Inquirer to Online Media: You are all Patsies!

Subject: Editorial | September 30, 2005 - 01:03 PM |

Wow, this is quite the morning story.  I was sent a link today from Scott at the Tech Report to a post he made today about the availability (or lack there of) of the CrossFire components we reviewed just this past Monday.  His one pager talks about how it was a disappointment to find that the products were not available at launch, and I agree.  In fact I have something planned for this coming Monday as well.  However, what was most interesting to me was the reference to an Inquirer article on the same subject

This article brings the same issues into question, but accusses all online media that reviewed the product of being "patsies" for not following up on the availability.  While I agree that a follow is in order, I think the assumption that all sites that hadn't done so within the 3 day period of time The Inquirer decided was appropriate are failing in their obligation to their readers is complete garbage.  Who are they to decide what I should be doing?  (Edit: TheInq has taken the post off their main page but it is still available through that direct link.  Chances are good it will see an "update" some time shortly.)  I think Scott summed it up nicely:

Yow. I suppose I have learned my lesson about assisting the Inquirer on a story. The personal affront in this case is pretty egregious, but the larger problem is the self-righteous smugness underlying the Inq's playful, tabloid-like veneer. I simply don't think it's warranted, given everything.
Source: The Inquirer

No comments posted yet.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.