Thomas Friedman, 1990

Summary: Thomas Friedman is spreading Microsoft's disinformation in the New York Times, thus further substantiating the allegation that the New York Times exists to serve big business, not the readership; Microsoft also pays to produce propaganda about its role in Washington (despite tax dodging)

Microsoft has a lot of news sites, some of which are wholly owned by Microsoft, some are funded by Microosft, some are funded by Bill Gates, and many receive their income from Microsoft in the form of advertising business. Microsoft adds another Web site called "Glo" [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which one of the Microsoft-funded sites (in the form of sponsorships) describes as follows:

Microsoft's MSN this morning rolled out a new site called "Glo," an online lifestyle magazine developed in conjunction with BermanBraun Interactive -- its partner on the "Wonderwall" celebrity site -- and Elle and Woman's Day publisher Hachette Filipacchi Media.

This will be another Web site masquerading as news while totally controlled by a software company. We have given many similar examples in the past. One really has to know which is which because there are many Microsoft sites where the affiliation is not stated explicitly and bias would be telling only based on a large sample set.

“Right now it looks like Mundie inherits a role once taken by lobbyist and convicted criminal Jack Abramoff.”One of Microsoft's top lobbyists is Craig Mundie, who is already close to Obama [1, 2]. Many of his activities which we've covered here characterise him as a Microsoft lobbyist, not just an executive (he also hangs around with the Bilderberg group [1, 2]). Here is a recent example of Mundie's activities that affect government.

Right now it looks like Mundie inherits a role once taken by lobbyist and convicted criminal Jack Abramoff. Mundie is influencing the New York Times just like Bill Gates did back in January. Mundie uses the publication to lobby for more visas (i.e. foreign workers) and Friedman acts as though he is a Microsoft mouthpiece for hire. He repeats everything he is told and the Microsoft boosters then reference him as though it's an authority that's reliable.

So, did you read Thomas Friedman's column in Sunday's New York Times? In it he floats an idea for saving the U.S. economy by creating jobs here for "high-IQ risk-takers" from overseas. And it seems to be based off of an interview he did with Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer.

Classic Abramoff maneuvers. More here:

Friedman's argument springs from what appears to be an interview with Craig Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer of Microsoft (MSFT). Although Microsoft has been a relative laggard technologically for at least the last decade, Friedman appears to be swept away by Mundie's viewpoint.

Some of our readers dislike Friedman with a great passion. Here he is just printing the words absorbed by him after chatting with a lobbyist/executive. What room does that leave to critical thinking?

It is unfortunate to see other new "independent" studies from Microsoft being covered as though they bear a meaning and can be trusted. These are funded by Microsoft, yet Microsoft shamelessly calls them "independent". Here is Microsoft paying Forrester (whom Microsoft sometimes pays to attack GNU/Linux [1, 2]):

New Independent Study Reveals Enterprises Are Under-Investing In the Protection of Corporate Secrets

RSA, The Security Division of EMC (NYSE: EMC) and Microsoft (MSFT) today announced the results of a commissioned global survey conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of RSA and Microsoft, entitled "The Value of Corporate Secrets: How Compliance and Collaboration Affect Enterprise Perceptions of Risk." The survey of 305 IT security decision-makers worldwide revealed that enterprises are investing heavily in compliance and protection against accidental leaks of custodial data (such as customer information), but under-investing in protection against theft of far more valuable corporate secrets.

Microsoft told them exactly what to produce and how. From now on Microsoft will be able to cite an "independent" Forrester report to corroborate. That's just their business model.

Here is another new case of Microsoft security 'studies'. They come down pouring.

Only Microsoft boosters (2 sites in total [1, 2]) covered another 'study' which was funded entirely by Microsoft. One of those two reports says:

The study, funded by Microsoft, says the company was directly (through employment) and indirectly (through spending by Microsoft and its workers) responsible for 8.4 percent of the state's employment as of 2008, or approximately 267,600 jobs. That was up from approximately 6 percent in 2005, 3.5 percent in 2000, and less than 1 percent in 1990, according to the study by UW economics professor Theo Eicher.

This is just more propaganda whose message is that Microsoft saves Washington's economy. This is utter nonsense. The article states and shows that "Microsoft's Brad Smith discusses the report today on the UW campus." Is that the same Brad Smith who is named by Jeff Reifman as one of the perpetrators of Microsoft's tax avoidance [1, 2, 3], which has already cost Washington about a billion dollars in missing money? It is worth adding that a lot of Microsoft's workforce in Washington is brought from overseas and Washington residents openly complain about this. ⬆