PJ widely respected [LWN.net]

PJ widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:34 UTC (Sun) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206)
In reply to: Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May

Florian, I have complained before about your long rants,

The fact is that PJ is widely respected for her hard work and balance,

You are NOT.

to post comments

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:41 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (6 responses)

I'm sure "PJ" has more followers in the open source community but those are mostly just credulous people who don't see through Groklaw's pseudolegal smokescreens. In terms of respect by professionals, my blog is in a far stronger position (even though it started only a year ago) than Groklaw ever was. IP professionals and top-tier media turn to my blog for serious analysis, not to Groklaw. Just this week I was quoted by the Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC News, law.com, and Bloomberg. The week before, by CNN.com, Reuters, etc. That's because professionals look for serious analysis, not propaganda meant to misinform a community and then, with the help of censorship, misrepresent that community's positions to the rest of the world.

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:56 UTC (Sun) by swetland (guest, #63414) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes, you are very effective at getting media coverage for your blogging.

*polite clapping*

One might find allegations about "propaganda meant to misinform a community" especially ironic given this context. I certainly do.

Who do you work for again, Mr Mueller?

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:07 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

The only reason for that media coverage is the fact that I provide analysis that is apparently considered useful by professionals.

I publish my own opinions only and we've had the question before.

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:54 UTC (Sun) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

That you do, but it would be more credible if your readers were informed who your clients are that pay for these opinions.

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 9:58 UTC (Sun) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link]

That much I doubt.

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 13, 2011 2:52 UTC (Wed) by CChittleborough (subscriber, #60775) [Link]

> I publish my own opinions only and we've had the question before.
But, AFAIK, we still haven't had an answer, only vague hand-waving.

Re: "PJ" widely respected

Posted Apr 10, 2011 16:56 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Wow. You beat Groklaw for sheer unmitigated gall and arrogance, I must say.

Do you *try* to come across as unpleasant, sneering, and jealous, or is it native talent?

balanced coverage?

Posted Apr 10, 2011 12:30 UTC (Sun) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link] (2 responses)

> The fact is that PJ is widely respected for her ... and balance,

I don't know what balance is intended by the above, but I largely stopped reading groklaw precisely because it seemed that the coverage was unbalanced: that groklaw was good at digging up what appeared to be problems in SCO's case, but you wouldn't want to rely on it for a balanced, unbiased portrayal of the issues.

Note, that's just my own assessment, made with the amount of care appropriate to readership decisions. (Someone else said that the bias was more generally a pro-IBM bias; I wouldn't know about that.)

I should add that if groklaw is just the product of an individual writing in their spare time about something that interests them, then maybe that one-sidedness is just a reaction to some underhandedness on SCO's part and an attempt to redress the balance. I.e. the lack of balance doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the person; but whatever tributes you may pay to the groklaw work, I wouldn't praise its balanced writing myself.

balanced coverage?

Posted Apr 11, 2011 22:45 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Since when did *accurate* and *balanced* go together?

The problem with modern reporting is that, if the issue under discussion is black-and-white with only one sensible position, the media feel *obliged* to give "balance" by quoting some kook with a clearly unhinged agenda, but they quote him in all seriousness!

Fortunately, gravity was discovered many years ago, otherwise the press would be fawning all over "karmic levitation" to try to give "balance" to the "alleged discovery"!

Cheers,
Wol

balanced coverage?

Posted Apr 12, 2011 22:27 UTC (Tue) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link]

People do sometimes mention the word balance when criticizing the journalistic fault that Wol describes, but it's pretty clear that groklaw is *far* from having that fault, and I doubt that that's what brianomahoney meant when praising PJ's balance.

However, given the slanging match that seems to have swallowed the rest of the comments on this article, I don't think we'll gain much by discussing ideals in journalism any further here.