My post last Friday with caveats about Microsoft AntiSpyware has drawn the ire of one person who read that post here as well as the one republished by WebProNews.
An email today from Anthony Shields begins:
Your article, which is also found in an email from WebProNews at their site, is horrendous journalism.
That got my attention. He points out that the PCWorld article from which I quoted in my post contains some inaccuracies in its negative writing about the Microsoft product, and continues:
It is this type of self-serving journalism that I despise. You read something somewhere and it must be true – even though you have the means/the program to try it yourself, yet you still spread such untruth – just to jump onto the Anti-Microsoft bandwagon I suppose. That’s horrendous and is against the true spirit of journalism.
Well, this is the first time I’ve been accused of being a journalist, let alone practicing horrendous journalism. On Anthony’s last point: I’m not on anyone’s bandwagon, never mind an anti-Microsoft one (and I’m not on that one, either).
Yes, I am using Microsoft AntiSpyware and I do think it’s rather good, especially the real-time preventative measures it takes as I wrote in my post. Definitely worth trying out, as I mentioned. But not yet good enough to make me use it instead of Ad-Aware or Spybot Search and Destroy, as I concluded in my post. It’s still beta, don’t forget.
In addition to PC World’s criticisms, Moss Waltberg wrote in the Wall Street Journal with similar ones.
When I read such reviews, I form some opinions myself which, taking into account as well what I think about the product from using it, will influence what I write in this blog. I didn’t write a full-blown review, just some short commentary.
Yet these are only two reviews. There are plenty of others out there, some of which voice similar concerns, many of which don’t.
I write a blog not practice journalism. But is there a difference, really? In Anthony Shields’ eyes, I guess there’s not when he reads something in a blog. That is indeed an interesting development.
So is it blogging or horrendous journalism? I think the answer is in the eye of the beholder.
Eyebrow-raising edit 16 Jan: Just glancing through this post, I did a double-take at something I wrote.
Did I really write "Moss Waltberg wrote…" Yes, I did. That should be "Walt Mossberg wrote…" Even though I have Walt’s name back-to-front, the link works correctly.
That was silly! I don’t think I’ve ever done something like that in writing before. Spoken, yes. There’s a name for this when you transpose bits of word pairs: a spoonerism.
jajajaa My goodness Mr Hobson… in that case according to this person Anthony Shields now I am a journalist too… great! there is me, little housewife; started a a blog and there you are, I was just thinking that we call it blogging, but now seems that it is journalism, even if Mr Shields call it horrendous! mmmm interesting!
It’s a blur, MarieA. You’ve raised a good point – is it still relevant to describe anyone who writes a blog as just a blogger? If the blogger (to stick with the current label) reports on something, whatever it is, isn’t that person a reporter?
Does it really matter what label we use? It probably comes down to meaning. I wouldn’t describe myself as a reporter because everyone has a view on what that traditionally means, so I’d be making a misleading statement.
Accepted views will change, though, inevitably.