On Thursday 21 April 2005 18:21, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > >"The latest incarnation of OpenOffice was last month released > > for testing by users. Early reviews say it marks a big advance > > over earlier versions of the free word processing, spreadsheet > > and presentation > > package." > > >http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c5e53b8-b205-11d9-8c61-00000e2511c8.ht > >ml > > > >John > > So, I read this article, by the really nice and intelligent Simon > London, who also, I can assure you, snipped maybe two things I > sort of nevrer said out of an hour-long interview.
I thought that his article was so positive that I put it on the front page of the Digital Tipping Point website: http://www.digitaltippingpoint.com > F'rinstance: When he asked, what happens if Sun should no longer > support OOo? I answered, "OOo is a tightly organized community > that can exist independent of Sun or any other sponsoring > company. We have an independent governing council. Sure, we > would rather Sun continued support. But should that not be the > case, there is an excellent chance another large enterprise would > support us or we should form an independent foundation." I > didn't sound wistful. That quote didn't seem to bother me. I have written articles for several on line mags, and that experience has taught me that if you are all positive or all negative on a subject, your readers will see you as having an agenda. This experience has been odd for me, because I am very passionate about open source, and yet I feel the need to say a few good things and a few neutral things at least about almost everything that I write about, lest the readers conclude that I am a cheerleader, and nothing else. So maybe Simon London was facing a similar dilemma, plus I'm sure that MS advertises with the FT, and so I'm sure that Simon's editors have subtlely communicated to Simon that you can't speak too glowingly of a product offered by one of your main advertisers. Of course, Simon will vehemently deny that, since showing bias toward an advertiser is a cardinal sin in journalism, and yet we all know that such bias and self-censorship exists. I personally find that I am much more restrained when I write for publication than when I write on this list, for example. So against that backdrop, for Simon to have written what he did in the tone that he did I thought was remarkably positive. > And, I also have media training. Basically, and this is a > warning, of sorts, the media will interview you with a certain > thing they want, and talking heads exist mainly to substantiate > that thing they want represented. They'll snip your language so > it conforms to their agenda. I really think that you did fine. Again, I thought that it was very positive for us indeed. > Right now, OOo is sitting rather pretty. We are very successful, > really the "poster child" of open source, and represent a serious > alternative, for companies as well as individuals, to MSFT. Right, and that to me is the gist of Simon's article. > So, > the media see us as fair game and relish taking pot shots. It > brings in readers. I didn't see any pot shots. I just thought that Simon felt that he had to stick something in there that would make him look "balanced" due to the fact that the overall article was so positive. Journalists claim to be objective, unbiased, fair, etc., but I can tell you that there are enormous pressures to watch what you say. I have only been writing articles for about 6 months now, so I am still a newbie in that area too, but I have been slashdotted on four occasions, and have other stuff on LinuxToday, OSnews and OSdir, and I will tell you, that experience is humbling indeed. You submit stuff, never expecting Slashdot to visit. Then you are sitting at your desk, working on something else, and unexpectedly someone sends you an email saying that your stuff has appeared on Slashdot or LinuxToday, and you say "holy smokes!" and you rush over to the link to see what you wrote, because you never planned it for a wide audience, and it always looks different on LinuxToday or Slashdot. So the experience is very humbling, and thereafter you really watch what you write for publication. Now imagine that you were actually getting paid to write for a living, and your rent depended on not getting fired for what you wrote, and you write for the Financial Times of London, a publication read by millions. So you write an article about how a free software program could be an alternative to a product offered by one of your largest adverstisers, and it really makes you cautious, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that there are always 50,000 new journalists who are standing in line for your job. So I think that in light of all those pressures, Simon London was quite courageous to submit that story to his boss for publication. > So, > the media see us as fair game and relish taking pot shots. It > brings in readers. Well, of course a journalist wants to be read, but at what cost? I can tell you that a journalist with self-respect would rather not be published at all, rather than submit a story that is widely read and obviously sketchy. The first time that people sense that you are out for a story and are willing to write anything to get a read, they will stop talking to you, or they will only feed you BS. Simon London has made the cut. He is being paid to write. He writes for the FT. His concern is going to be access, not just readers. > Look for instance at the recent (and absurd) Australian story > that just hit /. Expect more of such from press focusing now on > Sun's evident weaknesses, on OOo's community, and so on; on > whatever they can cite as a weakness. It's true that it is easier to destroy than to build. You just line up your target and fire. So as OOo becomes bigger, yes there will be more hit pieces. It is much harder to write a story that is positive without appearing like fluff. People like conflict and controversy. It's drilled into our heads: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. "There's two sides to every story." Simplistic stuff like that. So just presenting a story that is just contributing to a discussion is hard, because it isn't as flashy. If this sounds like it is contradicting what I said a few paragraphs above, it's not. Good writers will write with integrity, but editors want circulation. And look at the trashy rags that you find a check out counters in supermarkets, etc. They sell by the millions. So sometimes the stories that get bumped up to the top are the stories with the flash and the clash. Sometimes good writers are the ones who WON'T write a story because it is too sketchy. The problem is, you will never hear about those writers, because it's hard to tell a compelling story about judiciousness and restraint. Good judgment is often boring. Good writers will often tone things down, or pass on a story because it is to tawdry or sketchy. But you will never hear about it. Bottom line: I am not bothered by Simon London's story, and I'm grateful for it. But yes, expect more stories. Because OOo is going to change the world! So of course OOo will be a news story, and when it makes mistakes, it will make big, newsworthy mistakes. But that is all part of growing. OOo must be willing to face the consequences of providing an excellent product and service, which is lots and lots of attention, much of it unwanted. Christian Einfeldt 415-351-1300 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
