I'm not arguing for "journalistic standards". I'm arguing for integrity.
Just answer a simple question:
Would you say that "Pirate Party Eject From Festival..." would be an accurate headline for a story about a Pirate Party that actually wasn't ejected from the festival?
"It's a blog, he doesn't owe you anything" is a stupid argument, and i think even Mike himself will agree. Techdirt isn't your average Shakira fan blog, it is a well respected publication (well, at least in certain circles) and they stand behind quite a few political and activist efforts, and had respected people post here many times. It earned its reputation by providing news and opinions that can be trusted and are based on actual facts. To do otherwise would be to alienate its fanbase. You're not doing any justice to Techdirt by acting like a fanboy.
The point is that the headline of this story is sensationalist and misleading and does not represent what has actually happened. If you can't accept valid criticism - what are you doing on this site?
True. But i still hope that Mike either redacts the article (and the headline), or posts a correction. We all make mistakes, and i sincerely hope it was an accident. Some of the comments state that the original article doesn't make it clear that pirates weren't actually kicked out - this may very well be what happened.
The point wasn't to highlight that they called the police. The point was to highlight that in the end, they were allowed to continue to give away waffles. They were not kicked out.
That goes a bit contrary to the points Mike was making about blogs being credible news sources.
It is valid to point out. This is why i was a bit surprised. Normally Mike doesn't miss stuff like that.
Would this story make less of a point if Mike just said "well, in the end they had to call the police and they were allowed to stay there and give away the waffles"? No. But instead, Mike chose to tell us that pirates got kicked out for giving away waffles rather than pirates that were *almost* kicked out for giving away waffles, but in the end were allowed to give away the waffles after police got involved.
Of course techdirt is biased. We all are. The question is of integrity, that is to reveal all the facts, even if they don't align with the party line. This article utterly fails in this respect.
On another hand, in some twisted manner, it could apply to piracy as well.
The waffle recipe is well known for centuries. It's public domain. Someone chose to make use of it, and sell the result (Disney, i'm looking at you...). Someone chose to make use of it, and give it away. Why should this not be allowed?
Can you explain why you have left out the part where the pirates called the police and they then allowed the Young Pirates to stay there and give away waffles?
Also, this smells more like touching anti-damping and unfair competition laws to me, than piracy. Remember recent episode in France concerning Google Maps?
It's not even remotely SOPA, but damn, the way some politicians talk about it... it sure as hell reminds me of something... Almost a direct quote from one of the politicians:
"Wikipedia should not worry, because this legislation will only target websites that are deemed malicious. There is nothing to fear, unless Wikipedia is acting on behalf of drug lords' and paedophiles' lobby"
No kidding, word for word.
Come on Mike, you know the drill - it will only work for Louis CK.
erm, you mean, like, Google Desktop Search that's been around for a decade and that worked the exact same way?
I like how people who hold a rigid set of beliefs don't allow comments on their videos.
It is simple, really. Software guys have been doing this for ages - you have developers who develop software, and you've got a QA/validation/testing teams that poke holes in software and try to break it in every way possible.
This is what we need for legislation: a team of politicians drafting laws, and a team of scumbag lawyers trying to come up with various ways to break these laws. The number of exploitable holes in our legislation will be greatly reduced even before these laws are put into production.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does indeed go aside the point of the article, which is indeed about how businesses react to disruption, in a nutshell. However, while shoe sizes are completely irrelevant to the story, the fact that the pirates weren't ejected goes directly against the headline.
Now tell me, how many times did Mike write about public officials saying something that is only partially true, inaccurate or misleading? How many times Mike has posted "facts" about ACTA/TPP/PIPA/SOPA/whatever that weren't actually true?
The article headline clearly says - Pirate Party ejected from festival. Were they? No. This is a clear exaggeration of what actually happened, and can and will be seen as bias. Such an omission is shameful. And mind you, I am not biased against Mike. I am a long time Techdirt reader. I recommend this blog to all my friends.