I find it interesting how much time our community uses nowadays to discuss what is news and what is not. Clearly there is some need to play down those issues that are not within one's sphere of interest, and vice-versa? Otherwise I can hardly believe people would be so interested in that debate. Anyway, that is beside my point... I have actually two to make.
1) I do think this article in question was an effort to be applauded. Was it perfect editorial content? No. It should have included comments from other parties, or at least notes on genuine efforts to contact them. Perhaps the language should have been toned down a bit too. But it was a volunteer effort and included a lot of research, so I wouldn't be too harsh on the guy. I think we need more stuff like this - and not just in some obscure forums, but getting the attention they deserve. Forums are good for additional rebuttals and further commentary to hash it all out. This is a volunteer effort. Lets not criticize the guy like he is doing it for a living, okay? It doesn't have to be perfect to be constructive. I agree with Wayne.
2) And Mike, a lot of what I said above can be said of your articles as well. Perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to criticize them. As I understand them, they are volunteer efforts? But you attacking this piece so openly gives me some pause. Perhaps you do not see this. But what really makes me wonder is you countering research with arguments like:
"Be more specific please. I research my articles as well as I can. Most information I use comes directly from the source, so what are you talking about?"
Exactly. Most of the information on your favourite products come directly from the source. You post a lot of stuff concerning Amiga for instance, that people doing research find suspect. You are implying, at least in this thread, that only official sources are to be trusted - only press releases are to be considered as news. (Of course this is not really how you feel since you are so open to criticize Genesi's official statements, but still.)
And that is exactly why people find your stance so open to criticism, in my opinion. The official sources do not always hand out the facts. They have their reasons to do so, and we can all understand and even sometimes appreciate them. Investigative journalism is another matter. Research can often deliver facts that those official sources would never want revealed. They are still just as factual. They are not opinions. They can even be very much news.
In conclusion: Could Targhan have done a better job? Definitely. Should he? Perhaps. Does it make us look ridiculous? I don't think so. It is far more realistic than some of the optimistic articles from Amiga fans that I've read and my friends have laughed at with comments like "You don't really believe in those Amiga plans, do you?" (and later my friends have been quite correct in their assesment). Is this news? Well. Amiga.org doesn't really have any other way to post article content then as news. It is an article. Not perfect, but well researched nonetheless. A bit biased, sure, but nothing I wouldn't allow from a volunteer, hobbyist effort.
After all, there is this forum associated to it to put all the opinions into perspective. The reader can make up his or her mind.
