard Bill Gates publicly dis Apple and Jobs?
The problem with bloggers is that they feel they can write about any subject, even when they don't know what they're talking about. Many blog posts are nothing more than self-righteous, biased opinion paraded as fact. And if you link to zealots, even ones on the "other side" in a weak attempt at objectivity, you can't really pretend to stand for journalistic integrity.
Also, from what I can tell, you have completely removed any separation of work and personal life. You are available 24/7 as a Microsoft employee. And that's great for Microsoft. But I hope you find some time to be a Scoble as well.
You say you want only smart readers on your blog. But I would guess it's the smart that ones that would stop coming first when you start yelling at your readers. Just food for thought, and yes I know if you read my blog you know I don't always practice what I preach ;)
"I wish Memeorandum (and other memetrackers like TailRank) had a "no follow" link so that when I link to something I can tell Memeorandum's engine that I don't want the linked article to go up." I call that censorship.
"Some bloggers don't know who is a credible journalist and who isn't." Whose definition are you using of credible? Yours? That's censorship of a sort.
"We need to be vigilant against bad journalism." And who defines what is bad. You? Censorship.
To my mind, any attempt to control what people think -- by banning them or not linking to them or whatever other action -- is censorship.
I STAND BY MY HEADLINE. You do want to censor the blogosphere.
I unsubscribed Friday because of Robert's, uh, personal attacks on me in his comments - attacks he has a total right to do, however personally unfair. I thought I'd come back one more time to see how things are going with Robert...
You hit it right on Richard.
It's one thing for him to post like we simply read his words and take them as gospel truth. It's another for him to believe it.
What's the saying? The proof is in the pudding? (Or something like that.)
Robert wants us to believe he is (a) objective, (b) not biased to critical posts about Microsft, (c) that he comes from - an appearantly - past age of things where bloggin is positive....
And when it comes to that moment of truth.... that moment where he could have proved to us this.... he took 2 days to attack someone - followed by many others in comments - instead of providing us with details.
Yes Robert. I'm STILL only providing you with my first name only. Not last name. No place of emplyment. And no blog. Guess that makes you the bigger man.... in spite of your very bitter words that defy everything you've said FOR YEARS prior to this weekend.
Deal with it.
And I'm quite sure you can't understand me right now.... but I do mean this in a positive way.
You HAVE changed. Just like the environment has too.
Better? Worse? I have no clue. But since there ARE more sources for "credible" journalism than the MSM and PR types like who have (so far) spoken for MS.... I'd have to say it ain't worse.
As for the Gates photo - oh, man, you're putting word in my mouth. You left your sense of humor at home today, I suppose (the smiley in the post could have helped).
"I wish Memeorandum (and other memetrackers like TailRank) had a "no follow" link so that when I link to something I can tell Memeorandum's engine that I don't want the linked article to go up."
There actually are ways of making a link have no Google juice or showing your opinion of the linked site. Check out the nofollow attribute, which I know Scoble's aware of. There's also a neat microformat called VoteLinks that allows you to tag a link as to whether you support the linked content or not.
If Memeorandom or other popularity-tracking sites took these attributes into account when ranking things, it wouldn't be censorship. It would just be making a link more meaningful, and making the job of these popularity-trackers easier. When Scoble refuses to link to a story he doesn't like, it denies me the ability to check it out for myself. But I also don't want to see those bad links helping out the linkee. It would also be cool to see in Memeorandom "this article had 34 votes for, 26 votes against, and 120 ambigous links".
Put this post as your background. And when your finders are flying, and you're in a "OMGI'MFIRST" fuge, read it until you calm down, and make sure that what you're writing is accurate, and what you're saying is the precise message you want to get across.
If you want things to change, you must set that example in your writing. If you want things to be better, you must be better as well. No more "Oh, well, it was hard to get ahold of the guy" stuff. If you can't verify it, don't post it. If it means you delay your posts by an hour, you do that. You've been getting better about it, but you have to set the example for at least this site.
To elaborate, when you say: "Ricky: why, again, am I listening to someone who doesn’t even have the courage to sign his/her name on what he/she writes?"
Perhaps because Ricky is writing something pretty sensible when he says "It is NOT 'what you link to' that defines the service that you give to your readers. It is 'what you say about it'"
And when you say "anonymous people are not credible" you're falling into one of the oldest traps in the book. Stating that someone who chooses to keep their identity quiet is "not credible" *no matter what they say* is the exact equivalent of stating that nothing you say about Microsoft is credible because you happen to work there. The people who sneer "Yeah, Scoble, you can't trust him because he works for Microsoft" are making exactly the same call. They're judging you not on what you say, but on who you are.
Is nothing sacred?
http://comicstripblog.com/?p=212
billigstes schweizer webhosting kontaktieren sie uns noch heute!
I guess the book "Primary Colors" should have never been intially published, either.
I now know where NOT to send my kids to study journalism if they want to.
I guess we should start ignorning mini-microsoft. Few know who he is, or even if he currently works for Microsoft. Can we assume you've unsubcribed to him (her?), Scoble?
(That would be sarcasm, folks.)
All I will say about this thread is this: I recently asked "The Head Lemur" to provide me with his blogging pedigree. I was kidding when I did this. The lashing out at "Ricky" above shows that I was about 14 days +/- ahead of the curve.
Papers, please.
(Nevermind this comment, by the way, as it is "unsigned".)
The nofollow rel attribute would actually be fine for this. I'm not sure if Memeorandum supports it.
The problem I have with it is that within comments it might be nice to follow a nofollow attribute.
I've blogged about this in the past:
http://www.feedblog.org/2005/08/nofollow_consid...
"At the time it really bothered me since while it would in fact punish spammers it would also publish bloggers since legitimate links wouldn't be included within ranking algorithms (which yielded to nofollow). The problem was that at lot of people went storming through the gate with their support for nofollow."
...... I have a better idea though. Maybe we could have a central repository for bloggers so that thhey can link to an MSM site and note how reputable it is.
I've had problems with MSM rags in the past (including the print version of Wired (not the online one)) so I can feel your pain.
Onward!
Also, go back and study the Watergate era. I did in journalism school. They held the story for weeks because they couldn't verify it with a second source.
Getting a second source, particularly when it's an anonymous one, is tantamount to keeping credibility and ensuring you aren't being used to hoodwink your readers.
I dont understand why Scoble or Microsoft has to 'prove' it. For example, let me make a random accusation off the top of my head here. I'm going to say that using Mac OS X has hidden back doors put in by a terrorist organization. And my source. I'm going to say that my source is an 'anonymous' insider inside Apple.
Now, who needs to prove/disprove this claim? Does Steve Jobs need to come out and say Apple is not hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda? Or does he need to sue me?
I hope you see where I'm going with this - the burden of proof is always on the accuser.Just like I need to prove this nonsensical claim about Apple, so does David Richards. A past as in 'Fleet Street' does not proof make.
In this specific case, this 60% thing is a nonsensical statement. You've already seen blog posts from Larry Osterman, Scoble and the XBox team talking about how false it is. What more proof do you want? Code diffs for the next 4 months?
Vista is 10s of millions of lines of code and is a few months away from shipping. Knowing our internal processes, I expect all teams to be really locked down now and focussing on stabilizing the operating system. Rewriting 60% is not possible if we want to ship this decade.
Whether you know me or not, does that take away from discussing the value of getting Brian Valentine on Channel 9 to discuss the current state of Vista? Having worked with Brian years ago during some early adopter programs, I can tell you, (as I'm sure you know), he can be quite entertaining, as well as honest and up front. Again, just a suggestion.
I don't have first hand knowledge of whether Vista needs 0.6%, 6%, or 60% of the source code rewritten.
Is it possible that they can rewrite 60% of such a bloated OS by January 07? Okay, probably not.
Is it possible that 60% *should* be rewritten (or better tested)? Yes, without question.
I hope you guys get the next generation right! People hate dealing with Microsoft bugs…especially with products that they don’t love.
-E. David Zotter
It would seem that you are trying to suppress ideas or expression by threatening bloggers who link to non-credible sources (as defined by you).
It's a free country, and people have every right to link to whatever they want, and to suggest otherwise is to censor them. It doesn't matter if what they link to is true or not; they have every right to make fools of themselves (i.e. even the Ku Klux Klan has the right to free speech).
People lacking in common sense will believe whatever they want to. Threatening them only reflects badly on you.
The onus to prove the story is on the writer. That's a heavy burden, and partly why we generally attach credibility to what journalists do.
The company doesn't have to prove anything. It simply has to deny or correct the facts in the story.
In this case, it has not denied -- officially -- that up to 60% of the Vista code needs to be rewritten.
Yes, individual employees have denied and made very logical arguments why this story is wrong and not credible. But individuals are not speaking on behalf of Microsoft. If they get it wrong, the company itself is not accountable for these individual employees' statements unless they are officers or official spokespersons on behalf of officers. Last time I checked, bloggers are not designated officers or spokespersons for the company.
What I and people like Neville Hobson are saying is "kill this thing now by getting out an official company statement." Preferably that statement will tell us how much of the code is broken and how much needs to be fixed.
But there has been no official statement or denial. Add to this the fact that Microsoft's PR people spun the delay of Vista as a kind of good news story, the company's credibility is vulnerable.
Scoble going off half-cocked and calling people "slimebags" and liars and "jerks" and dismissing the real experience of a real journalist, without being specific about what the real story is, has not helped things for MSFT.
Then, importantly, he calls for his followers to form a blogophere guardian angels patrol to weed out the "non-credible journalists..."
Sorry, that's going too far. He said lets deride those we don't like.
Instead, we should deride those who suggest that it is acceptable to deride those we don't like.
Main takeaway: Let's not assume that what we know is all there is, okay?
Woodward and Bernstein's source for their reports that brought down Richard Nixon was the infamous "Deep Throat", who was only "anonymous" to us outsiders, but all along, both Woodward & Bernstein knew who he was -- one W. Mark Felt, an FBI high-ranking officer, whose identity was revealed in 2005.
Deep Throat on Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Wat...
I see MS is still a major banner-ad sponsor of The Register.
Clearly, you have nothing to do with where the marketing budget is spent. But there can't be any harm in giving your opinion to those with the purse strings.
All else is windy wittering.
Surely people don't really believe everything they read in a news site whose tagline is "Biting the hand that feeds IT" and who hosts the BOFH? Some people will, sure, but then some people probably believe what they read in The Onion.
Quote:
"Cause they lied about me last year and didn't even care about the damage they did to their brand. They just want you to visit and click on their ads." And you want us to come here and hang on every word you say. Are your motives purely altruistic? I don't think so. Oh and they did so much damage to their brand they went under, oh no wait a minute, they didn't. I think you overestimate your own popularity and influence.
And thanks for all the helpful hints too on how to spot "non-credible journalists" but unfortunately we are not the brain damaged morons you and Microsoft so desperately wish we are. MS is finding out much to it's own pain that you cannot bully and bullshit people indefinitely.
Your article is condescending and another insincere attempt to paint Microsoft as this beleaguered underdog that just wants the best for everybody and is just so misunderstood.
I'm sure you link to Microsoft on a regular basis. They are a non-credible source, should we start deriding you?
"We need to be vigilant against bad journalism" - I'm going to throw up.
I forgot why I haven't been here for some time but I remember now, you have no credibility.
Enough said.
"Simon: the problem is that they [The Register] have an audience of tech users who have money. To NOT advertise to that audience would be irresponsible. Unfortunately as long as people want to read this kind of “journalism” (and I use that word lightly) then we’ll need to be there advertising."
What a clanger!
Wow, I've haven't seen someone contort a viewpoint so badly to try and make something stick for a long time. The last person with so much entertainment value was the Iraqi Information Minister telling the journalists in Iraq how they were going to defeat those American Oppressors when over his shoulder you could see American tanks rolling into Baghdad...
So you are going to take this strong moral stand point against bad bloggers and non-credible sources but your moral viewpoint evaporates as soon as there is money involved? Before I was just kinda outraged by your thoughtless comments but this is so bad it is actually embarrassing.
I personally think that you have spent an enormous amount of time building up your credibility but you have just shown your true colours and blown all that credit right out the window. When I left my last comment I thought I would come back another time to see what you were up to, now I just know I won't, what's the point?
Don't worry about firing this "ignorant" reader, I resign!
Bye bye.
To my mind the acme of that has been the way you have gone on the offensive and started to attack people. As an important PR rep for Microsoft I understand that, at times, that is part of your job. Just as I understand that it is part of your job to "spin" news.
The question at issue here is how you go about doing that in the age of instant analysis, where editorial, weblogs and news websites are so easily conflated into a broad stream of information.
For me you are an important source of information. I'm always mindful of your job, and the colour that will lend to your writing. Just as I am always mindful of the colour and slant of the register articles. When reading instant mediums it would be foolish not to be mindful of that. Having said, I want you to remember in the future that when you go on the offensive, you had better do it carefully because _your_ reputation will be as much at stake as the person (or media outlet) you are attacking.
To wit, your statement: "Some bloggers don't know who is a credible journalist and who isn't. Hint: anything the Register writes is NOT credible. Why do I say that? Cause they lied about me last year and didn't even care about the damage they did to their brand. They just want you to visit and click on their ads."
You know full well that is an poorly considered, emotive, totalising statement that can easily be disproved, and in disproving it your credibility suffers just as much as Andrew Orlowski's cred suffered last year.
Given that, was it such a smart move? Was it worth the cost? Do you seriously think you come off looking better than The Register by doing it?
I expect more from you, and you've disappointed me, and I'll never give what you say as much credence as before, and I imagine many of your readers feel the same.
Yes, the register and andrew orlowski sometimes get it wrong. Perhaps you have a basis for attributing it to something more than human error, instant reporting, deadlines etc. But you've presented your personal opinion as a totalising fact, and frankly the evidence you put forward just isn't good to support it.
You work in PR and are fully conversant with spinning the news, yet you go apocalyptic when a news source makes a mistake, or rushes to print an article that might not be completely correct, or displays something less than perfect objectivity. It verges on hypocrisy. Instead why can't we all acknowledge that no one source of information should be trusted entirely. That no one article or media outlet is objective - not the times, not the New York Times, not the register and not your blog - people would be crazy to regard your weblog as an unencumbered news source, and it would be a rather foolish reader that treated the reg as an unencumbered news source either.
Instead readers need to assemble their own opinions of events by reading multiple sources and comparing and contrasting them. That's the value of listening and participating in these conversations you're so passionate about, and if you want to continue being treated as a credible speaker in that conversation you need to take a step back and think about what's happening, what your saying, and all the things at stake. Its unfair that you have to reach such a high standard when others don't appear to be doing the same, but you're paid to try and get good coverage and rapport for microsoft, and you can't do that without credability.
I'm sorry to lecture and sound patronising, but I'm surprised at the basic error you've made here. Perhaps you can use this scenario in the revised edition of your book? "casualities in a crisis - your tone, your credibility, and your readers".
Hint: Get A Grip.
You tell them, bud.
Hilary's right. The Register has a huge pro audience and it's earned much of it through its coverage of Microsoft - through really great legal and business analysis. And BOFH, heh.
Of course this makes Microsoft nervous. Go figure.
So Robert when you go off on one of your emotional rants about The Register, and try to bully the publication and its journalists, are you speaking on behalf of Big Corp., or yourself?
If it's Big Corp., it's disturbing. If it's only yourself, it just looks like you want to dish it out but can't take it.
although I am no fan of Microsoft, I disagree with most of the s**t that is being thrown at you, and I think you have some nerve in letting all comments in. Kudos to you for that.
I don't know if the 60% story is any true, I read Mini like the next guy, and - let's be honest - a lot of people would like to see MS in trouble.
But the side discussion on corporate blogging (as demonstrated by you) is interesting in its own right. Is this something every corporate should do?
I advise my clients to start a corporate blog only if they're prepared to trade in the Credibility Currency, something most companies are not really equipped for.
Until everyone supports it, we would just need some scalable solution for a simple javascript redirect.
I did that here: http://www.dungis.com/nofollow?http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/26/the-irritant-of-the-non-credible-journalists
Only browsers (with javascript enabled) will redirect, so no google juice there. Or is the number of non-js users too big?
It's great to have so much freedom of expression, but it does come at a price.
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/smart-house-p...
More evidence on his "journalistic" talents at http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-ar...
Judge for yourself.
chattr1
chattr team