Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Dominic Jones
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
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.
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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
"we should now start deriding people who link to non-credible sources." I call that censorship through coersion.
"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 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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
Robert,
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.
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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
If you are going to call me a liar(someone who doesn't respect the truth), then could you at least explain why? Provide some support for the accusation.
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.
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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
"But, we should now start deriding people who link to non-credible sources. I will."
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.
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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
Yeah, and lets censor the whole friggin' blogosphere while we're at it.
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.
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.
3 years ago
in The irritant of the non-credible journalists on Scobleizer
"We need to be vigilant against bad journalism. Here's a hint: when you see a story about a company and that story doesn't even attempt to get that company's point of view, then it probably is a non-credible journalist writing it. All credible journalists will get at least three sources to every story and will try to remain objective and impartial."
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-...
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-...
