Comments on: Adobe Refutes Reuters’ Flawed Flash Story http://newteevee.com/2008/09/29/adobe-refutes-flash-flaw-story/ NewTeeVee Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:57:43 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John Dowdell http://newteevee.com/2008/09/29/adobe-refutes-flash-flaw-story/#comment-246168 John Dowdell Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=9231#comment-246168 <p>Hi Liz, thanks for your title... I think "refutes" is more accurate than the "deny" from paidcontent.org which got recopied into the Washington Post.</p> <p>It's hard to say something can "never" be cracked, but when I read that Reuters article I wondered just what, if anything, was new from the previous year's worth of client-authentication stories. Kevin's post said that the Flash Media Server team investigated and found there was nothing new, save for the effective PR placement.</p> <p>But meanwhile lots of reporters have earned lots of ad revenue with headlines about "Flash Holes!". Assuming Appian/Reuters has no further info which just didn't make it into their story, I think that reporters who earned revenue by retyping a Reuters piece, with no meaningful original content, should donate those revenues to charity. Flash's reputation takes hits from bad reporting, and that's not recoverable, but if people profited from negligent speech, then it'd be better if they made compensation somehow.</p> <p>Donate ad revenue from bad reporting to charity. Seem reasonable to you...?</p> <p>tx, jd/adobe</p> Hi Liz, thanks for your title… I think “refutes” is more accurate than the “deny” from paidcontent.org which got recopied into the Washington Post.

It’s hard to say something can “never” be cracked, but when I read that Reuters article I wondered just what, if anything, was new from the previous year’s worth of client-authentication stories. Kevin’s post said that the Flash Media Server team investigated and found there was nothing new, save for the effective PR placement.

But meanwhile lots of reporters have earned lots of ad revenue with headlines about “Flash Holes!”. Assuming Appian/Reuters has no further info which just didn’t make it into their story, I think that reporters who earned revenue by retyping a Reuters piece, with no meaningful original content, should donate those revenues to charity. Flash’s reputation takes hits from bad reporting, and that’s not recoverable, but if people profited from negligent speech, then it’d be better if they made compensation somehow.

Donate ad revenue from bad reporting to charity. Seem reasonable to you…?

tx, jd/adobe

]]>