Andrew Orlowski, Sloppy Journalist or Bold Faced Liar?
Over at Ed Bott's house and Robert Scoble's pad there's been much a hub-to-do about an article recently put out by The Register's Andrew Orlowski. Ed says the guys a hack and Scoble is denying things that this guy is crediting Scoble as having said. The original article in question had to do with alleged problems with the Google and Yahoo! toolbars on IE7.
Andrew Orlowski and The Register getting things wrong is nothing new. I remember how pissed I was back on the eve of CES 2004 when the very same Andrew Orlowski came out with a hit piece at the Register on how Microsoft was shelving their Media Center PC.
In what Orlowski deemed a Register "exclusive" on the eve of CES 2004 he reported that, "more in-fighting at Redmond is blamed for the rethink. But just as Mira has lost out to the Tablet PC initiative, which despite insignificant sales remains a "strategic" priority, Windows XP Media Center will be folded into Microsoft's ever-changing Set Top Box strategy."
Of course not only was Orlowski wrong, but mere days later Bill Gates himself personally got up on stage and gave the Media Center PC perhaps it's biggest marketing push it had seen yet. Since then Gates personally has used many occasions at both public events like CES and talks to the press to personally promote Media Center. Gates is constantly talking the Media Center PC up and the company "shelving" the product could not have been further from the truth.
Of course it was easy for Orlowski to hide behind his, "although Register sources decline to be named," statement while basically coming up with this story about Microsoft killing the Media Center PC possibly out of thin air.
So maybe Orlowski was played or maybe he makes things up or maybe he is actually a nefarious tool being used to spread lies and propaganda, or who knows, maybe he just likes to load up a big bong full of bud before sitting down at the keyboard, but whatever the case, I sure don't read the Register anymore and I'd be highly suspect of anything this Orlowski character ever writes.
By suggesting that Microsoft was ditching Media Center (when in fact they were doing the EXACT opposite) Orlowski seemed to be trying to position the story as a wedge to drive between Microsoft and their OEM partners. More from the article, "while Microsoft can comfortably afford to juggle its roadmap, OEMs have to face the consequences, and patience appears to be wearing thin." "That's probably a sentiment HP, Gateway and a few others will be echoing today."
Yeah, ok.
posted by Thomas Hawk at 7:27 AM
21 Comments:
Orlowski is a sloppy journalist. Of course when someone makes the same "mistake" over and over again, it isn't a mistake anymore, is it? :)
You better watch it, you might get 50+ comments in a few hours from a bunch of angry Britons like I just did. And nobody to stand in my corner. :)
I agree, and it should be noted that he isn't just some run of the mill contributor or editor... The Register contact page lists him as the 'San Francisco Bureau Chief'. From where I sit, such a position sounds like it is one of some authority and influence within the organization. Shame that such an individual is given such a platform to spew such filth.
Media Center WAS going to be canned. But the OEM outcry forced it back out. Haven't you ever heard of backtracking? You don't know the full story there. So don't assume you do. Blogs makes mistakes too, but journalists have tend to have tons of sources that aren't just echoing blog rumors.
Media Center was never going to be canned. Anyone who tells you so wasn't involved in any way. I was working with the team on the leadup to CES and all they could do was shake their heads.
There was talk of adjusting strategy so that Media Center TOOK ON MORE of the set top box stuff, but ultimately it was decided that allowing the team to keep doing good stuff was the best way forward.
To Mr. Anonymous who said Media Center WAS going to be canned. I doubt that Microsoft changed course in the matter of a couple of days prior to CES -- your so called backtracking -- basically due to a little article from The Register.
Jeremy Wright who worked on the team just disputed that charge and I'm sure others from Microsoft involved in the CES 2004 presentation could confirm that the direction of Gates presentation was in play prior to Mr. Orlowski's article.
The point is that in the best case scenario here Orlowski was duped by a source. Fine. But even CBS has the balls to come out and out their source when they were lied to about Rather's now famous memos.
If Orlowski really did have this information and did not just make this story up, then let's have a little more than "Anonymous sources." When you hide behind "anonymous sources" you have an even greater accountability to the truth.
If Orlowski didn't have a source on this let's at least have him come out and share with the rest of us what flavor of acid he was on the morning that he wrote his article.
Microsoft doesn't decide to "can" Media Center two days before CES and then come out with a huge orchestrated marketing push for the product that involved weeks and months to prepare ahead of time. To try to insist this makes you look as bad as Orlowski himself... or wait... Orlowski? Is that you?
I have dealt with Orlowski on stories in the past and have found him to be a reliable journalist. He has a talent for the mot juste but in my experience cautious about backing up his stories.
You say:"Of course it was easy for Orlowski to hide behind his, "although Register sources decline to be named," statement while basically coming up with this story about Microsoft killing the Media Center PC possibly out of thin air." From this point on your article itself becomes unfounded accusation. What do you mean "basically.. possibly"? You must be very careful because, while it is OK to say you don't like someones journalism or that they have got a story wrong, it is potentially libellous to claim that they make stories up out of thin air. And no I am not Orlowski or indeed anyone connected with the Register.
Kuri: I have proof that Orlowski makes things up out of thin air. Totally. He is the worst journalist I've ever dealt with. By far. Anyone who backs him up should really look into the facts and think about their own credibility and/or ethics. Orlowski has none. Period.
I am thought about my credibility and ethics and come to the conclusion that reporting my positive experience of the man is completely justifiable, indeed arguably it is incumbent on me to do so when I see someone being attacked in this way. You clearly have a different experience and it is your right to report it.
However, the terms in which these accusations were put in the original post are probably libellous. You could argue justification but it would be hard to prove the allegation that a journalist "basically... possibly" makes things up out of thin air. A libel lawyer would make mincemeat of the speculative wavering language, the "basically... possibly" in particular. The following passage reads like a exercise in a basic journalistic handbook about what not to do when one is handling highly sensitive allegations about someones professional competence and ethics:
Of course it was easy for Orlowski to hide behind his, "although Register sources decline to be named," statement while basically coming up with this story about Microsoft killing the Media Center PC possibly out of thin air.
"So MAYBE Orlowski was played or MAYBE he makes things up or MAYBE he is actually a nefarious tool being used to spread lies and propaganda, or who knows, MAYBE he just likes to load up a big bong full of bud before sitting down at the keyboard".
Do you know how they would take you to pieces if this piece was subjected to the kind of scrutiny proper journalists articles sometimes are? Do you actually have any facts on the man's conduct? You seem to have circumstantial facts on the truth of his story's claims but ironically, since you are accusing him of making things up out of thin air, you leave the reader with the impression that you don't actually know what infact he did do when writing about the story. The basic rule when dealing with individuals professional reputations is if you don't know for certain, cut the speculations.
You might more safely have said that he had written things that were not true. In the Media Center case being quoted, however, I feel you are highly unlikely to know to what extent he did base his story on sources (possibly wrong ones or people with an axe to grind but people who he might expect to have some knowledge of the situation with the media center.) In all likelihood he did have at least one source because journalists usually do, and my experience of Orlowski is that he is pretty professional. Your accusation impugns his professionalism in the most fundamental way it is possible to impugn a journalist's reputation and therefore is highly legally dangerous.
But lets leave the legalities out of it. He is a journo so he will probably let you off. The real issue you should ask yourself about is your own credibility and ethics. Sure, you have an issue with the man. Maybe he has made some mistakes. Maybe you don't like his journalism. But is it right to make such broad claims about an individuals professional competence and ethics based on what still seems to me like very thin evidence and speculation about a course of events (in the media center case) which I don't think you can know the full ins and outs of. It is a bit like someone getting pissed off about some geeks programming and then launching into a attack saying that geek doesn't have any programming skills at all, nicks all of his stuff from other people, and drinks bud on the job while doing it. Is it right to say that when you don't actually really know any of that.
Kuri. He did not only get the story wrong on Media Center, he got it 100% over the top wrong. And he got it wrong based on anonymous sources. When CBS News got the story wrong -- when they were "played" so to speak by an anonymous source, they outed their anonymous source. Of course, the journalist in question, Dan Rather, also lost his job, but that's another story.
Orlowski has never offered any explanation about how he got this story so wrong, if in fact he had multiple sources confirming this, etc. His silence makes one wonder.
I'm not concerned about libel here. The facts speak that he clearly was wrong and I do in fact state that "maybe he was played." Although I may use colorful language. He did in fact come up with a story about Microsoft killing the Media Center PC and "possibly" is a modifier that would in fact avoid libel even if I am incorrect. Of course, I would be interested in his explanation on how he got a story 100% wrong but with only silence I leave my own opinion on the "maybes" to myself.
I probably wouldn't be so hard on Orlowski but it's just irresponsible to print something like this original story and then not explain afterwards when you are so wrong. If CBS News reported that we'd bombed IRAQ again and 1,000 people were killed last night and then that had not happened, they'd have the courtesy to explain where they made a wrong turn journalisticly.
To compound the matter. I have personally seen an email written my Robert Scoble that is different than an email that Orlowski published and attributed to Robert Scoble. Now again with the maybes. Maybe Orlowski made up an email, or maybe he was played, or maybe he like to load up a big bowl of bud before altering his emails. You get the idea.
Certainly it is fair to question Orlowski's journalistic integrity with regards to this story when evidence would seem to suggest something as terrible as either getting the story wrong again or making up an email.
By the way, I have sent my concerns to his editor at The Register and have thus far heard nothing back. I'd invite them to present a different story if they so choose.
Kuri: it's very easy for me to prove that Andrew is lying. I have the original email (and so does my IT department).
Want to go into a court of law?
You're defending a liar -- and one that can be proven to be so. Hope that helps. Glad you don't care about your own reputation and/or credibility.
Here's more: http://evans.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/1/1097215.html
Scoble, have you read yourself? For someone who has a role as a representative of a major and respected company your comments are intemperate at best. All I have done is report the truth of my experience of Orlowski and pointed out that the post on this blog was terribly written and legally dangerous. If you reread my post you would see that I have not commented on your complaint about Orlowski but on the subject matter of this post. If you reread again you will also see that I do not say that I do not care about my credibility and reputation but that I have thought carefully about what I have written and concluded that it is entirely responsible. Read again and you will find it is. I then suggest that you take stock of where you are in the credibility stakes because I don:t believe your ranting is helping you here. On the point about whether Orlowski has done something reprehensible in your case (about which I have not commented a great deal because I do not have the facts) I hope that you have the very strong evidence you clearly think you have. Again, as in the case of the media center case, you are making accusations about the man:s motivation and precise conduct that require very very strong proof. Perhaps a mistake has been made or perhaps Orlowski himself was spoofed. If that is a case then your accusation is incredibly unwise and irresponsible. I don't know. I think you have access to the facts. I just ask one thing: could you cut the intemperate aggression towards a poster who has only reported his experience of someone he thought was professional in his experience (I explicitly said people had the right to make contrary reports) and also cautioned against some rather illsupported and intemperate attacks on the man.
> For someone who has a role as a representative of a major and respected company your comments are intemperate at best.
When you have a liar and a libeler going after you I suggest that you too will be intemperate.
I do have strong proof: my own email.
I give my cell phone out on each blog. 425-205-1921. It's so you can call and check into the facts.
But, instead of reporting fairly on the facts you have called me intemperate. Well, damn straight I'm intemperate!
Sorry about the delay in responding. My initial intention when commenting on this blog was to warn against hysteria. I did not have any particular axe to grind on the scoble orlowski tete a tete. I have no experience of dealing with Scoble and some experience of dealing with Orlowski as an uninterested second party.I just felt it was right to report the fact that Orlowski, while he may have made some mistakes in reporting Scoble's post, was quite professional in my dealings with him
I have to say that I have taken exception to the unwarranted attempts to question my integrity on the basis of my report of my experience and I am left with the impression of a rather dangerous (from the point of view of Microsoft) attempt to engender a bit of witch hunt on this issue. The fact that a Microsoft representative should be acting in this way in response to a really rather small but interesting publication is, to say the least, very surprising. It seems to me that it cannot do Microsoft any good to have such immature and unprofessional representation. What has shone through the original post and Scoble's subsequent direct comments is a lack of proper PR, legal or journalistic experience/professionalism/training. That is something that is going to cause very serious problems in the long run.
I have to say I didn't fully understand Scoble's last comment. It seemed to imply my points were the same as Orlowski's alleged mistake (of which I have no first hand knowledge) and massively over simplify the issues I tried to point out with the nature of the very wide ranging allegations being made against Orlowski in both the original post, on which I tried to make a fairly limited contribution, and Scoble's subsequent anger and credibility questioning.
Kuri: this was no mistake. It was a hatchet job. Orlowski has had plenty of chances to fix this article and give at minimum my side of the story. He hasn't done so and hasn't answered any of my emails or anyone else doing inquiries into this situation. The email was made up. It isn't what I wrote. I can't be clearer about it.
runescape accounts buy runescape accounts rs2 accounts buy rs2 accounts runescape accounts buy runescape accounts rs2 accounts buy rs2 accounts runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling
Trying to be impressive!deeply wonderful here!
runescape gold
runescape money
runescape money
runescape equipment
runescape power leveling
runescape quest point
runescape items
runescape logs
runescape accounts
rs-sky is an professional store for runescape gold,items,money,accounts,powerleveling,questqoint,runes and some other goods with fast delivery and world class service.
URL:www.rs-sky.com
Trying to be impressive!deeply wonderful here!
runescape gold
runescape money
runescape money
runescape items
runescape power leveling
runescape logs
runescape accounts
enjoy-rs is an professional store for runescape gold,items,money,accounts,powerleveling,questqoint,runes and some other goods with fast delivery and world class service.
URL:www.enjoy-rs.com
心中一阵不安升降机，因为我忽然又想起了那道剑光升降平台，可怕的剑光升降台，美丽的剑光登车桥。为什么那一剑是那么的美丽货架，却又那么的可怕呢集装袋？在我倒下之前我说地磅，好美的剑塑料托盘，好恨的剑塑料托盘。我倒下了仓储笼。在我失去知觉之前仓储笼，我听到他说北京货架，这叫艺术超市货架，剑的艺术北京货架。
我并没有死广州货架，原来我的心是在右边仓储货架，而是不是左边货架厂。所以在那穿胸一剑之下我并没有死南京货架。
是一阵暴雨把我冲醒了货架公司。听说雨是上天的眼泪深圳货架，也许这天又有人死在那美丽的剑光之下吧服装货架！我张开嘴巴托盘，任雨水打进我的嘴托盘，直冲我的胃塑料托盘。我的伤口又开始流血塑料托盘，但已经不痛了木托盘。试问：仓储笼一个心已经死了的人仓储笼，肉体上的疼痛又算得了什么呢仓储笼？我知道我的刀再练一百年也无法那么美丽仓储笼，那么恨托盘，而且永远别想杀了他托盘。
我退出江湖了手推车，我没有通知江湖上的朋友们静音手推车，并来一个什么金盆洗手静音手推车，因为我的朋友们差不多都被他杀了置物架。我悄悄的走了置物架，隐进了山林之中堆垛架。俨然一个世外高人的样子堆垛架，每天一壶绿茶登高车，放在身边的几上登高车，然后或盯着一朵白云超市手推车，或盯着一片树叶物流手推车，或双目紧闭物流台车。我的刀在玉盆中泡了七七四十九天角钢货架，已经没有血腥味了角钢货架。然后我把它放在我的屋顶轻型货架，任它风吹雨打轻型货架。
十年就这年过去了中型货架。为何今天天忽然想起那柄剑中型货架，那道剑光重型货架？而且内心为什么如此不安重型货架？不应该是这样的仓库货架，对于一个喝了十年绿茶的人来说服装货架，面对死上海货架，也已不再惧怕精品货架，不再不安苏州货架，但今天又为何如此呢托盘货架？
莫非是他青岛货架，和他的剑库房货架，加上他的剑光沈阳货架。我已不问江湖之事天津货架，想他十年前也应该坐上武林盟主的位子了杭州货架，一个武林中人做了武林盟主山东货架，这一生还有什么要求的呢文件柜？
我不停的喝着绿茶工具柜。绿茶静心工具柜。但此时怎么也静不下来零件柜。茶已尽工作台。平时茶尽之时工作台，正也是日落之时工作桌。
一定快有什么事情发生了工作桌。
剑还是那美丽的剑Google左侧排名，如果再加上一道剑光吹塑机，就会形成剑的艺术色带，武学的艺术电源插座。
我问反光背心：为何还来找我滚针轴承，我已在十年之前就退出江湖了夜光粉。
他说文化石：因为你没死缎带，因为我没有对手风火轮。
我说激光打标机：十年前已不是你的对手平衡机，何况现在十年未动刀大功率led。
他说磁力泵：放眼天下梯子，只有你一个人是我的对手网眼袋，也只你一个人对我的威胁无尘布。
我不再说话手摇手电筒，因为我不知道说什么手板，我知道我十年前就开始找我毛巾布，发现我没有死就开始找我磁钢。我不死促销台，他心不安模具钢材。
他说时尚配饰：拿出你的刀筛网。
我说齿轮泵：我已无刀天使花房，命托辊，亦可有可无色丁。
他盯着我广告衫，握剑的手越来越紧钢坯，我知道那道美丽的剑光可能随时发出过滤网。在那美丽过后疏水阀，我的生命将画上句号胸章。
阳光照在了刀上发热管，反射到他的脸上手机耳机。他发现了那把刀螺杆，我的刀插销，宝刀蝴蝶，没有鞘的刀工具包。
刀已在我手中点钞机，刀还是那把刀配电箱，人却已不是那个人流苏，因为心不是那颗心沙滩巾。
他为了杀我竟找了我十年氯化镁，而为了和我比武竟帮我从屋顶拿下我的刀来双面胶带，并放在我的手中碳纤维。我忽然发现排线，他也变了汽车座垫，他在后悔十年前将所有高手都杀绝珍珠奶茶。
高手的悲哀太阳伞。
我握紧了刀桥架，我看着他的眼tpr，已经不再像十年前那样明亮了钢丝。
他的剑划出柴油发电机组，划出一道美丽的剑光护栏。我想围栏，这十年他大概在不停地使自己的剑光更美围栏。
我的刀也出了隔离网。简单的动作隔离网，一刀刺进了他的胸网片。那道美丽的光忽然停止网片，停在我的衣服上南京货架。
他说北京货架：这也是艺术北京货架，杀人的艺术北京货架，想不到你十年不动刀还懂这个艺术仓储货架。
我说仓储货架：因为我不想再让你痛苦了广州货架。
他说广州货架：谢谢货架厂。
我走了货架公司。我头也不回的走了塑料托盘。没有取回我的刀塑料托盘，因为我觉得它在我身边已经没用塑料托盘，我后悔我十年前为什么不扔了它塑料托盘？我听到了尸体倒下的声音塑料托盘。我流泪了塑料托盘，我真的不想杀他仓储笼，十年前不想仓储笼，十年后也不想仓储笼，因为我下山时答应过师父仓储笼，一切让着他仓储笼。
我叹了一口气仓储笼。远去仓储笼。
心中一阵不安升降机，因为我忽然又想起了那道剑光升降平台，可怕的剑光升降台，美丽的剑光登车桥。为什么那一剑是那么的美丽货架，却又那么的可怕呢集装袋？在我倒下之前我说地磅，好美的剑塑料托盘，好恨的剑塑料托盘。我倒下了仓储笼。在我失去知觉之前仓储笼，我听到他说北京货架，这叫艺术超市货架，剑的艺术北京货架。
我并没有死广州货架，原来我的心是在右边仓储货架，而是不是左边货架厂。所以在那穿胸一剑之下我并没有死南京货架。
是一阵暴雨把我冲醒了货架公司。听说雨是上天的眼泪深圳货架，也许这天又有人死在那美丽的剑光之下吧服装货架！我张开嘴巴托盘，任雨水打进我的嘴托盘，直冲我的胃塑料托盘。我的伤口又开始流血塑料托盘，但已经不痛了木托盘。试问：仓储笼一个心已经死了的人仓储笼，肉体上的疼痛又算得了什么呢仓储笼？我知道我的刀再练一百年也无法那么美丽仓储笼，那么恨托盘，而且永远别想杀了他托盘。
我退出江湖了手推车，我没有通知江湖上的朋友们静音手推车，并来一个什么金盆洗手静音手推车，因为我的朋友们差不多都被他杀了置物架。我悄悄的走了置物架，隐进了山林之中堆垛架。俨然一个世外高人的样子堆垛架，每天一壶绿茶登高车，放在身边的几上登高车，然后或盯着一朵白云超市手推车，或盯着一片树叶物流手推车，或双目紧闭物流台车。我的刀在玉盆中泡了七七四十九天角钢货架，已经没有血腥味了角钢货架。然后我把它放在我的屋顶轻型货架，任它风吹雨打轻型货架。
十年就这年过去了中型货架。为何今天天忽然想起那柄剑中型货架，那道剑光重型货架？而且内心为什么如此不安重型货架？不应该是这样的仓库货架，对于一个喝了十年绿茶的人来说服装货架，面对死上海货架，也已不再惧怕精品货架，不再不安苏州货架，但今天又为何如此呢托盘货架？
莫非是他青岛货架，和他的剑库房货架，加上他的剑光沈阳货架。我已不问江湖之事天津货架，想他十年前也应该坐上武林盟主的位子了杭州货架，一个武林中人做了武林盟主山东货架，这一生还有什么要求的呢文件柜？
我不停的喝着绿茶工具柜。绿茶静心工具柜。但此时怎么也静不下来零件柜。茶已尽工作台。平时茶尽之时工作台，正也是日落之时工作桌。
一定快有什么事情发生了工作桌。
剑还是那美丽的剑Google左侧排名，如果再加上一道剑光吹塑机，就会形成剑的艺术色带，武学的艺术电源插座。
我问反光背心：为何还来找我滚针轴承，我已在十年之前就退出江湖了夜光粉。
他说文化石：因为你没死缎带，因为我没有对手风火轮。
我说激光打标机：十年前已不是你的对手平衡机，何况现在十年未动刀大功率led。
他说磁力泵：放眼天下梯子，只有你一个人是我的对手网眼袋，也只你一个人对我的威胁无尘布。
我不再说话手摇手电筒，因为我不知道说什么手板，我知道我十年前就开始找我毛巾布，发现我没有死就开始找我磁钢。我不死促销台，他心不安模具钢材。
他说时尚配饰：拿出你的刀筛网。
我说齿轮泵：我已无刀天使花房，命托辊，亦可有可无色丁。
他盯着我广告衫，握剑的手越来越紧钢坯，我知道那道美丽的剑光可能随时发出过滤网。在那美丽过后疏水阀，我的生命将画上句号胸章。
阳光照在了刀上发热管，反射到他的脸上手机耳机。他发现了那把刀螺杆，我的刀插销，宝刀蝴蝶，没有鞘的刀工具包。
刀已在我手中点钞机，刀还是那把刀配电箱，人却已不是那个人流苏，因为心不是那颗心沙滩巾。
他为了杀我竟找了我十年氯化镁，而为了和我比武竟帮我从屋顶拿下我的刀来双面胶带，并放在我的手中碳纤维。我忽然发现排线，他也变了汽车座垫，他在后悔十年前将所有高手都杀绝珍珠奶茶。
高手的悲哀太阳伞。
我握紧了刀桥架，我看着他的眼tpr，已经不再像十年前那样明亮了钢丝。
他的剑划出柴油发电机组，划出一道美丽的剑光护栏。我想围栏，这十年他大概在不停地使自己的剑光更美围栏。
我的刀也出了隔离网。简单的动作隔离网，一刀刺进了他的胸网片。那道美丽的光忽然停止网片，停在我的衣服上南京货架。
他说北京货架：这也是艺术北京货架，杀人的艺术北京货架，想不到你十年不动刀还懂这个艺术仓储货架。
我说仓储货架：因为我不想再让你痛苦了广州货架。
他说广州货架：谢谢货架厂。
我走了货架公司。我头也不回的走了塑料托盘。没有取回我的刀塑料托盘，因为我觉得它在我身边已经没用塑料托盘，我后悔我十年前为什么不扔了它塑料托盘？我听到了尸体倒下的声音塑料托盘。我流泪了塑料托盘，我真的不想杀他仓储笼，十年前不想仓储笼，十年后也不想仓储笼，因为我下山时答应过师父仓储笼，一切让着他仓储笼。
我叹了一口气仓储笼。远去仓储笼。
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home