Maureen O'Gara No Longer Welcome at LinuxWorld 727
flood6 writes "On the heels of yesterday's article about unrest at LinuxWorld, editor James Turner is reporting in his blog that Sys-Con Media has decided to purge Maureen O'Gara from the print and online publications." From the post: "Sys-con Media listened to what I and my fellow editors, their advertisers and the readership was saying, and made the correct decision. Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications. We have received this commitment in writing from Fuat Kircaali, the publisher." PJ at Groklaw also has commentary on this development.
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
She was basically fired.
Get it straight.
On whores (Score:4, Insightful)
What is reprehensible and really hard to stomach is that she stooped to such lows as attacking Ms. Jones privacy.
Reminds me of the methods of a science fiction space opera nut cult.
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Where will she go? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a question of if she'll show up again, but when. There's too much at stake for the other side to allow such a willing tool to go unused.
My bet that she starts her own blog. That way she can have a platform to expound on her quirky worldview, without these pesky editor types watching over her shoulder.
Or she may choose a new pseudo'nym and start writing about life in White Plains, Westchester [yahoo.com], and anyplace north of the East River and east of Long Island Sound. She seems really fascinated by that area. O'bsessed, you might say.
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is telling her she cannot publish. No one is shutting down her site. Sys-con is declining to purchase her column because of gross unprofessionalism. Firing someone for failing to perform the duties and responsibilities of their job is hardly censorship.
It's common among geeks to assume laws and principles are some sort of rigid inflexible code. if publisher.cuts_off($writer) $action="CENSORSHIP";
And doesn't it put the lie to your bait about us "screaming censorship at every turn" when "we" indeed do fail to live up to this charicature?
Re:Censorship!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maureen O'Gara posts a story, which includes:
1. PJ's address
2. PJ's phone number
3. Some comments about PJ's car and the contents
4. Some snide comments about PJ's religious affiliation
5. Some snide comments about the interior of PJ's place
6. The address of PJ's mother
7. Pictures of PJ's front door
8. Pictures of PJ's car
Get a clue.
Re:Censorship!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
She's not gone for good. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you're overstating things. She'll still be around, shilling at linuxgram [linuxgram.com], and I'm sure we'll see her at SCOForum 2005 if there is one, holding what I can only presume will be an absolutely worthless keynote speech. And just when you thought nothing could top The Endrool...
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but scum have a way of rising back to the top of the pond. Keep an eye on her career. Wouldn't surprise me to see her show up in Washington as a lobbyist.
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:0, Insightful)
Makes the not-exactly-christian part seem silly doesn't it.
And I would say criticizing someones beliefs when you don't know anything about them is the height of stupidity for Darl, Maureen, SCO, or you.
Interestingly enough, I've never seen PJ make any negative comments about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or any other religion for that matter.
Ok, what was she thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did someone pay MOG enough to compensate for losing what little credibility she had left? I don't believe that - not because this would be "too evil" but because it would be plain stupid.
Phew. I'm seriously baffled.
Re:Here's the commentary from Groklaw's webmaster (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Can you say BIG BROTHER (Score:4, Insightful)
MoG can publish her opinions as much as she wants. In any venue that she can.
She has done so. Now comes the consequences of her speech.
People are free to vote with their dollars. Vast numbers of people are free to let advertisers that they don't approve of advertising on a site that features such a hateful personal attack which is completely irrelevant to the SCO vs. The World cases. Publications, upon hearing the reaction of advertisers, are free to can MoG.
There is no censorship here. MoG is free to publish elsewhere, such as on the G2 properties which she has complete control over. Anyone wishing to support her with advertising or subscriptions is completely free to do so.
Are you saying that I must be happy and shut up about what MoG writes? Are you censoring me saying that I am not free to express my disgust to the advertisers? Who is the censor now?
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if she shook hands with the brother of the boss of a programmer who went to school with a guy who later worked for a boss who once owned an IBM PC for a few years before replacing it with a Compaq?
I'd say she'd be discredited if she was actually paid by IBM, but just living in the same city? Give me a fucking break.
Re:So who is she (Score:5, Insightful)
Groklaw allows anyone who's willing to take the time (and it takes a lot of time), to understand just how (un-)likely it is that SCO will win some or all of its major lawsuits.
This is why no one really cares who she is.
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be so cynical (Score:4, Insightful)
One way that trade magazines stay afloat is that they offer advertisers the value proposition of having a carefully targeted readership. If you're selling consulting services around MySQL and you advertise in LinuxWorld, you can safely assume that you're reaching an audience with a much higher likelihood of being receptive to your message than if you were advertising in the Daily Mirror. That's not just an assumption advertisers make -- it's a fact that's aggressively promoted by the sales force of any trade magazine.
If your magazine is losing readers, however, or even perceived as losing readers, rest assured that the advertisers will realize it even before your CEO does. This kind of bad publicity isn't worth it for any magazine, even if some evil corporate brain behind LinuxWorld had a secret agenda to destroy Linux. You can't push a secret agenda if you go out of business, and it sounds like the salespeople at Sys-Con wisely saw that this was the way this was heading if the bad press lasted much longer or got much more inflated.
Re:LinuxWorld == George Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this over reaction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my $0.02
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is PJ's identity or religious affiliation relevant in any way? Groklaw is a resource for all the legal activity. Do you have some complaint against the factualness of what's being reported on Groklaw, or do you think a stalker's guide and ad hominen attack is the same as evidence? Groklaw isn't about PJ. It doesn't matter who PJ is. What matters is that SCO has been exposed by many people as having no real basis in fact for their claims. PJ has created a site that has successfully put the information out there, but the information is public record.
So do you have a complaint about information posted on Groklaw, or do you think that learning where PJ lives or how she lives is the same as a legally supportable argument?
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
All i hoped for was to bring it to the light of the advertisers if anything
Everyone who did anything to help should be proud they took a stand
It was most likely a combination of things , The editors threatening a walk out , outrageous bad press on slashdot and other sites, the fact the articals were pretty much actionable and so on.
It may be a bit cheesy but there is still alot of truth the "Every vote counts " meme . If more people belived in it then it is one of those things that does grow in strentgh when you belive as you yourself get off your chair and do something about it
I totaly agree with you it was most likely the Horrible PR and the advertisers noticing , but i disagree with your sentiment that people shouldnt congratualte themselves for aiding things here
Perhaps im just a soppy left wing liberal with a bit too strong a belife in the power of the people . Who knows though
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
A dissenting viewpoint is one thing, a misinformed, spiteful, dissenting viewpoint is another thing altogether. Maureen was the worst sort of "hack" reporter, and even her good pieces were filled with holes big enough to drive a Mac truck through. Basically Maureen got all of her information from the same lying scoundrels at SCO that halucinated about imaginary MIT rocket scientists, and mountains of infringing code, and she continued to spout their drivel long after all of the other pro-SCO reports like DiDio and Enderle decided that it would be better to go hide under a rock.
Then MOG topped off her reporting career with an expose that dripped hate, published private information about an individual, and ridiculed a major organized religion. That piece had no business being published in any professional publication. Heck, even the Weekly World News doesn't pull those sorts of tricks.
A dissenting opinion is one thing, but publishing that sort of junk makes the entire publication look bad. It wasn't a dissenting opinion, it was a jealous rant from a so-called reporter that was tired of having PJ rub the truth in her face. If it had been posted here on Slashdot it would probably have been modded down to -5 Troll, and that's saying something. Sys-Con's stock in trade is its credibility, and after publishing that piece their credibility dropped through the floor.
No advertiser wants to be a part of that sort of journalism, and that's especially true seeing as how most of Sys-Con's advertisers are very Free Software friendly. The advertisements I saw around the story were for companies like Monarch Computers (a Linux VAR), Arkeia, and EV1 (they are probably very tired of SCO at this point). An intelligent, and trustworthy, dissenting opinion is one thing, but MOG was neither intelligent nor trustworthy.
Uh...yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't be so cynical (Score:3, Insightful)
Start looking at ownership of media and what "journalists" write negatively about. What do you find? Objective, critical and informative journalism? Hardly.
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maureen O'Gara's bylined material will no longer appear anywhere in the Sys-con universe of sites or publications.
That's a pretty damn narrow promise. It says they will never put her name on another article again. Why not just say they will never publish an article by her again? Because they want to continue publishing her under other names, and allow her to stay on as an editor.
I have to admit, I came into this knowing nothing, and still know nothing... but come on, that line alone is sophistry at its most transparent. Plenty of words, promising nothing of substance.
Pffffft (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh, give me a break...I didn't see a IANAL disclaimer, so I sure hope you actually know what you're talking about.
MoG simply wrote an investigative piece on a noteworthy individual. That is still allowed in this country, right?
A shadowy, pseudo-anonymous figure runs a web site that draws huge numbers of fanatics for a "righteous" cause, and as part of the coverage calls out individuals (execs, analysts, and journalists) who disagree with their position so that they can be attacked in writing at every opportunity to post comments to public forums, letters to the editor etc. Being one of those targets, MoG decided to find out a little more about who was behind the attacks. As the saying goes, never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people at the other addresses?
What the freak is wrong with people.
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if you can't attack your opponent's position, you attack him or her directly. It happens all the time in the political arena (if you vote for my opponent, you will be voting for a convicted puppy-kicker), as well as the legal arena (character witnesses and credibility attacks, anyone?), and often in the journalistic world (hell, that's basically what journalism is these days), so it was just a matter of time before the mud was slung over the technical fence.
What's really fantastic is, in the O'Gara "article" under discussion, the only way she backs up her implication that PJ is an IBM lackey is by pointing out that she lives in "IBM Territory". So, I'm sure, do hundreds of thousands of others. Is everyone in this area an IBM stooge, O'Gara? Then, MOG goes on to attack the woman's religion, for crying out loud! So she holds a religious belief you yourself don't subscribe to. Big deal. You know, SCO is located in Utah, and they have lots of Mormons there, maybe Darl & Co. are a bunch of Latter Day Saints stooges and kooks.
Everyone, open your eyes! It's so obvious that the Mormon Church, Brigham Young University and the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee are behind the SCO actions!
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let appearances fool you, the patterns have mutated.
who is PJ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The term "born yesterday" come to mind on this commnent.
What diff does it make? IF she was the head of IBM PR the documents and references would still be the same.
groklaw.ibm.com (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Original O'Gara Story (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose somebody could make a redacted version with that stuff removed, but there wouldn't be anything left. The article is just a recitation of this personal info and an attempt to insinuate vague negative things about PJ as if they were supported by the personal info, which they aren't.
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore I ask: are you aware of any factual inaccuracies on Groklaw? If so, did you make PJ aware of them? If so, did she amend or retract the article, if not did she give any justifcation.
And what, precisely was the disputed data?
PJ has co-orindated the collection of a body of high quality data. If you have evidence that contradicts that on groklaw, then I expect PJ will be glad to set the record straight. If you have better arguments, state them! She will probably print those too.
But if your best argument involves the lady's religion, her alleged employer, her work experience then you have nothing to say at all.
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my way of saying, We don't have to be quite so cynical anymore. The world really is improving.
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:1, Insightful)
The article O'Gara wrote contained pictures of allegedly her and her moms house, adress and personal details. None of wich have anything to do with the sco-ibm story. She belittles the jehova witness religion and insinuated that PJ was 61 so couldnt be a serious reporter.
If you find anything in her piece that wasn't loathing I think you should check your own ethics.
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is that simple. Obviously O'Gara works on the edges of the computer world trying to get scoops(The word vulture seems strangely appropiate).
She has obviosly thought that by ingratiating herself with SCO she will have a front seat in the fight. It is no coincidence that on the last phone conference SCO announced they had private eyes looking into PJ. A few weeks later MOG gets here scoop. However I doubt she was ever directly paid(although the distinction is marginal)
However she has made two cardinal journalistic mistakes. By getting so close to SCO, she has lost all objectivity to a point that her articles cannot be trusted and also she has allowed it to become personal with PJ.
No good journalist would ever allow those things to happen. In doing so she has lost any respect that others may of had of her. Basically she is now an non-entity.
Re:So who is she (Score:2, Insightful)
WRONG!!!
Please tell me how being old or a grandmother disqualifies someone from being relevant to Open Source? I've written documentation for 3 different Open Source projects. Yet, if you investigated me, this is what you'd find:
A 33 year old father of two who tends to be introverted, spiritually eclectic, drinks, smokes(tobacco), and has a history of post traumatic stress disorder. I'm a human being, with frailties and shortcomings just like you, PJ, or anyone else. None of that changes the fact that I have made myself relevant, in my own small way, to Open Source Software. PJ has made herself relevant in a very large way, my contributions are paltry and pale in comparison to hers.
You could also look at it another way, what do SCO's lawyers have to do with Open Source? They're lawyers, not coders, yet, they have a relevance, even if we don't like it.
Further, and I'll bet this strikes closer to home for you. What does being a male who masturbates to pornography have to do with Open Source? I gurantee you that the majority of males involved in open source have masturbated to pornography and yet they are still relevant to Open Source.
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
"believe in [noun] existing" : "I believe in the moon landing."
"believe in the trustworthiness of [noun]" : "I believe in my spouse"
"believe in the competence of [noun]" : "believe in yourself! You can do it!"
One of the most frustrating things about speaking with many people is that they will engage in the false equivocation fallacy of switching between those totally unrelated things and keep using the same phrase for all of them, thereby propping up all sorts of fallacies about nonbelievers.
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, and she'd be the first to agree I'm sure.
On another note, who she is is particularly interesting to me. It demonstrates that people who seem to fit a certain stereotype on the surface, can go much deeper and shatter those stereotypes at the core of their being.
I also think it's worth noting what a humble woman like PJ can accomplish that the money at SCO can't. What a blow to the big ego's who think they are something because they have money and attorneys and yet here is this woman they judge by outward appearances, thwarting their BS public perception campaign. LOL.
That article did not really say who she is. That article only addressed who she appears to be. If you want a glimpse of who she is, one need only go read her writing, see what she has built and accomplished. The surface details are meaningless. Groklaw is a testament to who she is and what kind of person she is.
In a way, her outward appearance makes her that much more dangerous a foe to people. My Aikido teacher is in his 50's, he's this short Japanese man who does accounting part time. He looks small and not much of a threat. I'll bet he weighs 150lbs. Yet, my 200lbs, my strength(can bench 250), and my youth are all vanity. I couldn't kick his arse if I wanted to. Many times he has done things that have blown me away, nearly magical. For one, he had me and several other students come at him, just to try to restrain him. With atounding control, discipline, and gentleness, he deflected the 3 of us(all of us physically bigger than him). I honestly could not get to him. I ended up face down on the mat before I even knew what was going on. I pity anyone who judges him by how he appears and attempts to push him around. They will leave that encounter bewildered, in pain, and humbled.
The rich powerpunks at SCO are just too stupid to recognize that they don't have what it takes to stand against someone like PJ. They don't understand or recognize the nature of her strength because they don't value inner strength or truth, but they think appearances are all that matter. They are wrong and everyone who thinks that way will lose when they go against someone whose strength is being true to who they are, as opposed to masquerading as something they aren't.
That's a bit bizzar (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mormon church is one of the world's largest genealogical information repositories; and a majority of that information sits inside an IBM S390 running a thousand instances of Linux. Personaly I think its more likely that McBride would be excommunicated from the church rather than acting in it's behalf.
Re:Since it sounds like you understand this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no complaint about her discussion of the religion, as that provides context about an interesting subject. Publishing her mother's address is not ethical, and is borderline criminal.
--
Evan
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is the Maureen O'Gara in question has an unlisted home phone and isn't even on your list. People do get assasinated, and sometimes it's mistaken identity.
Bad form.
Re:But we already knew who PJ is (Score:1, Insightful)
The only effect of the post is to show what it's like to have your personal information published on the web.
So basically what you all are saying.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Whether you like what she says or not is irrelevant. You do say that O'Gara is an opinion based writer, and whether you agree with the opinion or not has no bearing on it. Whether its true or whether its false, or whether truth beats out opinion is not important.
Part of the whole freedom of speech thing means you have to be responsible enough to handle it.
And guess what maybe YOU will be censorred one day, and when that happens I will laugh!
Re:Mod Parent Flamebait Please (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So who is she (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
No he's not. He's just pointing out irony.
Painting a Jehovah's Witness as wacko (because it's non-mainstream) is ironic, coming from an organization based in Utah, home of the non-mainstream Church of Latter-Day Saints.
It's weak irony, but it is irony. Pot, kettle, black and all that.
The grandparent is not claiming that Mormons are wacko, nor Jehovah's Witnesses. Just claiming that they're both non-mainstream Christian religions, which is true, and one calling the other "wacko" because it's non-mainstream is ironic.
It's weakly ironic because it's a stretch to associate MOG/SCO with Mormons.