Irony
I had to laugh today while reading the NZ Herald when I came across the an article entitled Using the net to get the story. The article talks about the rise of Computer Assisted Research (CAR) and prominently quotes Francis Till, the webmaster and a technology contributor for the National Business Review. Mr Till says that CAR can be used to "produce better-researched, more in-depth articles"! I wonder if perhaps Mr Till is thinking of well researched (not!) articles like his vitriolic attack on Linux and Open Source Software published in the NBR several weeks ago.
Apart from the incredibly unprofessional tone of the article, it appeared to rely almost completely on facts from Microsoft press releases and made many factual assertions that have since been thoroughly refuted.
The irony of the author of such a badly researched article wanting to teach other NZ journalists how to use the Internet to research their article is hillarious.
So have you written a letter to the editor of the NBR pointing out Mr Till’s various factual errors and definite bias? Have you pointed out to the editor that Mr Till does them a lot of harm by quoting inaccurate statistics, jumping to convenient conclusions, using scare tactics (“who would you trust, Microsoft or Open Office?”) and using straw-man arguments in his article? Who exactly interviewed him? Convenient boost for Mr Till, isn’t it? This is stuff that needs to be waved in people’s faces, rather than just noted quietly on some blog somewhere and forgotten…
Mad as hell
,
Paul
Comment by Paul Wayper — January 17, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
You might want to go back and look at that article I wrote about OSS again, Matt. It’s an editorial, not a news story. I’m guessing you’re literate enough to know the difference.
Comment by francis till — February 27, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Hi Francis,
I’m well aware that your OSS peice was an editorial or “comment” rather than a news article, but I don’t think that changes my comments one iota.
The fact remains that it was full of half truths and innacuracies. Regardless of whether it was written as “opinion” or “fact” I think it significantly harms your reputation as a journalist and hence I find the Herald article extremely ironic. Perhaps you can consider that this my editorial.
Cheers
Comment by matt — February 27, 2006 @ 10:35 pm