The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Last week they went after Microsoft.

This week they are going after Apple.

You know, I'm seeing a trend here. Some bloggers don't know who is a credible journalist and who isn't. Hint: anything the Register writes is NOT credible. Why do I say that? Cause they lied about me last year and didn't even care about the damage they did to their brand. They just want you to visit and click on their ads.

Sorta like the gossip magazines in the grocery stores want you to buy them. And many people do, even though they are filled with complete fabrications.

But, we should now start deriding people who link to non-credible sources. I will. Anyone who links to that jerk down in Australia anymore is simply not doing bloggers any favors. Same for anyone who links to the Register. I don't believe a word they write. At least not while Andrew Orlowski works there.
Om Malik chimes in and corrects Andrew's latest against Apple's chief, Steve Jobs. So does Apple Insider. And so does Michael Parekh. And so does Zoli Erdos.

We need to be vigilant against bad journalism. Here's a hint: when you see a story about a company and that story doesn't even attempt to get that company's point of view, then it probably is a non-credible journalist writing it. All credible journalists will get at least three sources to every story and will try to remain objective and impartial.

Here's another hint: when a story or a blogger doesn't link to anything outside of his/her article. The other day I made a mistake in one of my posts about Adobe. But, I LINKED so that you could check out the story for yourself. Another hint? Lack of comments on articles. Tells me that the writer can't stand up to criticism. Yeah, I've gotten close to turning them off cause the anonymous jerks do get to you after a while, but this is the reason I don't. Another hint? When a story contains only one anonymous source. Come on, if you really have a good story about a company you should be able to get one on-the-record source. Yeah, I can see reasons to not require that, but they are rare exceptions, not the rule. Another hint? When there are more anti-the-article links than pro ones. Another hint? When no one credible will defend the article.

The problem is, some people want to believe certain stories and use them against companies for whatever reason. That's wrong. I hate it when it's done against Apple. I hate it when it's done against Microsoft.

Thanks to this group of bloggers for digging into the truth and keeping these guys from perverting the blogosphere!

What's worse is that by linking to the Register, even to deride this article, it pushes this article up and makes it far more visible, which gives the Register exactly what it's seeking: an audience. Why do that? Audiences also bring advertising money.

I wish Memeorandum (and other memetrackers like TailRank) had a "no follow" link so that when I link to something I can tell Memeorandum's engine that I don't want the linked article to go up.


New shared source CLI (Rotor) shipped

OK, let's try to kick off a better week. First, thanks to Dave Winer for giving us a software development IQ test. "Anyone who believes that [rewriting 60% of Windows between now and November] is conceivable is someone who hasn't got the most basic clue about how software development works."

To put a punctuation mark on this issue, Charlie Owen who works on the Media Center team gives us the rest of the story.

Jason Zander, of the .NET CLR team, posts that Rotor (SSCLI) 2.0 has shipped. If you're looking to learn the internals of .NET, this is the best way to learn.

And if that isn't fun enough, how about doing some Fake Model Photography with Photoshop CS?