--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- sparaig wrote: > > > > --- Gillam wrote: > > > > > > I missed this old column from the New > > > York Times in which technology writer > > > David Pogue takes Microsoft to task for > > > manipulating, and sometimes fabricating, > > > good reviews for its products. I post it > > > here because it ties into the TMO's efforts > > > to create good PR. It seems that no matter > > > how big and powerful one is, one still > > > craves legitimacy in the eyes of others, > > > even at the ultimage expense of > > > legitimacy upon getting caught. > > > > It seems a bit of a stretch to go from > > the TMO generating PR to MS bribing online > > bloggers with laptops. > > Pogue's point was not so much about giving > away computers as it was about Microsoft > fabricating its case before the public. > Examples included fobbing off a fake customer > testimonial as the real thing, and editing > different screen capture videos to present > Windows to best advantage, all the time > suggesting, if not saying, it was one > movie of one screen. > > The parallel to the TMO would be doctored > research or highly edited reprints of > national media coverage.
Eh. As far as I know, there's been no published doctored research, though there's plenty of of doctored rhetoric ABOUT the research that has been published. That said, I'm not > too concerned about the TMO's spinning. > I don't get the impression it's been any > more egregious than what happens in the > larger world, and perhaps less so. I merely > wish to point up the irony of an > organization trying to improve its > legitimacy by illegitimate means. I credit > my amusement and concern for ethical > behavior to my years of TM practice. >
