View Full Version : Good Journalism
May 2, 2006, 11:07 PM
Link: Good Journalism (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060502230736)
Description:: There was a great story yesterday by “technology writer” Dan Goodin at the Associated Press, and because it was from the AP, we can read it on several sites:
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
May 2, 2006, 11:37 PM
Arrrrrgggh! Not the fact-anista!
Wadda you mean its not a virus?
It feels like a virus, my gut tells me its a virus!
When will journalists learn. News is about the facts, it's History that adds the opinion.
AP - Aggrandised Poppycock
Edit: Nice article btw! ;)
May 3, 2006, 01:03 AM
Wow... this week, nothing happened. But an old story from months ago got repeated--under many DIFFERENT headlines, in many different publications, all saying in different misleading ways that Macs are unsafe.
That HAS to stop some people from buying Macs. A shame. Now a certain type of people will think they've heard both things--Macs are safe, and Macs aren't--so they'll be afraid to risk which one is true. What they'll know is that Apple ads are the ones claiming safety, while LOTS of "experts" are claiming Macs are dangerous like Windows.
Of course, these articles don't tell you that:
* It's the same news from months ago, not some new attack.
* The virus couldn't transmit over the Internet, only over LAN.
* The virus couldn't even do that, unless circumstances were just right and you made an obscure change to the Mac's default config.
* And even then, you had warning.
* And if you ignored the warning, it still did no damage.
* And Apple patched this issue weeks ago.
* And it's not out there anymore. You couldn't "catch" it if you tried.
It's no wonder only two people got the "virus"--and they got it manually by downloading it themselves, NOT by the virus's ability to spread itself across the Internet. Because it HAD no such ability.
Which means it's not what most people think of as a virus, even if it met some technical definition.
But all these headlines scream otherwise, never mentioning the key truths above. How many articles have you seen that admit those details? MacWorld comes to mind--not too many others though.
I'm not one for conspiracies, but you do have to wonder about the timing of such an irresponsible article. Especially when the event in question happened months ago and was already reported to death (equally inaccurately) at the time.
May 3, 2006, 01:44 AM
it really makes you wonder about the media, as mac launches its new ad campaign, with the virus part, people start saying what about that one a while ago? Apple: That we patched? News: But aren't there other holes in the system too? Silly news, maybe THEY Hint, Hint should get a mac.
May 3, 2006, 06:40 AM
A brilliant article - it just goes to show how some journalists drop any element of integrity they have just to produce something sensationalist. The trouble is, people just read this stuff and believe without question.
May 3, 2006, 07:46 AM
Hackers and virus writers are increasingly targeting Apple computers, according to a leading US security research centre.
Apple software "still remains safer than Windows, but its reputation for offering a bullet-proof alternative to Windows is in tatters,"
May 3, 2006, 09:56 AM
how do you trust any security expert that says this
Skoudis suggests this shift might have something to do with Apple's decision to switch to Intel processors. "The bad the guys know the assembly language for the Intel chips," he says.
when was the last time you heard of a virus that exploited a flaw in a computers processor? i'm sure it's possible, but it's got to be rare. and it's not like FreeBSD hasn't been running on x86 hardware for decades now.
and lets say someone does write assembler code (yeah, because that's really, really easy :rolleyes: ) they'd still have to find an exploit in the OS to get it on your machine, and get it to run automatically. even then i'm not sure anything would happen.