WE ARE still trying to get to grips with IRC logs (now published, as over a decade back, every day) because full transparency is important and we're still seeing some new misleading articles about Richard Stallman, or RMS for short (see the bottom of the updates here; there are now over 20,000 views on this long page which documents the removal of RMS by dishonest 'journalism'). This entire sad episode demonstrated the power of rogue 'journalism'; so-called 'journalism' that doesn't get even the most basic facts right (probably by intention, for agenda). Look what media did to Linus Torvalds last year and to RMS this year. In the name of "protecting women"... (corporate power was best served by the marginalisation of both men).
"Look what media did to Linus Torvalds last year and to RMS this year."It should be noted that ZDNet also joined the defamation frenzy (slander of RMS); Vaughan-Nichols, who is associated with the Linux Foundation, did that too. We'll remember that and we took note because nowadays he also spreads Microsoft talking points. There's a whole bunch of them who work as corporate messengers disguised as 'journalists'; Swapnil (in the above photo) told me he's a 'journalist', but his site is littered with paid-for spam (ads disguised as articles). It's a dumping site. It's horrible.
We've become more or less accustomed to intentionally-dishonest media when covering the European Patent Office (EPO); António Campinos and Battistelli literally bribe the media for favourable coverage, just like Microsoft does. They just disguise the bribes as "business transactions"...
"So we’re left with spam or PR and charlatans who pretend to know what they cover."This is all rather sad. Very sad. Journalism is dying a slow death. Technical journalism may be already dead (for years); technical people see no money in it, so they move elsewhere or start selling "tweets" for Jim Zemlin, a marketing person, to rake in millions of dollars in salaries, riding the coattails of Torvalds or his trademark. So we’re left with spam or PR and charlatans who pretend to know what they cover. Or pretend to be 'journalists' when all they really are (or have become) is glorified PR people. Look at yesterday's news for example; earlier in the week Microsoft googlebombed "Linux" and "Android" to basically push a new Microsoft product and on Friday we saw “Windows Is No Longer ‘The Most Important Layer’ at Microsoft” (there was similarly poor ‘reporting’ and it's really bad so links are omitted). Windows is doomed, so Microsoft pretends it’s a good thing and it's googlebombing the opposition's name (Linux.com is sometimes more about Microsoft than about Linux, thanks to Swapnil). Microsoft ‘supports’ Linux like it ‘supports’ ODF (the OpenDocument Format). It’s all about themselves. It's about monopoly and control.
Readers can feel or say whatever they want about Phoronix but it’s one of the last remaining sites that do technical journalism (it’s not perfect, but usually it’s OK and the sole author is technical).
"Who's going to sue? Certainly not the Linux Foundation, which is too busy badmouthing the GPL."Going back to ZDNet, not only does the site repeat Microsoft propaganda; it also habitually lies about security of GNU/Linux and there are debunkings that show/prove these to be fabrications. Who's going to sue? Certainly not the Linux Foundation, which is too busy badmouthing the GPL. Yes, they even badmouth the licence of Linux itself. They don't care about Linux; they just use the name to sell their services.
Larry Dignan, who manages ZDNet, has killed the site's integrity; not that it ever had much to begin with. He turned it into a Microsoft-leaning tabloid that slanders GNU/Linux, misleads on Free software, and uncritically parrots Microsoft talking points, including "Microsoft loves Linux". The parent company, CBS, should assess whether it wants a news site or propaganda channel. It should be noted that Larry Dignan also fired FOSS writers (the sole author of what used to be their "Open Source" section). The site then hired from Microsoft, even current employees of the company. There's no ethics there at all. Yesterday they ended up putting pure Vista 10 'spam' (marketing/promotional articles) in the Open Source and Linux RSS feed! Zero relevance to either of those things. Corrupt sites die when things like these are being noticed and this was not the first time; they did it several times recently. They actually misuse the Linux and Open Source sections to intentionally misfile Microsoft spam.
ZDNet isn't alone in this; CNET (also a CBS site) does the same thing and notice how corporate media (a CBS site in this new example/case) gives disproportionate coverage to Microsoft filesystems in Linux rather than proper, native, patent restrictions-free ones.
"When we speak of Microsoft ads/marketing budget we basically speak of bribery budget for media/news sites."Suffice to say, this corruption is very much paid for. It's the business model. Those who don't "play ball" get fired (or get no further assignments). When we speak of Microsoft ads/marketing budget we basically speak of bribery budget for media/news sites. Bill Gates does the same through his fake 'charity'. That helps reduce criticism of his bad deeds (e.g. his recently-disclosed links to sexual predation of children).
"The Microsoft Register," as our reader called it, is also part of the problem. "Is there a contest as to how not to mention Malware in relation to Microsoft Windows," a reader asked. "See this Register story [by Shaun Nichols in San Francisco] for an example. I would post a retraction except my posts get permanently stuck in moderation. Same with the Microsoft Slashdot and the Microsoft ZDNet.
"Must be the “advertising” money, you should do a story on it."
"If there's "no money" in telling the truth and all the money comes from telling lies, then we're in a very bad situation."Why does The Register not mention that this is a Microsoft Windows problem? And more importantly, is The Register now censoring comments to defend Microsoft from its critics?
An associate of ours noted this morning: "I used to be an avid fan [of The Register] until around 2003 or early 2004 when they made a small, quiet announcement about joining Microsoft. I wish I had kept the link. Their content turned to shit within a week and a half. I probably haven't linked to them since (in any context) and very, very rarely even look at the headlines let alone the first paragraph or two so I am wondering if anything had improved there. I guess not."
If there's "no money" in telling the truth and all the money comes from telling lies, then we're in a very bad situation. Phoronix has been begging for membership money (readers' financial help) lately; such a shame that a very hard-working person (maybe 100+ hours per week) has to resort to that. ⬆