MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-04-21 |
| FROM | David Sugar
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: You are spreading disinformation
|
When an incorrect statement is made, while there is no obligation to have an
appology, it is absolutely essential for a publication to post some form of a
correction. Publications do this in various ways all the time; some are very
direct and explicit about their error or correction, and some have a catch
all area hidden away. Regardless, an obvious and false statement in an
article must be acknowledged and redressed by the publisher in some fashion
for the publication to have integrity as a whole. Integrity after all is the
currency of journalism.
Let's find another example. Let's say an article declaired "Democratic party
chairmen George Bush announces.,...". Obviously, an error was made in the
affliation and a key essential fact. Similarly, a retraction or correction
is due and appropriate for an error such as that, or for that matter, the one
under discussion here, regardless of how obvious such an error might be to
the readership.
Similarly, if a reporter accepts what is a false statement made by a
corporation as if it was a valid fact, I can accept that the reporter may
have done so out of ignorance or lazyness to properly research the subject,
rather than out of some more sinister intention. In any case, whether
posting a correction, or a retraction, as deemed nessisary by the editor,
either is an appropriate remedy. However, to choose to walk away from a
mistake, especially one obvious to it's readers, while easier on the surface,
is far worse for a publication and that precious currency of integrity than
to acknowedge an error truthfully as difficult as that may seem to be.
David Sugar
GNU Bayonne Maintainer
On Monday 21 April 2003 07:18 pm, Adam Kosmin wrote:
> Arron,
> Welcome to the discussion. First off, let me tell you that this
> issue is not closed. As it stands now, I am suggesting that your
> publication owes the FOSS community one (1) corrected article
> that clears up the issues I have outlined in my previous emails.
> Furthermore, I feel that I am personally owed an apology for the
> name calling that took place in response to me pointing out
> these flaws. Personally, I believe the article was either
> spoon-fed from Redmond or at the very least, authorized for
> publication. Either way, it may be too much trouble for your
> staff to seek approval when trying to modify the misleading
> content. If this is the case, the article should be pulled from
> the site immediately. Again, let me make it perfectly clear that
> this issue is not "closed". Your publication has done a
> disservice to the FOSS community and I intend to do everything
> in my power to hold you accountable.
>
> We'll continue in the morning...
>
> Adam Kosmin
>
>
> "
> " Sigh. Let's do a quick summary here...
> "
> " 1. Mike is the editor of The Inquirer and he has said that he has given
> " up. That means there aren't going to be any changes. Get it into your
> " head and get over it.
> " 2. It is quite obvious that none of you are regular Inq readers or you
> " wouldn't be creating such a fuss. Try reading the site for a while.
> " 3. The Inquirer has published several hundred pro-open source articles
> " that have several million individual article views. I don't remember a
> " single pro-Microsoft article, though there may have been a few, there
> " have certainly been many anti-MS articles. But then you wouldn't know
> " that, you're obviously not regular readers.
> "
> " Over the year that I've been writing for The Inquirer I have personally
> " written several pro-open source and several anti-MS articles. You guys
> " are tempting me to change that around. It is more likely that you are
> " pro-Microsoft agitators trying to give open source advocates a bad name
> " by acting like complete tossers than it is that that article will have
> " its headline changed. The headline is correct English. We have plenty of
> " open source advocates who are regular readers, including some of the
> " bigger names in the game who occasionally write to us directly, and they
> " didn't say a word. You are out on a limb.
> "
> " Lastly, even Egan's "flame," note the use of quotes, was relatively
> " polite. You've had several nice replies and it still hasn't sunk in. We
> " could have ignored you entirely as just about any other news service
> " would have done. We could have said, "fuck off and rethink your life."
> "
> " Anything more from you on the subject will be treated as pro-Microsoft
> " trolling to make open source advocates look like morons.
> "
> " The matter is closed. No more correspondence will be entered into.
> " Finished. The End.
> "
> " Arron
> "
> "
> " Adam Kosmin wrote:
> "
> " >Egan,
> " > You fail to realize the problem with quoting. By quoting, you
> " > (and your publication) create an association between OSS and SS.
> " > Noone asked you to do this. This is just the kind of game that
> " > Microsoft is trying to play and you're falling (as well as
> " > leading your readers) right into it. It's bad enough that OSS
> " > dilutes the message behind Free Software, now your publication
> " > is in the process of diluting OSS by associating it with this
> " > crap that Microsoft is throwing in the mix.
> " >
> " > In response to your wonderful explanation about the use of
> " > quotes, I'll say this:
> " >
> " > Microsoft speeds up Shared Source campaign.
> " >
> " > Wow! see that Mr Editor? No quotes, no bullshit, no games or
> " > (hidden?) agendas. Just simple, accurate, real information. But
> " > why am I telling you this? Don't you get paid to know this
> " > stuff?
> " >
> " > Still awaiting the corrections...
> " >
> " > Adam Kosmin
> " >
> " >
> " >" Adam, let me try to explain this to you. I will use small words
> (mostly) " >" so you can maybe understand, as your reading skills plainly
> aren't good. " >"
> " >" When one places a term in quote marks ("), that _changes_ the meaning
> of " >" its use by the writer from serious to mocking. Such usage has the
> effect " >" of denying the commonly held meaning or the intent meant by
> another use. " >"
> " >" In other words, placing quotes around "Open Source" in the article
> title " >" turns it into a pejorative term (you might want to look up
> 'pejorative') " >" and it changes that title where Microsoft and "Open
> Source" appear into " >" a wry oxymoron. (You might need to look up 'wry'
> and 'oxymoron', also.) " >"
> " >" I value my intelligent readers, but not "intelligent" readers like
> you. " >" Get it? So get off it. Go off now and harass some real Microsoft
> shills. " >"
> " >" All the best,
> " >" Egan
> " >"
> " >"
> " >" On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 13:22, Adam Kosmin wrote:
> " >" > Egan,
> " >" > Are you (and your staff) blind?!?! How do you expect me to
> " >" > believe that you have not caved in to Microsoft's marketing
> " >" > agenda when I see you publish an article entitled:
> " >" >
> " >" > Microsoft speeds up "Open Source" campaign
> " >" > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8992
> " >" >
> " >" > There is nothing Open about this campaign and I am accusing your
> " >" > publication of spreading disinformation. Please correct this
> " >" > immediately and take responsibility.
> " >" >
> " >" > Thank you,
> " >" > Adam Kosmin
> " >" >
> " >" >
> " >" > " Adam,
> " >" > "
> " >" > " Mike's right: he and the INQUIRER staff "get it" regarding Open
> " >Source
> " >" > " and Microsoft's cynical Shared Source campaign to co-opt IT
> " >mindshares.
> " >" > " The INQ's term "Vole" for Microsoft is surely not a fawning
> " >compliment.
> " >" > "
> " >" > " Further, I suggest to you that such mistakenly outraged letters
> sent " >to
> " >" > " neutral or sympathetic publications and journalists are not
> " >appropriate
> " >" > " or helpful to Open Source. Instead, they give FOSS advocacy a bad
> " >name.
> " >" > "
> " >" > " Regards,
> " >" > " Egan
> " >" > "
> " >" > "
> " >" > " On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 06:56, Mike Magee wrote:
> " >" > " > No I'm not Adam.
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > It's perfectly clear from the tone of that piece, and the fact
> " >that it's
> " >" > " > quoting another news wire, that we don't swallow that, and the
> " >quotation
> " >" > " > marks emphasise that.
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > We also have made it perfectly clear on countless occasions on
> our " >web site
> " >" > " > that we understand the clear distinction.
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > Also, for that matter, we have run numerous articles by Egan
> Orion " >which
> " >" > " > have a very pro-Open Source stance. So I think you're getting
> very " >steamed
> " >" > " > up about something you don't need to.
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > Mike Magee
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > -----Original Message-----
> " >" > " > From: Adam Kosmin [mailto:adk9001-at-nyp.org]
> " >" > " > Sent: 21 April 2003 14:37
> " >" > " > To: mike.magee-at-theinquirer.net
> " >" > " > Cc: akosmin-at-nyp.org
> " >" > " > Subject: You are spreading disinformation
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > Mike
> " >" > " > I am writing in response to your article entitled "Microsoft
> " >speeds up
> " >" > " > "Open Source" campaign"
> " >(http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8992). It is
> " >" > " > clear to me after reading the article, that you have no
> " >understanding of
> " >" > " > what Open Source / Free Software really is but instead, are
> being " >" > " > manipulated by Microsoft's well-planned strategy to
> confuse the " >line between
> " >" > " > Shared Source and FOSS. There is nothing "Open" about
> Microsoft's " >" > " > look-but-don't-touch Shared Source agreement that
> forces it's " >subscribers to
> " >" > " > pay membership fees and sign non-disclosure agreements. As
> someone " >who
> " >" > " > should be reporting the facts, I personally hold you responsible
> " >for
> " >" > " > spreading disinformation to your readers and I would appreciate
> " >knowing when
> " >" > " > you will take responsibility and publish a correction/apology.
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > Sincerely,
> " >" > " > Adam Kosmin
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > --
> " >" > " > "Silly hacker, root is for administrators"
> " >" > " > - Unknown
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " > GnuPG Key : 11C2 79F6 BD3D 3A86 5640 3DA0 3860 B30E 711D 3B66
> " >" > " >
> " >" > " >
> " >" > "
> " >"
> " >
> " >
> " >
> "
> "
> " ____________________________
> " NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> " Fair Use -
> " because it's either fair use or useless....
> " NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
