Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#2I agree with Tim, I've noticed the NYT has switched to a more and more sensationalist approach for their headlines. The NYT especially has been influenced by the blog-culture.
I suggest that Tim submits his Buzz as a Letter to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor....
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#3I really respect Tim and assume that if he took the time to point out the problems, the statements have veracity.
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#4I agree with Tim, I've noticed the NYT has switched to a more and more sensationalist approach for their headlines. The NYT especially has been influenced by the blog-culture. I suggest that Tim submits his Buzz as a Letter to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor....
Yes, I also notice this lately.
Do you think it is trying to be like drudgereport.com?
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#5Look at the byline: Ashlee Vance. It should matter that the masthead is NYT, but the byline matters much more. Ashlee has a rep for this kind of stuff, across numerous mastheads.
(Sorry to "play the person, not the ball", but it's the writer's behaviour that is the crux of Tim's complaint, and knowing the byline is an important part of how we comprehend acts of journalism.)
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#6Usually when people complain about misquoting, the misquoted facts aren't true or they make the quotee sound crazy/evil. In this case, though, it's the exact opposite:
“Microsoft is totally off the radar of the cool, hip, cutting-edge software developers.”
"These [partner] software developers and technicians have bet their careers on Microsoft and largely benefited from that choice. In addition, they have helped keep Microsoft relevant during the various ups and downs in the technology market."
"And so the technology-minded people coming out of college have started learning their craft on free software and betting their careers on non-Microsoft wares."
True, true, and true. It seems odd they'd put O'Reilly's name against them if he didn't say that, though, because almost any decent software developer nowadays would readily trumpet the above facts. I'm guessing the reporter made a serious error in their notes and that the quotes have only been accidentally tied to O'Reilly.
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#7It was interesting to note that Mr. O'Reilly was careful to not say that he necessarily disagreed with most of the quotes, just that he didn't say them literally. That makes sense. Because on one hand I think the man is smart enough to see the state of play in the industry (where I think most would agree that Linux/Apple/Google/Amazon ecosystem software are more popular with startups than Microsoft), while at the same time smart enough to realize he's the head of arguably the biggest and most influential computer book publisher, and a big slice of the tech actually used in businesses is in the Microsoft camp -- so it's in his best interest to stay in their good graces as a publisher.
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#8Usually when people complain about misquoting, the misquoted facts aren't true or they make the quotee sound crazy/evil. In this case, though, it's the exact opposite: “Microsoft is totally off the radar of the cool, hip, cutting-edge software developers.” "These [partner] software developers and technicians have bet their careers on Microsoft and largely benefited from that choice. In addition, they have helped keep…
Agreed. But perhaps looking at Tim's business partners is useful in understanding the context of the disavowal.
In my mind, I speculate on two situations, not mutually exclusive. (1) Ashlee really did muff the quote (motivation: lazy, sloppy, or something like it). He really seems like a nice guy, though I can't speak to his habits or prior reporting. Mistakes happen; this isn't the worst error I've seen in a newspaper.
(2) Tim wants to walk back his loose, negative talk (motivation: preserving relationship with Microsoft, including a material one, his co-publishing deal with Microsoft Press). [http://oreilly.com/pub/pr/2413]
Though now that I think of it, Tim probably had the sense not to be quite so nakedly dismissive of a partner so important, and especially one so touchy. Tim does have a great reason to bite his tongue, that's all.
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#9Look at the byline: Ashlee Vance. It should matter that the masthead is NYT, but the byline matters much more. Ashlee has a rep for this kind of stuff, across numerous mastheads. (Sorry to "play the person, not the ball", but it's the writer's behaviour that is the crux of Tim's complaint, and knowing the byline is an important part of how we comprehend acts of journalism.)
They hired him from The Register, home of shock and troll journalism, so I don't know what they were expecting.
Re: Tim O'Reilly accuses New York Times of "flamebait reporting"
#10Look at the byline: Ashlee Vance. It should matter that the masthead is NYT, but the byline matters much more. Ashlee has a rep for this kind of stuff, across numerous mastheads. (Sorry to "play the person, not the ball", but it's the writer's behaviour that is the crux of Tim's complaint, and knowing the byline is an important part of how we comprehend acts of journalism.)
They hired him from The Register, home of shock and troll journalism, so I don't know what they were expecting.
I don't find these comments entirely fair. Sure, the Register brings a tabloid voice to tech journalism. So do lots of media outlets and blogs.
Can you guys point to past journalistic errors or malfeasance on Vance's part (misquoting or otherwise)? Genuinely curious: Does he actually have a history?
I seem to recall I've read articles by him in the Economist that were insightful in the past year or two, presumably written to (or edited to) the voice of the paper. That said, I don't closely follow Vance's work.