Good to see you vindicated Tuxchick
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Oct 09, 2011 3:55 AM EDT |
Second paragraph, second sentence. Spot on Tuxchick. The article pretty much summarises the threads we already had on the drone Windows virus......I've already fulminated over "similar articles" in Australia which insist on calling these things "computer viruses" when in fact they are "Windows viruses", specific for the Windows OS......It says much for the average intelligence of the IT reporters - or possibly even oblique pressure on IT editors ? |
| tuxchick Oct 09, 2011 1:00 PM EDT |
Ridcully, this has been going on for years. I'd say it's both-- dull IT reporters and pressure. I took the NY Times to task for this a couple years in "53 Pages, 10 Months, 1295 Infected Hosts, 103 Countries, And They Still Can't Say "Windows Malware" http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/03/53-pages-10-mon.html Quoting: Wow, this has to be good. Two pages in the New York Times, and the report itself is 53 pages. But don't get your hopes up. In all of those 53 pages, which go into detail on packet sniffing, HTTP methods, malicious binaries, honeypots, ghOst RAT, and cool maps of the Ghost Net, not once is any operating system or vulnerable application named. I emailed the NY Times asking why, and got this reply: Quoting: This wasn't a computer security story so much as an espionage story. It's not about you, or about Linux. Its about a systematic espionage effort against Governments. So whatever the cause, there is definitely a twisted, anti-truth mentality behind how Windows exploits are reported. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 09, 2011 4:14 PM EDT |
Whoosh! (That was the sound of a major and essential point, going right past them -- rather like a baseball player ducking the ball, instead of trying to catch it.) |
| zenarcher Oct 09, 2011 6:54 PM EDT |
Amazing, tuxchick. So it wasn't a computer security story, but rather an "espionage" story. Even though the NYT mentioned "computer virus." Apparently, there is something in their logic which makes it a "computer virus" when we're talking about "espionage," rather than a "Windows operating system virus." As a retired news journalist/editor, I would have appreciated someone providing me a more accurate detail. |
| gus3 Oct 10, 2011 12:38 AM EDT |
The NYT takes particular umbrage at being shown to be ignorant and/or careless. |
| theBeez Oct 10, 2011 3:08 AM EDT |
@Tuxchick Wow, you even GOT an answer. But it's not surprising. Microsoft have manipulated the corporate media for as long as I can remember - I've blogged a whole lot about it in my early days. MS was recently caught red handed again, so it's hardly called "news" these days. Just business as usual. |
| hkwint Oct 10, 2011 2:22 PM EDT |
Both have common interests. WP features a 2006 photo of Ochs [he] Gates[/he] probably due to this announcement: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-28tim... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!