LT » LXer
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rdt Jul 14, 2006 10:42 AM EDT |
Yes, LT used to be my most favorite place to get news. Now LXer seems to be taking that place (right behind slashdot, but moving up very fast).
Please keep up the good work. I, for one, at least, appreciate the effort. rdt |
| rdt Jul 14, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
Whoops. Somehow that subject was meant to be LT => LXer. *NOT* LT = LXer! My Bad. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 10:58 AM EDT |
Just as a point of note, it seems that LT has stopped running 'Get The "Facts"'. I'm not sure if this is a permanent, or temporary, situation. There have been months in the past in which MS simply forgot to pay the rent for a month... |
| herzeleid Jul 14, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
Some time ago I noticed that the "get the fud" ads had been replaced by a Novell ad - I wrote the lt editor to thank him for his good taste, but he said that the microsoft stuff would be back, he was just taking money from whoever wanted to advertise... sure enough, the microsoft crap was back a few days later. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
> he was just taking money from whoever wanted to advertise This is incorrect. Jupiter Media is taking money from whoever wants to advertise. There is a strict division of responsibility. Brian is responsible for everything but the advertising. Jupiter Media does not interfere with his editorial control. Brian has absolutely no control over the advertising, however, and he is fine with that, and in fact, insists upon it. It's good journalistic policy to enforce that separation of responsibility and interests. (We wouldn't want MS's advertising money affecting the *stories* on LT, would we?) Besides, even if he did fight to get the ads stopped, I seriously doubt it would make any difference to the mass media machine that is Jupiter Media. Brian remains there to do his best to *counter* what is in some of the ads. I've had this conversation with him and he has convinced me that he is doing the right thing. So while I dislike the the ads, I have great respect for Brian and his efforts. Sometimes (most of the time?) things are more complicated than they appear on the surface. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 14, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
sbergman27, you're right on all counts. The get-the-FUD campaign damaged LT's credibility a great deal and drove away the very readers they should have been courting- tech-smart and FOSS-smart readers who contributed a lot of great commentary and good stories. It was a big fat slap in readers's faces, like advertising Wife Beater shirts in a women's magazine. I have no facts to back this up, but it's obvious to me that LT was specifically targeted for get-the-FUD. It wasn't in rotation, it was glued in place. With all the big players in Linux/FOSS today, it strains credibilty to assert that they had no other options for advertisers. Still, we need to support LT, and hope that someday Brian's bosses wise up. |
| herzeleid Jul 14, 2006 12:51 PM EDT |
> This is incorrect. Jupiter Media is taking money from whoever wants to advertise. Odd that he said nothing about that. I could only take what he said at face value. Perhaps he was trying to protect higher-ups, and be loyal to "the firm", but for whatever reason, spending time on that site was an irritation that I've been happier without. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
Brian tends not to go out of his way to defend himself unless you really push him. I've noticed that, and I figured he had simply not spelled it all out in your exchange. |
| herzeleid Jul 14, 2006 2:08 PM EDT |
> Brian tends not to go out of his way to defend himself unless you really push him. "defend himself" against what? Are you insinuating that he was attacked somehow? There was no attack, what I actually wrote to him was congratulations on his good taste in finally removing the silly ms fud, to which his reply was a correction of my naive impression. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 2:19 PM EDT |
No, no, no! It never occurred to me that you would percieve my post that way. But if I were in Brian's position, I would probably have a stock script ready to explain the situation in detail. I'd probably be telling it to people who didn't even want to hear it, by mistake. |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
The advertisements are only one part of the problem. The astroturfing and the policy of distorting coverage to keep viewers "in the channel", condoned by the parent corporation, destroyed the trust between the readers and the editors. How could a reader have any feeling of assurance that the 4 other readers he/she has just engaged in debate are not actually 1 hired hit-man of the parent corporation? How could a reader have any feeling of assurance that the news being presented is not heavily influenced by the parent corporation, through its extensive, tangled chain of properties? This is not about a general news outlet, although even television filters commercials for clashes with programs. If you ran a site which was focused on organic gardening and healthy diets, would it be appropriate to have it sponsored by advertisements from petroleum-based pesticide manufacturers splashed across the front page? A site claiming to present news about Linux, or GNU/Linux, or FOSS should not be plastered with advertisements from the arch-nemesis of everything GNU/Linux and FOSS developers and advocates and users work for, unless it is a site designed to disparage everything that community strives to accomplish. A site which allows and encourages community commentary should not undermine that community with stealthy insertions of fake members. I would, quite literally, rather live in a cave and scrounge for daily sustenance than accept pay from such an organization as that which owns LT. I am not so insane as to ever volunteer to assist it in its erosion of trust and the community with which I associate. Assistance of the overt and surreptitious attacks on the community includes working for that amoral organization or commenting on that site. Even linking to a story that orginates at one of that organization's properties causes me to grit my teeth. I post it here on LXer only after scrutinizing the story and convincing myself that some LXer reader needs that information and it is available nowhere else. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 7:28 PM EDT |
While I am offended and bemused by the ads masquerading as site content, I must note that the terms "astroturf" and "FUD" are as bad. They are terms that are so easy to throw around. They mean "something I don't agree with". I make it over to LT now and then. And I have not noted much I could really peg as "astroturfing" in the comments. If the MS strategy is to divide and conquer, and if there is that much anathema involved between sites, then I would say that the strategy is working. |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 8:02 PM EDT |
sbergman27: I did not use "astroturf" and "FUD" outside their meanings. What happened at LT exactly fit the definitions, as shown by the reports by those who were "inside" at the time. |
| dinotrac Jul 14, 2006 8:26 PM EDT |
grouch - I was involved in the Linux Today "incident" as an outsider in communication with insiders, and circulating a petition to internet.com (is that right? I don't remember any more) that including signatories including ESR and more than a few names you might recognize. With regard to LT, you absolutely did not go beyond the generally accepted meanings of the terms. There were bad things going on, and bad things happening to good people. They were caught, leading indirectly (by way of Michael Hall) to the current regime. |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 8:38 PM EDT |
dinotrac: I remember your involvement well. The first time I found LXer, I noted your name among the comments. You and I debate quite a bit, but I've never had reason to doubt your sincerity or integrity. Noting how long you had been 'hanging out' at LXer gave me reason to believe it could be trusted. It was later that I found out people like Paul and Dave were here. You are still pig-headed, though. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2006 2:08 AM EDT |
>You are still pig-headed, though. Remembering, of course, that pigs are the smartest of the barn-yard animals. |
| sbergman27 Jul 15, 2006 5:02 AM EDT |
> I did not use "astroturf" and "FUD" outside their meanings. What happened at LT exactly fit the definitions, as shown by the reports by those who were "inside" at the time. I think we are talking about two different things. Are you sayting that astroturfing and FUD are rampant in the content and commects on the site today? Whatever happened years ago (which I seem to have somehow missed) under a different editor is of little relevance to me today. BTW, exactly what *did* happen? I've heard of this before. An editor was posting comments under an alias and then later claimed that he thought every one just knew that it was his alias or something or other. Something about "just wanting to stimulate debate" or some such. IIRC, whoever it was got sacked. Seems like his name started with an 'R'. Edit: Never mind. At first I missed the link in the article explaining that 5 year old incident. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2006 5:30 AM EDT |
Steve - It's been five years since it all came to a head, but you are correct. 'R' -- and with more than five years gone by, 'R' is sufficient -- posted comments under a number of aliases. One I can remember is George Tirebiter. Whether he was actually shilling for Microsoft, or merely trying to stir up action for LT, he didn't make his aliases known or that they were connected with the site's management in any way. He violated LT's own ethics policy, violated the trust of readers, and hurt the credibility of the site. A couple of pretty good LT people had their careers negatively affected along the way. In retrospect, in light of many things that have happened since, it hardly seems like worst thing ever done on the internet. It was, however, bad enough. |
| grouch Jul 15, 2006 8:13 AM EDT |
sbergman27: Keep in mind that this was not some drive-by trolling, nor an astroturfer associated only with MS. This was the Executive Editor of what claimed to be a community site. dinotrac: Your memory of the feeling of betrayal and the duplicity involved appears to be fading. Allow me to refresh. The time period of the stealth attacks was Dec, 1999 to May, 2001. During that time, KR assumed several aliases in the "talkbacks" to attack just about everyone who had something good to say about Linux, Stallman, ESR, Perens, or any competing site. Remember "newsforger"? He also made the private policy of pointing to sister sites; those owned by the parent corporation. About 5 months into that stealth campaign, he published this: "At Linux Today, we freely point readers to other Linux/Open Source Web sites; the entire point of the site to expand the Linux space by showing readers the wide variety of viewpoints regarding Linux." "So what did I tell the public-relations agency about our "competitors"? I told them that I didn't have competitors--I had colleagues." http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/1866/1/ If you read that, you will see praises being heaped on the people and publications that he slurred in the "talkbacks". KR's delayed response to the flack is at: http://web.archive.org/web/20011126045744/http://linuxtoday.... Check that list of names in the talkbacks, dinotrac. Remember he was promoted afterwards. (To the parent corp.'s credit, the relevant information has not disappeared from the Internet. This could simply illustrate how coldly greedy it is, though, as I'm sure the clicks continue to come in from time to time). Try imagining Don creating such secret policies. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2006 9:15 AM EDT |
grouch: I haven't forgotten anything that matters. I was far more "attuned" to the events while they were happening than you will ever know. It's 2006 now, however, and different people are running LT. The incidents in question are back in the past. Good to remember that they are actually unethical. Good to have demonstrated that a trust-bond develops between a website and its community, a bond that deserves respect. Good to have shown that breaking that bond can have dire consequences for the site -- and, believe me, internet.com was definitely concerned about that possibility when it reassigned the editor in question. But..we let burglars and rapists and arsonists and all sorts of people out of jail. We give them a chance to move on, to create a life that is not forever defined by the mistakes of their pasts. It's not a bad concept. |
| grouch Jul 15, 2006 9:26 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Good point. It will be 5 years this August. That's a proper sentence for such deeds. I will try to put away my sack cloth and cease ranting about the incident. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 15, 2006 10:02 AM EDT |
And the offending editor was finally sacked a couple years ago. I know, it took too long, but it finally happened. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!