Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: more on Microsoft and "independent" analysts
From: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 06:01:26 -0400
X-Sender: >X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:17:34 -0600 To: farber () cis upenn edu From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org> Subject: IP: Microsoft and "independent" analysts I read, with interest, Wendy Grossman's remarks regarding Microsoft's relationship with the press and analysts. Besides doing programming, hardware design, and technical consulting, I'm also a long-time computer columnist with more than 15 years in the mainstream trade press and more than 1000 published articles. So, I've had much time to observe the phenomena Wendy describes. Wendy writes: >Even in the UK, where there's a much more liberal attitude towards >accepting "freebies" (that is, permanent loans of equipment, press >trips, etc.), I know of no one who's accepted direct payment for >specific articles. What is much more damaging long-term is first of all >the practice of requiring journalists to sign NDAs as a condition of >attending certain briefings or being supplied with advance technical >information. Journalists here of my acquaintance defend this practice >on the grounds that the company has a right to protect products in >development, and that they themselves will be crippled in trying to >write about the new technologies without the information. Perhaps. My >own view, however, is that slowly but surely the NDAs lure journalists >into a cozy relationship with the mfrs; being asked to sign an NDA is, >for some (though not all) I'm sure flattering in terms of the >journalist's sense of the importance of the material s/he's being >allowed to have. Computer journalists who write feature articles or columns, as I do, are rarely affected by either of the issues raised above. However, reporters -- whose careers and reputations depend upon delivering breaking stories quickly -- are more likely to be concerned about getting the news first. And companies such as Microsoft can and do favor the reporters who repeat the language of their press releases, and echo their PR spin, the most faithfully. Advertising, too, exerts a strong influence -- despite the supposed existence of a "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial. Microsoft is the #1 advertiser in many trade publications, and this naturally gives it the power to influence -- via telephone calls from high ranking executives -- editorial practices. Shortly after the start of the Microsoft trial, several journalists who were unsympathetic to Microsoft's cause were dismissed from publications where Microsoft was the principal advertiser. "Independent" research firms, whose reports may cost as much as $10K per copy, also find themselves influenced by big players. By buying reports and "sponsoring" studies from other firms rather than from them, and/or referring the trade press to analysts at other firms for quotes, a player such as Microsoft (whose financial and PR resources are virtually infinite) can quickly persuade these companies to toe the line. >To be fair, though, it would be difficult or impossible to write >persistently about technology without *some* kind of help -- it's in the >nature of things that when you are overworked, on deadline, and need >help understanding some technical point, the fastest and most logical >place to seek an explanation is the product's mfr and/or its PR people. Unfortunately, too many reporters on tight deadlines ignore a cardinal rule that's generally applied both by experienced journalists and by judges: "Consider the source." A good writer does more than echo words; he or she should also help the reader (who can't perceive cues such as facial expressions and may not have the background information required to detect inconsistencies) to assess credibility. Too many writers also write about topics of which they have inadequate understanding. This is especially true in the area of computer technology, where journalists routinely fail to detect blatant falsehoods. Trade publications are further fraught with errors due to the prevalence of technically unknowledgeable copy editors -- who do not understand, for example, when a specific word order or the passive voice is necessary to express a technical concept correctly. When I deal with a publication, I always request proofs of the edited text. Despite my urgent notes containing corrections, errors I catch often appear in print even after I've pointed them out. >What seems to me more common is that the large influx of newcomers into >technology reporting as tech has moved into the mainstream gives PR >people scope to push their view of the world to people who do not have >the knowledge or experience to put their claims into perspective. A >case in point happened here in the UK a couple of years ago, when >mainstream interviewer Brian Appleyard wrote up a visitation with Bill >Gates. He bought wholesale the Microosft PRs' (and to be fair, lots of >the PR people employed by major companies are new, young, and ignorant, >too, and buy what they're told -- the turnover is astonishing) claim >that MS invented BASIC. His piece appeared in the Independent. How >many journalists read that and believed it, and will now repeat it as >fact? Some companies -- Microsoft most especially -- rely on this phenomenon in ways which many consider to be at best disingenuous and at worst unscrupulous. While Microsoft is far from the only company which attempts to mislead in this way, it is -- in the experience of many seasoned writers in the computer press -- the one which does so the most frequently. --Brett Glass
My feeling is, in a competitive environment, there will always be someone who's the biggest and therefore a threat. So long as the sum of all the other players is greater than that one, it will make sense for that (dominant player) to toe the line and be standards-compatible. --Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web
Current thread:
- IP: more on Microsoft and "independent" analysts David Farber (Oct 22)