Is Dvorak a Professional Troll?
46 comments
His status as a troll was cemented with his infamous anti-CSS tirade:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1987181,00.asp
My favourite quote: "The first problem is the idea of "cascading." It means what it says: falling—as in falling apart. You set a parameter for a style element, and that setting falls to the next element unless you provide it with a different element definition. This sounds like a great idea until you try to deconstruct the sheet. You need a road map. One element cascades from here, another from there. One wrong change and all hell breaks loose. If your Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your screen."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1987181,00.asp
My favourite quote: "The first problem is the idea of "cascading." It means what it says: falling—as in falling apart. You set a parameter for a style element, and that setting falls to the next element unless you provide it with a different element definition. This sounds like a great idea until you try to deconstruct the sheet. You need a road map. One element cascades from here, another from there. One wrong change and all hell breaks loose. If your Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your screen."
I almost instinctively downmodded you for how stupid that remark was before remembering it was Dvorak saying that and not you.
There actually are Web sites that mock this mess by showing the simplest CSS code and the differing results from the three main browsers and the Safari and Linux browsers.
He forgot Google
He forgot Google
Can't the same thing be said about people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? They twist and turn facts, drum up controversy and spread hate/fear.
Oh, definitely. But they might not be trolling on purpose; there is the off chance that they actually believe the stuff they're saying.
Rush definitely trolls on purpose--he was even offensive analyzing football. He has just mastered the art of trolling in a way that makes people want to listen.
Possible. But people like Hannity purposefully edit videos (President Obama's speeches, for example), twist the facts - that seems trollish to me. But I guess, they get paid to do that. Sad thing is, they are good at it (judging by the audience of Fox network)
Fox could be more accurate than much of the rest of the media (their manipulations are presumably equally as deliberate and they'll deny their bias despite the fact the vast majority openly support Democrats - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scalliwag/200908/why-mos...) and I suspect that better explains their audience (but also the decline of the mainstream media as a whole). There's a reason more people read the WSJ than the NYT though most people don't realize it.
The irony is that Fox News was scored by UCLA study as being left of center: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Find...
disclosure: I don't watch Fox, I read the WSJ and the NYT though I find CNN particularly infuriating and I'm quite far from being a Republican.
The irony is that Fox News was scored by UCLA study as being left of center: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Find...
disclosure: I don't watch Fox, I read the WSJ and the NYT though I find CNN particularly infuriating and I'm quite far from being a Republican.
Post is -2. This is one of those times when a disagreement should be followed by a reason. He cited his reasons, what are yours? Is Psychology Today full of propaganda? Is UCLA a right leaning university? Why do you disagree?
Nope, not even possible. They manipulate the facts and intentionally make provably false statements on a regular basis.
That said, they may believe that the ends justify the means.
That said, they may believe that the ends justify the means.
I can believe that Rush and Colter might, might actually believe what they spew out or ignorance or persistence or whatever reason. But Glen Beck, how he has moved from HLN to Fox, how he has pushed and pushed his book, how he puts on a show to get people to emotionally react on a news channel.
When reading/viewing any type of media always keep in mind its origin, value, purpose, and limitation. I thank my school's IB Programme for that.
When reading/viewing any type of media always keep in mind its origin, value, purpose, and limitation. I thank my school's IB Programme for that.
I assume their purpose is it makes them lots and lots of money. Whether or not they believe some of what they say is probably not what gets them out of bed each day.
[deleted]
Absolutely. I hardly think that's good company for Dvorak to want to be in, though. :)
edit: Then again, those morons make a lot of money with their hate speech, so whether or not Dvorak would want to be counted among those ranks depends on his moral compass, I guess.
edit: Then again, those morons make a lot of money with their hate speech, so whether or not Dvorak would want to be counted among those ranks depends on his moral compass, I guess.
They're more like comedians than trolls. People who agree with them enjoy listening to them say audacious things and people who disagree with them enjoy getting a rise out of the audacious things they say. I think some people must really enjoy outrage, because there's a surprising number of liberals who read Coulter, listen to Limbaugh, and watch Fox News.
What's really interesting is that no one here seems to be interested in asking whether Vivek Kundra is indeed unqualified for the position. That's what's really important. I mean the CIO of the United States should be a total tech badass, right? After reading Dvorak's post on Kundra, listening to the No Agenda podcast where they played clip after clip of Kundra speaking like a moron and after reading Om Malik's response and Kundra's Wikipedia entry, it seems like Dvorak may actually have a point.
Yes.
I believe he is. However, I believe a lot of news organizations/blog owners are trying to do it these days. They will have very controversial/eye catching headlines with no substance in the article to gain more traction. Dvorak is a few steps ahead, he tries to justify those headlines by pulling fake data.
A frequent offender is Alley Insider and the entire Business Insider set of blogs. Henry Blodget's Internet Outsider blog used to be great, and SAI started nicely, but now it has devolved into a trolling + link-baiting mess. A search for 'killer site:businessinsider.com' shows how many titles they have that are -killer such as 'wikipedia-killer' 'google-killer' etc. They frequently take a poor claim or projection based on little to no evidence that is likely to be controversial, assume it is incontrovertible and publish a litany of bad arguments, stupid opinions and ridiculous forecasts.
The comments on these posts reflect the type of people to enjoy such a blog.
Peter Kafka used to blog for SAI and during his tenure there his posts were as bad as any other on that site and since he's moved to AllthingsD his posts have improved wholesale and are now informative, interesting and frequently make headlines on memetrackers such as Techmeme. I think it's some kind of policy, and I don't think it works given the greater exposure Kafka gets now than before when he was with SAI.
/rant
The comments on these posts reflect the type of people to enjoy such a blog.
Peter Kafka used to blog for SAI and during his tenure there his posts were as bad as any other on that site and since he's moved to AllthingsD his posts have improved wholesale and are now informative, interesting and frequently make headlines on memetrackers such as Techmeme. I think it's some kind of policy, and I don't think it works given the greater exposure Kafka gets now than before when he was with SAI.
/rant
I don't think he's faking data. I think it's more a very strong case of bias confirmation, lazy thinking and lazy sourcing.
Dvorak has been a professional troll since before it was popular.
Does no one remember his writing 10-15 years ago? I do. It was trollish even then. The whole "Mac continuum" hated him.
Does no one remember his writing 10-15 years ago? I do. It was trollish even then. The whole "Mac continuum" hated him.
Successful professional troll is successful.
Yes he is.
He also speaks his mind like every fat-mouthed, intelligent American from Franklin to Vidal did. So shut your trap and get on with life. lol.
He also speaks his mind like every fat-mouthed, intelligent American from Franklin to Vidal did. So shut your trap and get on with life. lol.
I'n not sure you are aware of the irony of telling someone "shut your trap" while defending Dvorak’s freedom of speech.
Also, from the guidelines: Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
Also, from the guidelines: Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
Absolutely. Before I started listening to him on TWiT, I used to just think he was incredibly dumb. He's not - and he knows EXACTRLY what he's doing. He's a MASTER at creating controversy and posting "maybe true, but definitely inflammatory" stuff that will generate more clicks - and he's openly admitted doing this before on TWiT (and apparently this YouTube video too).
Most journalists are. If they weren't, nobody would pay attention to them, and if nobody pays attention to them, they don't make any money. (Ergo, they can't be a professional without being a troll...)
No.
He is a gossip columnist. Always has been, ever suince PC Mag in the 80s.
I like his personality though. He put a funny face on what was considered a boring and drab industry back when beige boxes prevailed.
He is a gossip columnist. Always has been, ever suince PC Mag in the 80s.
I like his personality though. He put a funny face on what was considered a boring and drab industry back when beige boxes prevailed.
His confession cleared up my doubts. Text book definition of a troll. Direct link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ
If someone is a repeat offender, you better blacklist them if you value your time.
If someone is a repeat offender, you better blacklist them if you value your time.
For sure - I'd bait Mac users too, were I in the same situation, as fanboy fealty to any corporate entity is worthy of little more than mockery.
I listen to No Agenda (JCD & Adam Curry) primarily for entertainment value. My gf and I spend quite a few minutes every week mocking their ignorance. The political stuff is blatantly biased and the faux naive outrage is annoying to the point that I skip most of it, especially the clips. The H1N1 coverage is actually rather an antidote to hysteria - they don't think it's as serious as all that - the hysteria more relates to untested vaccine.
Mostly, though, I just listen for the anecdotes that are actually grounded in personal experience. I don't take either of them seriously in the least. I'd be willing to bet that a significant fraction of their audience is similar (though no doubt there's a larger than average loony fringe too).
Mostly, though, I just listen for the anecdotes that are actually grounded in personal experience. I don't take either of them seriously in the least. I'd be willing to bet that a significant fraction of their audience is similar (though no doubt there's a larger than average loony fringe too).
I'm in a similar situation. My favorite podcast is The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, which follows in the footsteps of Houdini and Sagan, applying critical thinking to life.
Still, even though No Agenda is basically the complete opposite, I just can't stop listening. There's something about it.
Also, Dvorak is a columnist, people, not a journalist. There is a difference.
Still, even though No Agenda is basically the complete opposite, I just can't stop listening. There's something about it.
Also, Dvorak is a columnist, people, not a journalist. There is a difference.
It's interesting how there seems to be a niche for 'tech gossip' much along the lines of the celebrity gossip magazines and websites.
I always thought the IT world was above that but it seems that I'm mistaken.
It is almost like an echo chamber where the likes of Dvorak, Carr (not Nicholas, the 'other' one) and other compadres stir up this amazing foam of controversy and plain bull shit in order to generate page views and the crowd laps it up.
By posting and re-posting this drivel we are actually contributing to the effect.
I always thought the IT world was above that but it seems that I'm mistaken.
It is almost like an echo chamber where the likes of Dvorak, Carr (not Nicholas, the 'other' one) and other compadres stir up this amazing foam of controversy and plain bull shit in order to generate page views and the crowd laps it up.
By posting and re-posting this drivel we are actually contributing to the effect.
Of course. Most journalists are a mix of troll & entertainer. In this case Dvorak is using the classic tactic of an opinion framed into a factual context. The truth of the situation is the vast majority of government appointments, at all levels, are political in nature. Agenda & policy comes from the top -- these people just go out and work on the President's behalf using political skill, personal connections, reputation, etc, etc. That's how the game works.
Dvorak is a troll, but by discussing him we are just validating him and he will continue doing what he is doing. Trolls generally do their trolling to bring attention to themselves.
[deleted]
http://www.isdvorakaprofessionaltroll.com coming in 3... 2... 1...
For journalism the proper term is "hack".
dvorak is history.
[deleted]
Mike Arrington is a troll. Dvorak just rocks.
You kids! His persona is often troll... however, his operandi is journalism. Remember that? You know, telling the ugly truth (as you saw it), without fear or hinder?
Some virology podcasters were recently irked that he uses a podcast with a big audience to spread H1N1 hysteria.
Full podcast episode: http://www.twiv.tv/2009/08/09/twiv-44-no-hysteria/
Dvorak clip: snippet: http://susdomestica.posterous.com/no-agenda-equals-no-knowledge
(I debated whether this is Hacker News worthy but decided to submit for discussion either way as up/down votes will answer this question)