Follow the money, follow the vested interest
Poor reporting can be a deliberate act, which is made possible through selective queries and sourcing. If we were to learn anything from one-sided Novell coverage, it is the fact that media is controlled by outside corporations and it exists to serve those corporation. When it comes to document standards, there is rarely an exception.
A number of analysts/journalists/bloggers didn’t check their facts and seem to have fallen into the trap, and ascribed a far greater importance to the actions of the [OpenDocument] Foundation. Curiously, these articles all quoted the same Microsoft Director of Corporate Standards. I hope this correlation does not prove to be a persistent contrary indicator for accuracy in future file format stories.
Luckily for us, David Berlind over at ZDNet has penetrated the confusion and gets it right:
…the future of the OpenDocument Foundation has nothing to do with the future of the OpenDocument Format. In other words, any indication by anybody that the OpenDocument Format has been vacated by its supporters is pure FUD.
Several months ago we complained that the media offered almost no coverage of Microsoft’s frauds in its pursuit for OOXML acceptance (e.g. Massachusetts). It was actually much worse because the media passed on Microsoft's lies as though they were facts.
Discriminatory and self-serving reporting truly ought to end, but this seems like an impossible goal when even tax-funded corporations like the BBC get corrupted by the Microsoft money and Microsoft’s own interests. Still, one can always hope for change. █