Just like with this article questioning the value of the IBM validation, I was giving an example how one could easily do the same with regard to the company the writer so vividly supports
Yes, well there isn't an article you could ever write, that I couldn't question. Point me to one, I'll question it, I promise.
The fact that some people can question it, doesn't mean a thing. If the Genesi awards were rigged, that should be news just as this is news. If on the other hand, the Genesi awards were not rigged, that cannot be news because it isn't true.
What the journalist has to do, is research, and decide whats true.
Again, it goes back to saying 'thats just their opinon!' (about what the facts are)....
but that is what all journalists, everywhere, have to do, decide what the facts are....
your criticism here would be so much more valid, if you were actually taking a poke at targhams facts, instead of just playing word games and stating...thats his opinion of the facts! Its not fair cause its opinion! whatever..
GRRRRRRRRRR this is sooooo tiring.
btw, 'our take' sounds good, but also I must say, that passing on a press release immediately, and having a researched story some weeks later is fine...both can be done ethically......
not every story is ready the same day as a press release. And I think we are delving into the area of semantics, big time.
your main objection appear to be whether the story was labeled clearly. I don't think its op-ed at all. But in any event, press releases, op-ed, stories, rants....that isn't how anything is labeled on this site...it is labeled by subject areas and not by those types of classifications.
And finally, don't insult the reader...they know that a statement like 'Genesi is BAD' is an opinionated type of statement. That 'Genesi rigged an award', is a statement purportedly about fact that must be proven.
People are plenty intelligent and will survive if there isn't a banner above the item explaining all its details before they read it.
