Scoop’s Views

JohnDowdell writes for Adobe, sort of. He has a blog, “JD on EP” that he tags as “a news service for people using [cool technology]. Not quite daily — focus is on news you can use. I’m employed by Abobe.com Systems but views are my own.”

His “news service” is reporting that Ryan Block of Engadget acknowledged a mea culpa about yesterday’s Apple hoax, saying that because Block used a confidential source, or, as JohnDowdell called it, “the source code to his journalism,” the reporting itself isn’t solid.

In this case, it seems Block didn’t go far enough in validating the information he received. Even when you do go out of your way, checking every last fact, you sometimes get things wrong. That’s only human. No one is perfect, and nothing in life is perfect.

I have no idea what John Dowdell’s background is, nor what kind of writing experience he has. Perhaps it’s just having an opinion and an anus — two things everyone has. I have no idea what this guy is thinking, or what is on his mind. I have no idea his experience or lack thereof, as when I went to the main page and the “about me” page on his blog, they kept timing out when I did try to learn more about him.

Dowdell wrote that Block didn’t “release the source code to his journalism,” saying that because “he doesn’t cite his sources, doesn’t show the chain-of-custody on the data he was releasing, and we readers can’t check and recomplile the story itself.”

That’s hilarious coming from someone working for one of the top seemingly-monopolistic-type companies aside from Microsoft. The company buys up product-after-product, pulling more and more under its corporate name, keeping the source code protected from all. When’s the last time you saw Macromedia (Dowdell’s seemingly former employer, given his blog URL) release the source code for all of its products? When was the last time you were able to freely download all of Adobe’s source code for its products, his new employer?

Now, if Dowdell had as much of a commitment to open source code as he is saying journalists should have, saying journlists should release “the source code (for their) journalism,” he would never have given a thought to working for Adobe, or, in the past, for Macromedia. Instead, he would be writing new applications for *nix, working for companies that embed “call home” software that cannot be turned off it you want products to function properly.

Dowdell continues, writing:

The problem is that he doesn’t release the source code to his journalism — he doesn’t cite his sources, doesn’t show the chain-of-custody on the data he was releasing, and we readers can’t check and recompile the story itself. All we have is whatever trust we already have in the Engadget brand. He’s asking for our Belief … it’s not the Scientific Method. You can test a piece of code by whether it works or not, but data … we need the source data to evaluate what we’re reading. Anonymity works some places, but not here.

I have no idea what the hell any of that mish-mash means, other than he is blowing his own opinions on an Abobe.com (still using the macromedia.com domain) servers. Past that, since all “views are [his] own,” that means it can’t be much of a “news service,” especially how he is slicing and dicing definitions.

Yesterday, JohnDowdell wrote in his blog that Ryan Block, of Engadget, posted an article about the Apple iPhone being delayed. Almost 32 hours later, Engadget posted a new article, a correction, & called & “Regarding yesterday’s Apple news.”

Now, JD on EP, the journalist of journalists, I suppose, writes that Block is practicing something he calls “proprietary journalism.” That title for his blog entry is actually what caught my eye. Had it not been for that, I never would have read the 107-word posting.

His argument goes right out the window with me. I spent too many years in newspapers, writing and editing, but also using and relying on confidential sources. When possible, I always used named sources in articles. For the news media, though, there will always be anonymous sources, whether or not they are credited, as there are always people who fear things, such as their jobs, their lives, possible jail time, economic sanctions, other issues, and, in some instances, all of those.

Reporters don’t always use named sources for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the information in an article is sensitive, and, if disclosed by the “wrong” person, would lead to someone being fired. Sometimes it is about wrongdoing in the upper echelon — the senior ranks — of the company or the governmnet. Sometimes it is about financial mismanagement or other illegal actions.

In my experience, when reporters cite confidential sources in a story, it is often because people would not confirm certain facts about the story if their names were printed. Sometimes the people involved in the illegal activities — or who are unwilling participants in illegal activities — act as confidential sources. Look at those “rats” who cut deals with the cops and “snitch” out someone else.

John Dowdell really needs to learn a little more about things before comparing apples and peas.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!