Yesterday, I read a news article about the Linux Australia elections which I feel was irresponsibly written.
I mean really now, if you want to be taken seriously as a Journalist, do a little research and avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist like it’s the plague. If you choose to ignore the previous advice, please don’t try claim it to be a factual piece. Or else I’ll go all mjg59-esque on you.
The article was spotted by a reader of the linux-aus mailing list as there was a relevent discussion already in progress, and someone commented that while there was a point, there appeared to be a ‘kernel of snark’. The author responded on-list saying that any offense was not intended.
I was dissapointed with the article and the author’s response, so I emailed him saying that the piece seemed to have ill-intent due to the tone, and that claiming to wear a journo hat while unware of the effects that the tone of a written piece can have is ‘Doing It Wrong’. The email discussion progressed and I responded with the issues I have with the article.
More specifically, these issues are:
- Writing a critique of an election and its results without much consideration for the social psychology or electoral mechanics, and doing so in a manner that *appears* to be trying to create controversy for the sake of controversy.
- The assertion of conspiracy in the fact that someone skipped a box as an attack at the uncontested VP position, for two. (Conspiracy? Well, I did have to point out that it sounds awfully like “Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick?”.)
- Questioning whether Stewart can “genuinely assert to government and educators and corporations that he represents the interests of Linux users throughout the country when only a tiny number of them were sufficiently motivated to vote?” (This is where I gaffed by saying it was questioning competence — since convincing critics of representation is a competence of *any* president of *anything*). Serously though, Stewart already achieved this last year with a voting turnout of 65. Does more votes make this somehow harder?
(Please note, I am not arguing against the issue of low voter turnout. I am just as unimpressed at that.)
It was now that the author stated:
> It seems to me you are taking the shallow “oh, if it’s not a puff piece it must be totally 100% against us” line of reasoning.
To which I replied with: No, I’m taking the “ugh, another rushed, inconsiderate and poorly researched piece to try get slashdotted, without considering the consequences of the assertions it is making” line of reasoning.
And it is true. I tend not to read mainstream media for the fact that I detest rushed, poorly researched gunk being passed of as factual news, without considering what the implications could be for the subject. It’s not something special against this article or anything.
But alas, I seem to have written it in invisible … pixels or something.
Today, the author posted a sequel to yesterday’s article, and it certainly lends cred to the invisible pixels theory, since the author decided to paraphrase the above to “Oh! This article is not 100% positive. THEREFORE it MUST be 200% negative and THEREFORE the author is a dumbass.”.
Um. Riiight.
Anyway, there are things which I would like to challenge in this sequel too:
- The teaser reads “Linux Australia assert they are the peak body for Linux user groups around Australia“. Are we not? I’m curious as to who would have this title in the absence of Linux Australia.
- Linux Australia does not represent every one of the 5000+ Linux users in the country. Linux Australia can only represent the membership of Linux Australia. The President can only represent what the organisation represents, in the role of President of that organisation. Simple really.
- I did not at any point mention the article about the always awesome Pia Waugh titled “How Windows Vista is turning people to Linux“, so I’m really not sure why it was mentioned today…
However, upon being challenged last night to find something in his pile of articles that met my ‘discerning taste’ (his words) I stated that I found it hard to keep interest enough to do so when I come across statements such as calling Vista “the bastard child of Windows ME,”*, an article whose title begins with “Dumbass consumers” or one which is inaccurate by making out that a 2 year old (but good nonetheless) idea is new. I do apologise for having such standards. No, I’m not lonely, my age has nothing to do with anything, and by the way, isn’t Odious that dog in Garfield? - Contrary to the implication of the author, not once did I call him a dumbass, although I did quote to him the above article title where he called consumers dumbasses.
As I’m writing this, someone has commented to the article taking the implication as fact. The disclaimer clearly did not work.
(* Maybe there’s some truth to it — I hear rumours that there’s still code unchanged from windows 3.11 in there too — but that’s no reason to be silly and say stuff like that. Just because you can, does not mean you should.)
So why do I care so much? Why (besides the assurances that his intentions for my words were ‘not sinister’) did I take such a stand, bother spending the time in lengthy discussion, and trust this self-confessed Journalist with permission to quote me?
Well, since he nominated himself for an Ordinary Council Member position in the election, he did nearly represent us. With that in mind, I’d like to think that anyone who wanted to be on the Linux Aus Council held the organisation’s best interests before their own, could be counted on to defend the organisation, and could be trusted to Do The Right Thing.
I’d also like to think that such a person could do so regardless of if they held a position.
Call it an impromptu experiment.
Judge the outcome for yourself.
