Scobleizer - Latest Comments in The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

webci — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:41:54 -0000

News sourced to a single source, especially a source lacking a track record, should be handled with care, if at all.

chattr1
chattr team

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Robert Scoble — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:11:35 -0000

Stef, that's amazing. Thanks!

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Stef Wisniewski — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:21:05 -0000

The credibility of the "journalist" just dissolved completely - the event described within the link below appears to have resulted in the expulsion of the "journalist"'s websites by his (former) hosting provider.
http://www.bigpicturebigsou...
More evidence on his "journalistic" talents at http://forums.whirlpool.net...

Judge for yourself.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Rob Palmer — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 05:18:18 -0000

Unfortunately, the Internet has tended to dumb down journalism, now that anyone can post anything online without having to pass it by an editor first.

It's great to have so much freedom of expression, but it does come at a price.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Porucznik Borewicznxv — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:38:33 -0000

Kiss me w poker rurenxv

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Regis — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:58:15 -0000

I just had a quick idea about that nofollow thing...
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?

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Mark Johnson — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:45:37 -0000

Yo, Mr. Scoble! I'd like to repeat the kudos in the comments for speaking your mind, letting people comment on your post, and responding to criticism later. Even when you get saucy, you promote a great conversation in the blogosphere. . .and isn't that what it's all about?

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Gianni Catalfamo — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:20:57 -0000

Robert,

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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

John C. Welch — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:39:16 -0000

Oh I don't agree with Robert on much, but the Reg is the Weekly World News of the Tech space.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

pb — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:20:47 -0000

Scoble : Tells me that the writer can't stand up to criticism.

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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Hilary — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:46:01 -0000

With all due respect Robert, I think you need to take a little bit of time out. In the past couple of days your posts have started to display a real "siege" mentality.

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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Martin — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:32:34 -0000

I left a comment and was about to leave when I saw this:
"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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Martin — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:54 -0000

I think this is very very rich coming from someone who works for a company that feeds wheelbarrow loads of dung to the press on a daily basis. Microsoft has no credibility whatsoever. Now you're whingeing about people that don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? MS has been convicted in court as a monopolist, has left a trail of shattered innovative companies in it's wake while it grabs every penny it can. And now we must feel sorry for you? O boo hoo.
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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Robert Scoble — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:14:17 -0000

Dan: here's a hint: it's something I picked up in usenet and newsgroup discussions. I'll try to delete it from my vocabulary, but sometimes I like being condescending. It's better than kicking a dog.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Dan — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:48:09 -0000

I find your frequent use of "Here's a hint" very condescending. If you want to say something just say it, don't hint around it like we're idiots.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Mark Aufflick — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:00:43 -0000

I like The Register. You know it's trashy, but trashy news makes money because people like it!

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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

nuvaslacker — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:56:01 -0000

The only part of the Register that is definitely, absolutely, literally true is BOFH.

All else is windy wittering.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

scobleizer — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:54:29 -0000

Simon: the problem is that they 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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Simon — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:11:08 -0000

Robert,

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.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

me — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:17:06 -0000

Who the hell is Robert Scoble? Looks like some at-ass loser...

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

J. Random Poster — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:08:07 -0000

Orlowski is nothing but a lower-budget Dvorak. Don't expect anything close to credible reporting from him, and you won't be disappointed.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Mr. Sun — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:27:16 -0000

#45 Dmad:

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/wik...

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

John Dowdell — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:30:14 -0000

re: the repeated Woodward & Bernstein analogies, folks here are still assuming they got Truth from WaPo. I'm not sure... I was exposed to the evidence from Hougan, Colodny and Gettlin in the late 80s and have been distressed since that these legit questions have flown beneath the radar of "professional news" reporting.

Main takeaway: Let's not assume that what we know is all there is, okay?

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Rogers Cadenhead — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:16:38 -0000

When you don't link to something you are criticizing, you're punishing your audience. It also implies some doubt about what you're writing, as if you don't want your readers to look at the source and decide for themselves.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Dominic Jones — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:00:25 -0000

Sriram, I posted this in reply to your comments and questions:

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.