Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC slander

[P.L.Hayes]

On Saturday 07 February 2004 16:30, Alex Hudson wrote:

> I don't think they have to be able to prove something like that. The
> article is talking specifically about motivation, and that is very hard
> to argue against. It's the case that SCO were attacked because of their
> lawsuit. Now, of course, you can argue that the attack is a cover for a
> spam run operation, but the original motive (in terms of victim
> selection) still stands.
>
> The only smear that I can find is:
>
>         "So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus
>         and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.
>        
>         "SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred
>         principles, as they would see it.
>        
>         "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories
>         at the top of any investigator's list."
>
> It suggests that it's a reasonable assumption that someone attacked SCO
> directly because of their attack on Linux. The spam stuff is a rather
> effective cover-story. I don't think that's an unreasonable claim, and
> it does state there's "no proof, of course". I can't really find a
> sentence I would call "inaccurate", although I would disagree with
> plenty of them.

The article has been represented by the editor as an 'analysis' not as an 
opinion piece and as such should fairly represent the views of the 
'industry', which has not taken the one-sided view about motivation that 
Evans has. He is a reporter, not a virus/security expert or criminologist. 
That makes statements such as this an inaccuracy and a misrepresentation in 
my book:
 
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, 
lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to 
the Linux operating system." 

Little doubt in whose expert opinion? Who is 'enraged' by SCO's risible 
activities? Annoyed, irritated and saddened yes - but use of the word 
'enraged' paints a picture of 'Linux devotees' donning balaclavas and 
painting their faces black prior to setting out on a mission to destroy SCO 
headquarters.

"This attack, though, is not blackmail.

It is about malice not money."

What evidence is there for this bald statement of 'fact'?

Many of the people who complained and whose complaints I have seen also made 
claims of other inaccuracies in the article but whose validity I have not yet 
checked and may never need to because factual inaccuracy in the article is 
not the major substance of the complaint I've drafted to the PCU (which I 
posted to this list this morning) It's not really about demanding proof of 
particular statements or allegations made in the article but about a breach 
of the BBC's own guidelines on the proper balance, tone and content of 
articles written by their reporters, especially with regard to language and 
the expression of personal opinion.

The smears are not to be found in individual sentences or paragraphs but in 
the inferences and associations that the reader is clearly invited to make by 
the general tone and structure of the article. Everyone knows that the 
expression "There's no proof, of course"  is intended to mean and likely to 
be read as meaning "It is a self evident truth that..."  Evans knows this and 
is using such devices to impress his readership with the 'facts' of his 
opinion. The substance of my complaint is better represented by the draft 
letter I've made and I would welcome your comments about that Alex.

Cheers,
 
Paul.