Re: Biased and factually incorrect.............

["Glenn T. Livezey" <glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu>]

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:07:03 -0500 (EST), Brett Glass wrote:
>Subject: Biased and factually incorrect headline on PC Week Online
>At  http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/ and also at
>http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/0119/22aagree.html
>PC Week reporter Michael Moeller writes about the settlement under the headline
>"Microsoft did not flout preliminary injunction." This headline implies a ruling by 
>the judge when in fact no such ruling was made. What's more, it is clear that, had 
>Microsoft truly believed it had a strong  case, it would not have settled with the 
>DOJ. The headline is therefore both incorrect and highly misleading -- the sort
>of thing one might exptect to see on Microsoft's home page rather than in a prominent
>and respected trade publication.

The key word in that last sentence is "trade". Many have branded all of Ziff-Davis's
publications as insultingly biased toward all things MS, (recall our little MS Poll thread)
while others have stated that all such "trade publications" are beholdin' to their bread &
butter - read advertisers - and so any expectation of "journalistic integrity" is naive.

I wish I could get as indignant as you are with regard to this particular incident, but that
would be like feigning surprise and dismay at the suggestion that the IRS can be a little
heavy handed in collecting from the smallfry taxpayer. 

>Those who favor accurate reporting on the issues might want to drop Michael a line
>at mailto://michael_moeller@zd.com. It might also be worthwhile contacting his
>editors, John Dodge and Eric Lundquist, at mailto://john_dodge@zd.com and
>mailto://eric_lundquist@zd.com, respectively.
>--Brett Glass

It couldn't hurt, but I would not consider anything from ZD as "reporting", - a bit more
like an "infomercial", but without the sidebar legalese to identify it as such. 

We're with ya'

Glenn