__/ [Bob Hauck] on Saturday 07 January 2006 17:40 \__
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 04:38:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> __/ [Sinister Midget] on Saturday 07 January 2006 01:56 \__
>>> Critics have taken aim at a study published by the U.S. Computer
>>> Emergency Readiness Team that said more vulnerabilities were found
>>> in Linux/Unix than in Windows last year.
>> Also notice: "The report has attracted criticism from some in the
>> open-source community". Why not just say "the report is improperly
>> assembled"? They make it sound subjective. They make it seems like it
>> is subjective. Like it can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
> This is the problem with much of modern journalism. It isn't that they
> have a bias, it is that they think "balance" and "objectivity" are the
> same thing. Even if one group is plainly making stuff up or twisting
> the facts, that can't be reported except as a complaint from the other
I agree, Bob. The question was quite rhetorical as I often see the incli-
nation of any journalist to quote somebody else and attribute opinions to
him/her. This rids the reporter from liability and makes everything seem
impartial. For that very particular reason, blogs among journalists (e.g.
WSJ, ZDNet) have become increasingly popular. The perception of a blog
differs from that of "news".
The point about (im)balance is important too. There was a great deal of
fuss when an American news agency gave air time to the mastermind terror-
ist who was responsible for massacre at a school in Russia.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: penguins are the greatest birds
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:00pm up 28 days 2:11, 13 users, load average: 0.74, 0.85, 0.82
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms