In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
<spam@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:01:39 +0100
<kbv5g4-t0c.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 25 April 2007 19:19 \__
>
>>> This just in from the "Oh really? How could we tell?" department.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/gamers.vista.ap/index.html
>
>> As I've said elsewhere, CNN could be doign some promo here, nothing less.
>
> Q: When is a "news" item, not a news item?
> A: When it's Microsoft sponsored promotion.
>
> Isn't it funny how the independent articles (i.e. Blogs by actual
> *users*) are nearly all *negative* towards Vista, and yet these "Viva la
> Vista" network "news" items keep popping up out of the blue?
>
> Odd that.
>
> Even the BBC, it would seem, are not immune from this type of
> "persuasion". Witness their general "fawning" towards their new
> "business" pals Microsoft, and in particular their coverage of the Vista
> launch:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6340000/newsid_6348300/6348391.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm
Funny coverage. I get a RealPlayer player but then it just sits there.
:-)
Apparently their site is a little too popular right now.
>
> That little stunt resulted in them being "flooded with complaints" from
> viewers:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37411
Go go Brits! :-) If nothing else they'll keep the Beeb, and
by extension other news outlets, honest.
>
> But even *worse* than that indiscretion, was the excuses given by their
> so-called Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, when he was called
> to account for this unethical behaviour on NewsWatch (presented by
> Raymond Snoody):
>
> RS: Rory, why was so much coverage given to what was a commercial
> product launch?
>
> RCJ: Well I wouldn't like you to think that we don't discuss and argue
> about whether product launches are news. I get involved in these
> debates quite a lot, and one of my lines is always 'Would we have
> covered the launch of the Model T Ford when that was around?
> Should we have done more when the first PC arrived?'. But if you
> look at the Microsoft Windows Operating system, it's on more than
> ninety percent of the world's computers; for millions of our
> viewers it's an essential part of their lives, for good or evil -
> a lot of people have a lot of problems with it. So when a new
> version of it comes out, I think it would be bizarre if we didn't
> actually cover that, and try to cover it in an informative, but
> also a critical way.
>
> RS: But a lot of viewers have said it wasn't really critical. Now for
> instance, national newspapers covered the story. The Times,
> for instance, talked about all the difficulties with bugs, the
> fact that it's twice as expensive in the UK, and also that a lot
> of people won't be able to run it on their computers. You didn't
> get that sense of detached analysis from the BBC main network
> coverage, did you?
>
> RCJ: Well I disagree with that, I certainly mentioned in my pieces that
> it was expensive. We actually put up on a graphic the fact that if
> you got a computer more than two years old it's unlikely you'd be
> able to install it. I think in the interview with Bill Gates, he
> was actually confronted about that question about price. And we
> also directed people towards our website, which incidentally got an
> enormous amount of traffic - I think showing the interest - where
> it was shown - we had a whole demonstration on the Website of how
> difficult it was to install, and how pricey.
>
> RS: Was that interview with Bill Gates 'fawning' as one viewer said?
>
> RCJ: I don't think that's a fair view of that interview. Mr. Gates was
> asked difficult questions; the whole question of security was
> raised, and crucially, the question of price, and I thought -
> watching that interview - Bill Gates looked a little bit on the
> back foot about the whole price issue.
>
> RS: The BBC is trying to redefine its technology coverage, and indeed
> you're part of that process, but is there still too much reliance
> on commercial product launches, rather than - at the moment -
> explaining what these things mean for viewers and their lives?
>
> RCJ: Often commercial product launches are a kind of stepping stone to
> look at issues, but we are actually trying to put a lot more
> thought and depth into our coverage of technology. There's a
> deliberate effort going on right now to integrate what we do on the
> television and radio with what happens on the Website; to cover
> bigger themes. We did a big series on broadband at the end of last
> year, which is now in nearly half of Britain's homes - a big sign
> of how technology is developing - looking at the difficulties of
> getting it, the changes it makes to people's lives, the whole
> technological difficulties people face in using it.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6320000/newsid_6325800/6325843.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm
>
> So Cellan-Jones equates the launch of Vista with the introduction of the
> Ford Model T, or the world's first personal computer? Good God! It's
> just an Operating System for Christ's sake, *one* in a line of *many*,
> and (as had been known for months before hand) one of the *least*
> meritorious in that, or any other, line of Operating Systems ... ever.
> To compare something as unworthy as Vista to these world changing events
> is ridiculous, and frankly suspicious. Is he corrupt or just stupid?
Darned good question. Of course the term "OS" is now highly corrupt
anyway (since when does a true OS have a browser? Or even a shell?),
so one has to ask some interesting questions as to what truly is
innovative in the human/computer/application program space.
>
> At *most* it should have been nothing more than a twenty second piece,
> stating quite flatly that Microsoft were releasing a new Operating
> System, and perhaps also mentioning that many who'd tried Vista already,
> had been experiencing problems. The difference between *reporting* the
> news and *making* the news, is that in *reporting* you simply discuss
> what is already *known*, whereas speculating about what *might* happen
> in the future, or praising commercial products, is frankly just
> advertising ... it certainly isn't news, especially when that single
> "news" item lasts *half an hour*. Jesus, I'm surprised the BBC didn't
> set up a freakin' sales hotline!
The Beeb is symptomatic of a far bigger problem in the
press, methinks. Investigative journalism is dying in
general, as newspapers, being the commercial animals
that they are, do not want to risk alienating readers
and/or advertisers. Most news media live on handouts and
corporate press releases -- and the occasional celebrity
misstep, which for some reason is lapped up with much
relish.
(Blogs might replace them, if we're lucky. But I'm
not all that hopeful; blogs are independent entities.
Caveat reader.)
>
> He neatly dodged the issue of the UK price difference, just stating (to
> paraphrase) "but I said it was expensive". Ah but, Mr. Cellan-Jones, you
> didn't answer the question of why it was *more* expensive in the UK. It
> *was* mentioned in the free "Vista advert" (in passing) but without
> *any* elaboration at all.
>
> He also failed to address the issue of bugs, referring to security
> issues only, which is not the full story. This is particularly relevant
> since *that* is one of Vista's biggest failings. Nice dodge there, Mr.
> Cellan-Jones. There was also not a single mention of Vista bugs in the
> "advert" either. Looks like Microsoft really have made some new friends, eh?
>
> One sneaky little maneuver that some may have failed to notice, was his
> manipulation of the fact of the "enormous amount of traffic" on their
> Website resulting from this "advert", implying that "Vista must be
> great, look how popular it is". That, as most people will appreciate, is
> a crass assumption; that traffic might just as easily have been as a
> result of people being *displeased* with this Vista advert, on what is
> supposed to be a *neutral* network. The resulting "flood of complaints"
> would certainly seem to bear out that theory ... another issue that he
> conveniently ignored in the interview.
>
> His defence of Bill Gates in the "fawning" accusation was pitiful. It
> was like reading FUDenbusch apologising for Microsoft, only even less
> convincing.
>
> On the issue of commercial product coverage, once again he essentially
> just ignored the question, misdirecting his answer to go off on a
> tangent about *broadband*, of all things. Yes, that *really* answers the
> question of BBC bias, Mr. Cellan-Jones.
>
> I'm not going to transcribe that whole "Vista advert", but here's a
> little taste of what it's like:
>
> Jenny Lam, Creative Director, Vista:
> (Talking about the irony of having to press "Start" to "Shut Down" Windows.)
> "Getting rid of [the] Start [button] actually solves that problem, so
> that's kind of a nice thing now, that we're a little proud of."
>
> Max Flint, BBC Reporter:
> "And rightly so."
>
> [puke]
>
> But incredibly ... it gets even *worse*:
>
> Max Flint:
> "But Microsoft doesn't need to worry too much if people are put off by
> the cost of an upgrade. Vista will be pre-installed on almost all new
> computers, so they'll get the big sales anyway."
>
> Wait for the punchline ...
>
> "That's the genius of Bill Gates' business."
>
> Holly crap!!!
>
> Or IOW, apparently the BBC thinks monopolies are a GoodThing® !!!
>
> God save us.
>
This is arguably one of Bill Gates's few "innovations"
which are truly innovative, if nasty; preloads. It *is*
a good thing from the convenience standpoint: take computer
home and plug it in and ta-daah, it's ready for action.
(Also ready for infection, if Microsoft gets sloppy. Given
their track record I'm not hopeful.)
The question is: how much does that preload cost? Not from
a monetary standpoint, although that probably could be dug
into (the OEM presumably has to pay a set fee per preload),
but from the idea of how much of the economic freedoms
and such that we enjoy are being subverted and perverted
by Microsoft's machinations?
At best, the Beeb got suckered. At worst, they're being
absorbed into the Borg.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
