Scoble turned down their request for an interview. Presumably you could have found this out by asking him, before making this unsubstantiated claim. Scoble

“Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.”

We can’t argue with that.

And a good reporter would have noted in the original story that Scoble declined to be interviewed for the article. Please note that I’ve updated my remarks.

What about the email from Fester?

What about Chris Anderson’s comments from his blog?

What about Scoble’s blog?

What about Mary Jo Foley’s comments?

What about the numerous quotes anmd not “one off-hand comment”?

What about the journalist stating that Apple and Microsoft declined comment?

It seems you’ve stretched your own writing to absurd conclusions. It’s seems your writing is all the more sloppy.

If you honestly think that the Wired News story contained any serious reporting, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Go through your list of sources:

Mary Jo Foley “said she had no knowledge of the iPod’s popularity on Microsoft’s campus.” Not exactly a supportive quote for the author’s thesis, is it? In fact, it says practically nothing. Chris Anderson and Robert Scoble both blogged about their personal ownership of iPods, and neither one said a word about being persecuted for it. Again, not exactly support for the thesis that huge numbers of Softies own iPods and are coming under fire for it. Finally, go read Dave Fester’s memo again. It doesn’t exactly support the thesis that Microsoft’s management is irked, frustrated, and annoyed. He’s the guy in charge of the division; he wants his managers to make sure that people know about what he considers great products from his division. Do I need a decoder ring to read the secret hidden message that says anyone who buys an iPod will be sent to Siberia?

I’m happy to hold myself to high standards in my commentary. But please note that I don’t claim to be a “news service.”

Oh, and you’re welcome to decline to use your real e-mail address, but giving yourself a fake email address that points to my domain is rude. I’ve removed the address (but left your comments untouched).

Firstly, journalistic integrity. It primarily has one source, but they are quoted numerous times, and you or any one has not provided any evidence to doubt its veracity. I don’t even think you are, so there should be no qualms there. The author also cites a well-known Microsoft analyst. The authur also cites an internal email from a high ranking Microsoft executive. The author quotes two well-known Microsoft bloggers. The author explains they tried to contact Microsoft and Apple, and that they refused comment. Sounds like a perfectly well written article to me.

Secondly, the thesis: you really claim this article is suggesting iPod owners are persecuted? Did you read it?

The article has a provocative headline but most stories do these days. Beyond that it paints a picture. Yes, he does provide Mary Jo’s comments despite your absurd theory and the fact that this comment flies in the face of it. The story doesn’t say anything about Chris or Scoble being persecuted, does it? The article says that the white earbuds can be seen around campus, doesn’t it? The article says the manager being quoted flaunts his iPod, doesn’t it?

All the iPod says… more precisely, suggests… is that management doesn’t like it. That they have encouraged the opposite. That some employees, particularly if it is sensitive to their work, feel they should keep a low profile.

It is you who is acting absurd by claiming such things as:

“management is ready to send teams of security guards out to locate anyone wearing white earbuds and send them to a re-education camp.”

“Chris Anderson and Robert Scoble both blogged about their personal ownership of iPods, and … [are] being persecuted for it.”

“Do I need a decoder ring to read the secret hidden message that says anyone who buys an iPod will be sent to Siberia?”

Yes, I do need that decoder ring. I think it is clear that Fester is “irked, frustrated, and annoyed.”

I don’t need a handwritten letter from Gates to know that they are “irked, frustrated, and annoyed.” That’s freaking obvious. To suggest the contrary is absolutely absurd.

Wired had a high level Microsoft source attest to a number of things – mainly about the consternation of Microsoft management about iPod use among Microsoft employees.

That’s called news – Microsoft management concerned. The fact they’re concerned shows lots of iPods are being used by MS employees.

Yes, it’s one source (a high level one). But how many sources are you going to find like this? Wired went to Microsoft and gave them an opportunity to deny this person existed or that Microsoft management was concerned about iPod use. They refused comment.

This is legitimate news. Like all news, it could be wrong. But it’s not bad or improper journalism. There’s nothing remotely improper or inadequate about it. It’s a single source. The reporter tried to gather more facts straight from Microsoft. He did his job.

“16,000 iPod users among the 25,000 who work at or near Microsoft’s campus.” That’s absurd.

“So popular is the iPod, executives are increasingly sending out memos frowning on its use.”

One e-mail (not a memo) quoted.

And which paragraph is correct?

“[On] Microsoft’s leafy corporate campus in Redmond, Washington … Wherever you go, white headphones dangle from peoples’ ears.”

Or:

“Employees are hiding their iPods by swapping the telltale white headphones for a less conspicuous pair.”

They can’t both be true.

And if this reporter was walking around the Microsoft campus and saw all these folks wearing white earbuds, why didn’t he stop and talk to them? Oh, wait. I know. Because he wasn’t there! He made that part up! Heh.

Look, the iPod is a great product. It has 65-70% market share in the world. At Microsoft, according to this story, it has roughly the same percentage of use.

The PR departments at Apple and Microsoft refused to respond to this guy’s story. That was predictable. Meanwhile, this story is still based on a bunch of really convenient quotes from one anonymous guy, who may or may not be a senior-level manager and for that matter may or may not exist. Sorry, but the closer you look, the more this is just a hack job.

Are you too young to remember “Deep Throat?” (the Watergate source, not the movie). That was a single anonymous source and, well, it sure seemed like a story to me.

Regarding the whole article, I didn’t take it all that seriously. It read more like a fun article that started from a single fact/source.

For bad journalism, check out this site
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/Macmini2.html. He confuses the shuffle with the mini; he thinks 40GB hard drives, CD writers, and video cards with 32MB vram were available in circa 1995; he calls OS X a stripped-down Windows CE OS; he doesn’t realize that weather programs on the Mac exist all over the place; and he rails against the mini for not having anti-virus, virus/malware removal software.
And he’s certified as an MSCE.

Standards today are, sadly, different. Mentioning this reporter in the same breath with Woodward and Bernstein is unfair to them.

“”16,000 iPod users among the 25,000 who work at or near Microsoft’s campus.” That’s absurd.”

Firstly, he is solely basing his math on the statements made by his source. Secondly, is it so absurd? I work for a small (150 people) non-technical company, and I would estimate 50% of the staff have mp3 players. Is it absurd to suggest that 80% of the most technically-oriented company in the world has mp3 palyers? Maybe… But even you seem to agree that 80% of those that do probably have iPods. Thirdly, you, Scoble, and Thurott are commenting on this, seem virtually hysterical. All of you say, “No way, no way.” But you don’t provide any evidence whatsoever either.

“”So popular is the iPod, executives are increasingly sending out memos frowning on its use.”

One e-mail (not a memo) quoted.”

And? Does the fact that only one email was quoted mean that none others have? No. Do people use the word “mem” generally to refer to internal office correspondance? Yes.

“”[On] Microsoft’s leafy corporate campus in Redmond, Washington … Wherever you go, white headphones dangle from peoples’ ears.”

Or:

“Employees are hiding their iPods by swapping the telltale white headphones for a less conspicuous pair.”

They can’t both be true.”

Sure, they can both be true. He didn’t say every iPod owner is swapping headhones. He said employees are generally feeling a need to go stealth, adn this takes on many forms. If two people swapped their headphones, both statements would be true, and it would still be true that iPods are prevalent at Microsoft but some are feeling the need to downplay that decision.

“And if this reporter was walking around the Microsoft campus and saw all these folks wearing white earbuds, why didn’t he stop and talk to them? Oh, wait. I know. Because he wasn’t there! He made that part up! Heh.”

How do you know? You don’t. Heh. And what part of this story requires that he did or is lying about doing so? If one person said: “You see lots of people walking around with iPods”, he’s not allowed to write that without verifying it for himself, even if it is plainly true?

“Look, the iPod is a great product. It has 65-70% market share in the world. At Microsoft, according to this story, it has roughly the same percentage of use.”

Yes, the story says that as well. But it’s 80%.

“Meanwhile, this story is still based on a bunch of really convenient quotes from one anonymous guy, who may or may not be a senior-level manager and for that matter may or may not exist.”

No, again, it is based on the one anonymous manager, Scoble’s blog, Chris’s blog, Mary Jo’s comments… Secondly, do you really doubt he exists? Is that your current assertion? That all the quotes, this guys position, are made up? You have zero evidence of that.

” Sorry, but the closer you look, the more this is just a hack job.”

The closer I look, you seem a pathetic and jealous man. Your posts are less credible and less verified. You make more absurd and wild comments (”persecution, Siberia, etc…”), and all you are doing is confirming the basic facts presented in this story.

The press knew Scoble’s reaction to their request BEFORE they made it. This has been on his website since inception:

“Q: Why aren’t you talking to the press?

A: For a variety of reasons, biggest of all is that it’s in my employment contract that I not talk to the press without prior PR approval.”

So they know Scoble could not clairify.