PDA

View Full Version : INQ hits bottom, signs NDA



rich wargo
19th August 2009, 11:26 AM
Just visited what I once considered the premier site for IT news, opinions, facts, and rumors....

There's a story posted by some guy (Rob Kerr) about Play.com supposedly violating Microsoft's NDA on the new HD webcam. In the story, Mr. Kerr admits that the INQ knew about the webcam, but had signed an NDA....

How far they have fallen! To actually sign an NDA, then admit to it!

Mad Mike must be laffin' his 'ead off. Or crying.

So what's the deal, Charlie? Do YOU sign NDAs? Oh, wait, of course you do. That's why you can't reveal anything ahead of time. Ah, what ever happened to good old leg work....:(

rich wargo
19th August 2009, 11:27 AM
And all of the reader comments so far on the INQ story is about their disgust about the INQ signing a NDA.

imported_charlie
19th August 2009, 12:18 PM
Mike must be turning over in his grave. He may not be dead yet, but still. :) Sad how the mighty have fallen, the new management just doesn't understand the industry they are in. They are making the dumbest n00b mistakes you can think of.

-Charlie

Copper
19th August 2009, 12:24 PM
No, this is not Charlie's alter-ego/personality responding. This is from the business end of things. NDAs aren't things that we encourage our writers to sign. In fact, they are things we DISCOURAGE our writers to sign.

That said, respect for sources is what keeps sources. Protecting sources over the long-haul is what gets stories. A few of the Mageek progeny (including Charlie) were trained the old fashioned way and stick with it because it works best. And for some either they didn't get enough time watching/working with the Mageek or came along after he left and didn't get that message.

It is a rarity these days but it's called playing the long game.

rich wargo
20th August 2009, 09:44 AM
Absolutely, Copper. Play the long game.
And Mike, in my not-so-humble opinion, had the correct approach. Don't depend on corporate PR, develop your own sources, which you protect. You'll more often than not get the true story. Old-fashioned, gum-shoe journalism.

That's why I follow Charlie. He does the work. He digs deep. He protects his sources, so they'll keep answering his calls. And he checks/verifies whenever he can. I respect a person who works hard at his craft. It shows.

He's an old-style journalist, not a drippy-nosed, rumour-passing punk who can't even spell and use proper grammar. I read my daily paper and cringe at most of the stories. Such laziness.

Reynod
22nd August 2009, 08:32 PM
I thought Mike's main approach he espoused was to take one of the bunny suit guys to the pub and get the "good oil" direct from the source while pouring vast amounts of "truth serum" down his throat ...

Much easier than talking to the marketing people who down actually know anything technical and are trained to tell lies.

Isn' that right Charlie ??

alvter
25th August 2009, 01:42 PM
NDAs are bad. They prevent one to act comfortable under their own skin. And if you have an NDA and you are a journalist, then you are really in trouble because now you can't talk about the product/issue until the date is over.

I'm not sure if Charlie signs NDAs or not... All arrows point to "He does NOT." However he from what I've read, he respects his sources and keeps his word when he speaks to them... For example "I won't sign an NDA, however your secret is safe with me until you give me the verbal 'go ahead'."

In other words, Trust is important in what he does.

Copper
25th August 2009, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure if Charlie signs NDAs or not... . He doesn't sign NDAs. He doesn't sign much of anything come to think of it. Respecting sources is another matter altogether. You get a lot farther in this game when you respect your sources, their need for job security, etc. etc.

S|A does not allow our freelancers to sign NDAs on our behalf. They can sign them, but not on our behalf. We don't, as they are freelancers, have any more control than that. We discourage the practice of signing NDAs in general but in specific, that is as far as we can go unless they are an actual employee, which would be only Charlie in this case.

imported_charlie
31st August 2009, 08:50 AM
NDAs are stupid. They are widely said to prevent information from leaking, but they don't. Their only purpose is to punish the person leaking the information after it is leaked, not to prevent the leak itself.

I don't and will not sign any NDAs, ever. Writers who write for us are not allowed to sign NDAs for the site either.

Basically, if you don't trust someone, you should not tell them. If you do trust them, why bother with an NDA? If they leak, you cut them out next time .The end.

-Charlie


NDAs are bad. They prevent one to act comfortable under their own skin. And if you have an NDA and you are a journalist, then you are really in trouble because now you can't talk about the product/issue until the date is over.

I'm not sure if Charlie signs NDAs or not... All arrows point to "He does NOT." However he from what I've read, he respects his sources and keeps his word when he speaks to them... For example "I won't sign an NDA, however your secret is safe with me until you give me the verbal 'go ahead'."

In other words, Trust is important in what he does.

265586888
31st August 2009, 10:26 AM
Well, the "our company reserves all rights to call to account for the leak." line doesn't work for most of the leakers. :p

imported_charlie
31st August 2009, 12:07 PM
Well, the "our company reserves all rights to call to account for the leak." line doesn't work for most of the leakers. :p

Yeah. When you publish something that a company doesn't like, they have the right to not talk to you again. That is far worse than anything else they can do to you.

If a company has no hold over you, they have no ability to control you. That is the problem with Nvidia and me, they are pricks who try and control what journalists say and do. They are somewhat effective at this.

They tried it with me, and I said I didn't want to play that game. The response from them was "Our way or the highway", so I took the highway and made my own sources. Now I have them, and Nvidia officially has nothing I want, but they still want me to play their game.

Handcuffs without kisses first are not that much fun. Heck, I will go as far as to say handcuffs are not much fun, but your tastes may vary. I don't play that game though.

-Charlie

shoupness
1st September 2009, 10:31 AM
I am sorry to say this but the INQ is just trash now days. They used to be a good site, however with all the good writers gone they blow goats.

WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux