Problems Linux Enthusiasts Refuse to Address

[Nathan Bahn]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 April 2011 17:31, Michael Haney <thezorch at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >  I see a
> > lot about this in emails I get from ZDnet.
>
>
> Beware ZDnet. The entire economics of the tech press revolves around
> being cheap diseased whores - no separation between editorial and
> advertising, blatantly trolling for ad-banner clicks with
> pseudo-controversial articles.
>
> There are individual tech press journalists who I'd trust to talk to
> (waves to Liam), but in general the tech press are candy at best and
> to be ignored.
>
> Rant about how Wikipedia should have ignored the tech press from the
> start and stuck strictly to the academic press:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/31/on-dealing-with-the-press/
>
> The tech press is the canonical example of "just because someone pays
> you attention, doesn't mean you should take them seriously."
>
> The scary thing is that the tech press is economically viable. This
> does not augur well for the rest of journalism.
>
>
> - d.
>




D.G.--
Just curious -- what's your opinion of Ars Technica?
--N.B.
-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html &
http://www.libreoffice.org/ (Nathan Bahn)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20110405/c85c7ac9/attachment-0001.html>