Nah, still rubbish
Many thanks to, I presume, Chris for arranging a follow up of the previous article but I'm sorry to say this one is still crap. Very opinionated but extremely thin on actual evidence of any of its claims.
If I may say, it is not easy for someone from a different continent who does not speak the language and does not know the local realities to write a piece on what is fundamentally a local story. But what that said, not bothering to interview any of the figures implicated, or researching evidence to refute someone else's claims or back one's own, I find that difficult to explain and well below the standard of journalistic practice that I expect.
For the record, concerning this:
"Following our report, we have received heaps of aggressive and critical comments both on the story and through Twitter. Virtually every one has come from a signatory to the petition and every one that we have looked into works for or owns a company that would directly benefit from the .sk registry contract being taken away from the privately held SK‑NIC and given to a new non-profit organization based on the .cz model."
I have no idea what has gone on through Twatter since I am not a subscriber, but I did write some robust criticism of the previous article in its comments section. I am however absolutely not involved with anything to do with .sk or .cz registries beyond having registered a couple of domains at the latter for someone else some time ago. I am not even a Slovak or a Czech, for that matter. But I happen to speak the latter language and know something about business and politics in both of those countries so I felt compelled to cross check the article, which turned out to be extremely lacking, for which reason I offered my criticism and a few suggestions on how it could be improved. Btw, that those who are directly involved (and therefore have first hand knowledge) would react and offer their own criticism is hardly surprising, all the more when they could have been interviewed beforehand and when in some cases words have been put into their mouths.
While emphasising that I have no axe to grind here (and Chris can easily view my posting history to see how unlikely I am to be a party to this), from the point of view of a consumer of journalism I am very unsatisfied with this follow up which has many of the same faults as the previous one (including lack of basic research and absence of sources).
Kieren, I almost certainly do not know you and in any case I have absolutely nothing against you personally. I do offer my criticism, fwiw, purely in a constructive spirit, hoping that you will be able to produce better researched and more reliable stories in the future. It is not an attack, it is free feedback.
To the reg, thanks for the follow up in any case.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
