Do you think a journalist has the obligation to do research on his stories, or is it OK to disguise an opinion blog as journalism?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 38 of 38.

• orlowski exposed
  2004-01-17 16:43:29  jpzr [Reply | View]
  
  
  
  see this article:
  
  http://msmobiles.com/catalog/i.php/417.html
  
  ... that exposes Orlowski and his behaviour towards MS in particular.
  

• journalist
  2003-04-26 11:26:04  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  A lot of so called techno journalists wouldn't know a CD drive from a coffee cup holder.
  
  They spout MarketSpeak or something they read in 'fortune' magazine. You know the low rent end of the journalism profession.

• This is typical for Orlowski
  2003-04-25 14:34:57  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm glad more people are finally realizing just how poor Orlowski's journalism is. It's easy to write a complelling column when you're not concerned about accuracy.

• No One listening-Just Noise
  2003-04-24 08:52:42  shareme [Reply | View]
  
  
  I will just say that blogging is changing very fast and it seems several people or companies rather than listne to the new music being made are more content with not listening to the 'music' users are making the 'music' instruments they are asking for..
  
  While some of the old companies in blogging do advocate blogging that was not the litmus test of who gets inclduded in the confrerence..if that was the case you woudl have seen netscape incldued as one of the 'first' bloggers as recognized by Mr. Winer's own commments
  
  I for one am happy with Clay's choices to learn new trends in blogging and new ways users are using blogs and asking for more features..
  
  
  Right now I use my own blog to keep track of trends in mobile J2ME coding and technology as my small company does development in that area in games for mobile devices..[ShareMe Tehcnologies-The Mobile Future http://www.freeroller.net/page/shareme/Weblog]
  
  I woudl further point out tha the Name of Conference indicates the focus of the Conference which is Emerging Technology not Current or Past Technology..
  
  Tim and Caly keep up the good work.. I have always enjoyed reading the papers and books that come out of these conferences and will continue to do so in the future as wel..
  
  
  
  
  
  
• No One listening-Just Noise
  2003-04-26 15:20:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh yes, I'm listening and agree with Orlowski. To me he's like the the little boy in H.C.Andersens fairy tale about the Emperor.
  Why should one really pay thousands to go to a conference and gain nothing, only to listen to a bunch of blog-junkies and ignorants. These guys does not contribute anything but bla,bla,bla.

• The Horse's Mouth
  2003-04-24 01:14:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Tim, I am the deeply offended speaker...
  
  I corresponded by email with Andrew, and agreed that he could use my experience as background. He's a journalist and has used it as he sees fit. That is fine with me.
  
  Whatever the circumstances, I am glad that this has been raised, not because I'm personally offended, as I made clear to Andrew, and he made clear in his article, but because I genuinely feel that the conference agenda is seriously blinkered.
  
  I had budgeted to attend this year's conference, and my rejection made no difference to that. But after many attempts I could just not find anything remotely interesting in the agenda, at least not to justify the journey from Europe.
  
  O'Reilly are to be congratulated for championing new technology and especially for going beyond the tech into the social context. But there is, I'm sorry to say, a certain aura of smug self-congratulation at present, and I would hope that the organistation team will get a bit of fresh thinking next year. Involve Asia. Involve Europe. Involve Africa. Think, er, different.
  
  From my personal point of view, following early enthusiastic exchanges I was surprised to receive 3 months later a categoric rejection, and even more surprised that ny follow up email, politely asking for a little more feedback, was totally ignored. I spent some time & thought on my planned presentation, and it is unfortunate that this does not entitle me to at least a little respect.
  
  Finally, the total disappearence of the mobile telephony side of things, despite strong presentations last year, was to be very surprising.
  
  I have no idea at all what goes on behind the scenes, but Andrew may have a better idea as an investigative journalist. I imagine that you find The Register's style amusing and incisive - when it goes against yoy you just have to roll with it.
  
  Enjoy the conference
  David Mantripp
  (david.mantripp@bluewin.ch)
• The Horse's Mouth
  2003-04-24 18:01:40  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  David,
  
  As an impartial bystander to this, I find your attitude problematic. Firstly, that is *not* the Register I know and love -- it's shoddy journalism at its worst. Also, I find it odd that you would not distance yourself from such crass writing. Even if he took your side, Orlowski is showing a complete lack of skill by resorting to the sleaziest troll tactics, and I would be embarrased to have my name mentioned in the same article. Slander is not humor.
  
  Kevin
• The Horse's Mouth
  2003-04-25 00:35:08  drm [Reply | View]
  
  
  Kevin,
  
  I haven't GOT a side for him to take. This getting like that Al Gore Inventor Of The Internet stuff...
  
  oh well, what the f***. I've been getting involved in online slander and warfare since well before O'Reilly existed (the company that is...i'm not THAT old :-) ).
  
  Pinches of salt should be distributed at sign-on. There's no smoke without fire. And other old cliches...
  
  D.
• The Horse's Mouth
  2003-04-24 08:53:02  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  I apologize if there was some failure in communication. FWIW, I would agree that what's happening on the mobile telephony side of things (including MMS) is indeed very interesting, and could well be a major subject for this conference. It could have been this year, and could certainly be next year.
  

  
  That being said, the conference organizers look at the range of submissions, and how they relate to the conference themes, and try to arrange them to illuminate particular emergent themes.
  

  
  I'm sorry you didn't find anything interesting in the themes that were chosen. Obviously, over five hundred others did.
  

  
  I have no issue with your disappointment in not being chosen, or even your criticisms that the conference organizers might have missed something important. My beef with Andrew was that he reported your complaints as fact, without talking to the conference organizers, and then used them as a launching point for an offensive personal attack on Clay Shirky. I would think that you too would be offended to be used in such a fashion, as grist for some kind of grudge match.

• The Horse's Mouth
  2003-04-24 09:51:08  drm [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well Andrew asked me several times if he could quote me. I agreed and I'm not one to go back on my word. He might of gone a bit over the top (his description of me is somewhat over-flattering) but, hey, that's The Register we all know and love.
  
  But I'm not terribly impressed by this "failure in communications" argument - when Rael was interested he replied immediately to several mails... afterwards it was total communications blackout. I think that most O'Reilly staffers have a basic grasp of email. My communication with Andrew started more or a less as a comment to an article of his which expressed some views on the "closed shop" feel emanating from the Etconf community. Probably I would not have reacted to this if I had not felt somewhat shut out myself.
  
  I don't want anyone to think I'm particularly bothered about all this - we have the usual emotion amplification problem of e-text - and it is all ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Also I should restate - I'm not disappointed about not being chosen, but I was disappointed that there was / is nothing at all in my field, despite Rael Dornfest's initial indication that it was considered a hot topic. But, really, it's your conference, you call the shots.
  
  I'd recommend people have a read of http://www.mobitopia.com - writings there may not conform to the USA definition of Emerging Technology, but you should get these guys on board for next years conference.
  
  And unless I'm banned I hope to find a reason to be there :-)
• An interesting point
  2003-04-24 02:20:22  sarsat [Reply | View]
  
  
  This does raise a point about conference structure. If there are interesting people with interesting/controvertial content, willing to attend and give presentations is it not possible to give them some floor space, perhaps a side room that would be dedicated to "stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere". Surely this would increase the attraction of the conference for minimal ( maybe no ) cost?

• Opinion
  2003-04-24 00:43:12  sarsat [Reply | View]
  
  
  Having read the article yesterday, when it was released, my belief was that this piece was pure opinion. The article is very complementry to O'Reillys "O'Reilly are the good guys, well loved and with good reason: their excellent editorial judgement and good taste has put high quality books in front of the high quality geeks who need them" and personally complimentary towards Tim. I read it as "well I think O'Reillys have got it wrong this time" and not an all out, unresearched attack. And remember TheRegister's slogan is "Biting the hand that feeds IT". Its there to make sure that you "Big Boys" don't get complacent. Take it on the chin, Tim. Your never going to please everybody, all of the time
• Opinion
  2003-04-24 17:38:41  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  BS. 100% bs!
  The Register did itself a disservice posting such an infantile article. Critique is always worthwhile but this post was nothing more than a desperate attempt to get attention. Good writers dont need to stoop to such tactics -- Orlowski should grow up.
  
  Kevin

• As an open source developer I feel shunned
  2003-04-23 18:18:17  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I mean, surely there must be a political reason that my wicked rad software was not selected for presentation. My code is ten times better than some presentation about software acting like starving ants.
  
  I am certain that the REAL reason my project was not accepted is that I am a proponent of RSS 0.92 (0.93 was corrupted by evil external influences).
  
  It is glaringly obvious that the BlogMafia and their association with the RSS 1.0 cartel are behind my continued blacklisting at all O'Reilly conferences...
  
  Thanks, c00lcoder
• As an open source developer I feel shunned
  2003-04-23 19:23:48  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great troll! Sorry, but I don't want to go there. (And I think you were probably tongue in cheek yourself...)

• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-23 15:24:37  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hmmmm. I am wondering if this issue has anything to do with the fact that of the 59 bloggers listed on O'Reilly Developer Weblogs, only ONE is female. Tunnel vision??
  
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-27 07:31:12  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is true, and problematic, though I can't imagine it's maliciously intended - I would guess it's something O'Reilly is aware of and trying to address. Maybe the question is how we can help bring talented female techies/bloggers to O'Reilly's attention?
  
  Of course, Orlowski isn't helping any: "and wife" is a talented and brilliant woman in her own right, despite his dismissive description.
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-24 18:38:00  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  as one attending the conference, it is very white and very male in demographics. one of the very few women there commented on it to me when I asked if she had seen anything interesting that day.
  
  on the price issue. O'Reilly is at best breaking even on this conference and possibly even losing money on it if the event is treated as a stand alone profit/lose event.
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-24 08:48:35  Medievalist [Reply | View]
  
  
  First of all, there really aren't that many female technical bloggers.
  
  Secondly, as a woman, a blogger, and a technical worker, I would rather sex, race, religion, politics, etc. not be considered.
  
  I want good information. I don't care if it's provided by a monkey, as long as it's accurate and well written.
  
  Rather than whining, anonymously, why not suggest some appropriate additions?
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-24 18:23:39  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  So if you say it, it's intelligent commentary, but if I say it it's whining?? Feh.
  
  Female geek writer/bloggers: Tina Gasperson, Carla Schroder, just off the top of my head. Hell, I even blog, but seldom get read or commented on. But then again, I'm not famous, published, or even paid to write, so it doesn't count.
  
  The thing is that ORA is usually so good about seeking out new and interesting authors and viewpoints. Yet I don't see it in their blog collection. That's why I bring it up.
  
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-06-09 17:08:53  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  <ahem> Karlin Lillington - http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-27 08:46:12  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  "...yet I don't see it in their blog collection..."
  

  
  Here's the point: Unlike blogger or userland, which host tens or hundreds of thousands of blogs, oreillynet.com's blog collection consists of internal O'Reilly people, authors, and some outsiders who've asked if we could host their blogs. If they ask (nicely) and there's some relevance to the kind of content we cover, others can be included, but we don't seek out bloggers of either sex. Maybe you're right and we should be seeking out interesting bloggers and asking them to move to O'Reilly. But that seems a bit silly. If these people already have their own blogs, why would they want to move to our site? This is a distributed medium after all. Many of our good friends (part of the group that critics seem to think of as part of our "blog mafia") like Cory Doctorow or Doc Searls have their blogs elsewhere, and we like to read them wherever we find them. What's more, most of the oreillynet bloggers are (like me) only occasional bloggers, which is why we aggregate them into a combined flow. If you're a continuous blogger, you more likely want to have your own branded blog.
  

  
  I find myself really puzzled by this thread. We don't publish all the great authors either, yet no one accuses us of excluding the authors who choose to write for Addison-Wesley, or Peachpit, or the late lamented Wrox. Most of our books are written by men too, as the computer industry is a male-dominated industry, yet no one complains that we're sexist because we don't have more female authors. We don't make the sex of our contributors a litmus test, either for or against, and neither should the rest of you. We choose our authors and speakers on the strength of their ideas and their willingness to work with us. (We choose conference talks from those that are submitted to our RFP; only keynotes are usually invited talks.)
  

  
  I'll stand up to any company in the computer industry about creating opportunities for women. O'Reilly's staff is fairly evenly balanced between men and women. Three of the six top managers who report to me (my COO, my CFO, and my Associate Publisher) are women. And that's something you won't see in many companies in any industry, let alone the male-dominated computer industry.
  

  
  I also find the implication that we're somehow excluding women from our conferences to be rather bizarre. Yes, the number of women at the Emerging Technology Conference was dwarfed by the number of men -- but there were far more women than you'll find at almost any other technology conference. That's a comment on the state of our industry; it doesn't say anything about O'Reilly.

• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-23 19:26:50  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Another great troll, this one trying to bring up Shelley Powers' critique of Clay's "social software summit." Someone's having a good time trying to stir the pot here.
• Blog Mafia?
  2003-04-24 18:16:28  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Really, Tim, do you dismiss all criticism as "another great troll" now?? BTW, I never got to Clay's "social software summit", and have not read Shelley Powers'critique. So, sorry, no cigar. Got a reference?
  
  As far as stirring the pot is concerned: Even your pot needs stirring now and again. Get used to it.
  
  What I find ironic is how much Orlowski's screed has irked you. When that kind of thing happens, I tend to figure that something hit home. While I like most of the O'Reilly Assoc. crowd, sometimes people seem to get a little full of themselves.
  
  Yes, I'm in a bad mood. I was supposed to come to ETC for the Expo and my work wouldn't let me. *pout* Also, I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to bother with signing up and logging in.
  
  Besides, you have a tendency to quote people on your site and in your blog without notice or the courtesy of a link back. While this is not illegal, it is discourteous. At least posting anonymously I won't expect anything of the sort.

• O'Reilly Conference Exclusion
  2003-04-23 15:16:01  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have felt excluded from O'Reilly Conferences for two years now, and all I'd like to do is attend! To attend just the conference sessions for three days, even at the "Early Bird" price is $995.00. This is far beyond my means.
  
  There is a 50% discount for full-time academic instructors, but I have two part-time community college jobs, and so last year I was told that I would not qualify for the discount. The California Community College system is so screwed up, this is not changing anytime soon. It's built on adjuncts and there are no full-time positions available.
  
  I also asked last year if at the very least the general public could attend the keynote address, because I desperately wanted to attend that. I was also told that was not a possibility.
  
  For those who have attended these conference sessions, have there ever been any empty chairs? If so, couldn't I be given an opportunity to learn too? Why place it out of the reach of so many people? I can understand if space is at a premium, but why not get a bigger meeting venue (which might allow you to increase attendees and hence decrease the per-person cost), or let registered attendees enter the halls first and then only if space permits allow us shmucks who can't afford it to sit in the back?
  
  Nothing like this has been offered. Instead it's been clear to me for a while that O'Reilly conferences are intended to be exclusionary. That's too bad, because I think I'd not only learn a lot, but that I'd have a lot to offer the other attendees. With the current setup, neither of us will ever know.
  
  Brian
• O'Reilly Conference Exclusion
  2003-05-04 09:26:55  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's certainly true that the $1000 cost for the conference stops people coming - but then for those of us who don't live in California there's also the flights and hotels and stuff like that. I think we have to face the fact though that most people who go to these things are paid for by their work, and that it costs a fair amount to run a conference. I'm not saying it couldn't be done more cheaply, and that there's no way to cut costs, but these things are always a balance between giving people the conference they deserve and being able to make sure that the people who care most and are most clued up can afford to go. I had such a good time this year that I will do whatever I can to find the money for next... Tom Coates...
• Parent post has a really good point!
  2003-04-23 22:19:39  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I would just like to let my voice be heard as saying: I agree with this post 100%. These conferences do tend to exclude based on commerce & locale way more than they do based on politics. The problem is when commerce quickly and easily translates to politics.
• Parent post has a really good point! Maybe
  2003-04-24 00:25:56  sarsat [Reply | View]
  
  
  So what are the options? You cut down on price and O'Reillys have to cut down on content. If the content is poor will you still want to go even though its 100 bucks cheaper? O'Reillys isn't a charity. It supplies a service that people want, at a price enough people can afford, so that O'Reillys make enough profit to make them want to put on the next.
  If you are college students and there are enough of you at your college interested, why not invite the keynotes to come to your college? Most, I think would be flattered.(BTW, I don't work for O'Reillys, just being realistic)
• Scholarships?
  2003-04-24 08:44:08  Medievalist [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm a student, and very appreciative of the student discount.
  
  I also understand the need for O'Reilly to make a profit, or, since I suspect that conferences don't really generate direct profit (trust me, I know how much conferences cost), not lose too much money so we can keep relying on O'Reilly's books, site, and conferences for good information.
  
  What about offering a limited number of scholarships to people who qualify in terms of being a student, IT worker, or instructor ? The scholarships would admit the awardee to the entire conference, but not cover anything else.
  
  Apple's World Wide Develper Conference has has a scholarship program for students enrolled in the Apple developer student program for some years. The fee for student memberships to the developer program is much reduced, and student members can apply for a WWDC a scholarship to WWDC by responding to some well chosen questions and providing proof of full time student status.
  
  I've gone twice to WWDC on a student scholarship, and it was not only well worth my time, it benefitted my colleagues and, I think, Apple.
  
  O'Reilly could offer scholarships to part time instructors, or staff, which would make it easier for them to attend and would in effect make them ambassadors about the value of the conference, perhaps making it more likely that their instutions would sponsor them in the future. It would also be another way for O'Reilly to give back to the community, something O'Reilly is known for.
  
  I am teaching now, and thus couldn't go to the Emerging Tech conference, I'm already planning on how I might be able to make it to the O'Reilly Mac OS X conference. I'm grateful for the student discount O'Reilly often offers, but I'd be even happier to have a scholarship. I'd even blog the conference <g>.
  
  
• Scholarships?
  2003-04-24 08:50:08  sarsat [Reply | View]
  
  
  What a nice idea, and how about sponsored places from some of the supporting companys, ActiveState and Apple spring to mind. Great PR for them and like you say, good for the community. I like that

• MMS? Emerging technology?
  2003-04-23 14:24:16  Jon Orwant [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm with Shirky on this one. I haven't heard of Mantripp's work, but it's quite a stretch to call MMS "emerging technology".
  
  -Jon (ex-ORA employee/current telco researcher)
• MMS? Emerging technology?
  2003-04-24 03:46:45  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The technology in itself is emerging in the sense that it is not yet mature. I wish it was. But that isn't the point. The point is that it is part of a very interesting social shift centered around "being mobile" (sorry Mr Negroponte). MMS suffers from being seen as "Photo Messaging". This is exactly like saying that email is "Photo Messaging". Seems to me that the simple fact that this debate is taking place illustrates that it is a valid topic.
  
  Let's face it, 802.11a or 802.11g is hardly new either. As for MoveableType et al - well that, surely, has emerged as well ?
  
  Note that I have never corresponded with, spoken to or otherwise communicated with Clay Shirky. He's a good speaker and I'm sure he's a nice & very interesting guy. Let's not get personal here.
  
  David Mantripp

• I'm afraid I agree 110% with Mr. Orlowski
  2003-04-23 12:55:13  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The O'Reilly conference fliers always leave me with the impression of an overprice cheerleading tourney.
  
  Instead of practical endeavours -- the past hallmark of O'Reilly books -- recent years have been too faddish, too dot-com. Wasn't there once a Journal Of Linux Technoology during the 1999 Linux hype? I believe the "journal" lasted for one issue.
  
  Recently we've seen MP3s, the Human Genomics project, webblogs, and SETI -- both hyped in general news media and at O'Reilly. Surely O'Reilly can do business as it sees fit -- but neither company nor its proprietor should complain when the market shifts from acceptance of experimentalism to weary groans.
  
  All the best.
  
• I'm afraid I agree 110% with Mr. Orlowski
  2003-04-23 19:23:57  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hmmm...
  
  I'm not quite sure I understand how feeling that the Emerging Technologies conference isn't as immediately practical as our books translates to agreeing with Orlowski that we excluded a speaker on the grounds of his technical politics.
  

  
  Interestingly enough, many of the things that you seem to find uninteresting -- peer to peer, web services, bioinformatics, distributed computation -- are in fact continuing to grow in importance.
  

  
  The whole point of the Emerging Technologies conference is to give us a forum for treating new topics earlier in their lifecycle, before they are jelled enough to earn their O'Reilly book.

• Orlowski is a troll
  2003-04-23 10:59:56  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  He has 'previous' on this - see the whole 'googlewashing' fiasco. I pointed out his habit of quoting out of context and not linking to sources then:
  
  http://epeus.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_epeus_archive.html#200094183
  
  
• Orlowski is a troll and a bigot too
  2003-04-23 18:26:25  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Tim is right to suggest that the guy is shallow.
  
  He has the arragant habit of forming strong oppinions often based on rather childish reasons, and has written countless critiques against Mac OS X (particularly Dock) quoting long list of reader feedbacks to support his view without realizing that many people actually think OS X is the best OS ever.
• Orlowski is a troll and a bigot too
  2003-04-24 18:24:33  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Danger, danger! Religious war ala slashdot approaching. Next thing you know they will start mentioning hot grits and movie stars.
• Orlowski is a troll and a bigot too
  2003-04-24 04:02:33  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  oh dear oh dear. He's dared to attack Macs. That _is_ just TOO much.
  Strange that he frequently mentions his iBook don't you think ?