02.05.10
More Microsoft Revisionism from the New York Times, Courtesy of Former Microsoft Employee
Summary: Former vice president of Microsoft rewrites history in the New York Times, using a rant; new insight into the filthier tricks of Microsoft lobbying
YESTERDAY we wrote about BBC lies and whitewashing through Microsoft revisionism. The BBC show is available only for a UK audience, so we might expand on it later. We have already shown how the NY Times assists revisionism by Microsoft, which is still trying to rewrite its embarrassing history. The paper was almost bought by Microsoft, according to some rumours from last year. Bill Gates is apparently lobbying the publication (like he does at the BBC) because he does not practically own all of the press, yet (sometimes he has his employees put in it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]). If he does not own this press, then he needs to at least ensure that this press tells the lies of the Gates Foundation for example; it’s about propagating illusions and by sheer repetition make them be seen as impenetrable, indisputable truth.
GatesKeepers seems encouraged to find that the Seattle Press is beginning to find the other side of the coin. As the site puts it:
Is mainstream media doing enough investigative journalism on the Gates Foundation? Here is a shining example of how mainstream media and professionals in civil society can complement one another in developing an analysis of the activities of the Foundation. Kristi Heim has referred her readers to Philippe Boucher’s blog. These two Cascadians living and working near the Foundation give Gates Keepers hope.
For those who think that Gates is fighting against smoking, it is worth mentioning that the Gates Foundation invests in tobacco giants. Talk about spin and deception.
Going back to the New York Times (see “Criticism of The New York Times”), shortly after Microsoft had announced bad results [1, 2, 3, 4], a former Microsoft employee wrote an essay titled “Microsoft’s Creative Destruction” and published it in the New York Times. The following parts are telling and truthful, but this former Microsoft employee also uses the piece to whitewash Microsoft and Bill Gates, using lies he might actually believe in.
The tablet required a stylus, and he much preferred keyboards to pens and thought our [Microsoft's] efforts doomed.
A lot of the rest might also explain why a lot of Microsoft boosters link to it. A lot of the article does not criticise Microsoft and even makes a statement like: “No one in his right mind should wish Microsoft failure.”
Really?
“[T]he employees always defend Microsoft though, even after they leave.”
–CubezzzHere is the comical part: “At worst, you can say it’s a highly repentant, largely accidental monopolist.”
“Accidental”? Microsoft was hell bent on committing crimes to gain and maintain a monopoly. There is nothing accidental about it. We showed a lot of this yesterday.
Just because it’s an opinion piece does not mean that they should not check the facts. The New York Times needs to check what it prints instead deceiving many readers.
It seems like another one of those articles where they use dramatic headlines to “inject” FUD (like with the most recent “world without Windows” storyline from InfoWorld). They sometimes use headlines to draw in readers, then deliver Microsoft PR messages instead.
As one of our readers from Brazil puts it, “And William Henry, who was clueless about the Internet is now a pioneer? In which planet? The man wrote a book, The Road Ahead, and had no hint of the Internet.”
“Gates hangs himself a thousand times over with his own words.”
–FurnaceBoyHere is another talking point from the article: “Its founder, Bill Gates, is not only the most generous philanthropist in history, but has also inspired thousands of his employees to give generously themselves.”
What a load PR nonsense. Bill Gates is investing in patent trolls and creates scarcity using many patents on food and medicine. This is not philanthropy, it’s financing disguised as philanthropy. It is self serving.
The whole article might be an eye catcher to be used for revisionism, drawing in some of the Microsoft skeptics in particular.
As Cubezzz put it, “the employees always defend Microsoft though, even after they leave.”
“And because of them,” said another reader, “today my profession is not respected anymore.”
FurnaceBoy writes: “as I keep saying.. you only need to read the testimony in the various cases. Gates hangs himself a thousand times over with his own words.” (a reply to which is: “they have set the industry backwards I estimate 40 years backwards.”)
Separately, another reader of ours says that “Guido Fawkes (blogger Paul Staines) is going through the room bookings at the Houses of Parliament.” What he found is that “Andrew Miller held a reception for Microsoft after receiving a paid-for trip to Berlin by them. (Jun ‘08)”
Free trips paid for by Microsoft to promote its agenda, eh? We have seen these before, e.g. with journalists [1, 2, 3, 4]. It’s a form of bribery with which Microsoft recruits mouthpieces. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
satipera said,
February 5, 2010 at 12:42 pm
People often use the term revisionism as if it is a bad thing. All written history is revisionism. For whatever the reason bad historical analysis is the problem here not the process itself.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I think it’s one of those terms with associated connotations, like “reform”.
your_friend Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 2:20 am
True, the proper term for what we see here is “lying.” This propaganda piece also ran in the Wall Street Journal. It is not a revision, it is a twisted fabrication and a distraction from Microsoft’s poor financial results.
Yuhong Bao said,
February 5, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Accidental? Well, MS gained it’s monopoly thanks to MS-DOS, and the only reason IBM had to ask MS to “create” MS-DOS was that it’s attempt to license CP/M-86 from DR failed, another mess altogether.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Don’t forget the illegal things that Microsoft did before and after that.
Yuhong Bao Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Yes, but none of them led to a MS monopoly as much as MS-DOS. For example, the licensing of MS BASIC for ROMs of computers like the IBM PC and Apple II eventually died.
Dennis Murczak Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
It is less the singular events that made MS a PC monopoly; these were merely convenient door-openers. What made them a monopoly is their persistent use of an elaborate pattern of locking the market by announcements, and spreading misconceptions about anything that can potentially compete with them.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
“[W]hat things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there [sic] feature they have that might get in our way?”
–Bill Gates
Yuhong Bao said,
February 6, 2010 at 3:06 am
“A lot of the article does not criticise Microsoft and even makes a statement like: “No one in his right mind should wish Microsoft failure.””
It happens that I discussed this topic on IRC. Here is the log:
http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/irc-log-03022010.html
Agent_Smith said,
February 6, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Not to forget the sex scandals Micro$oft is involved in Israel… Remember ???