After I posted yesterday's call for stories from or about people who claim to have had comment posts deleted from Groklaw, I received an email from Pamela Jones asking me why I was "doing this." Since such a question presumes a certain level of conspiracy, I replied that the call for stories is self-explanatory -- if what people have said is true, this is a significantly interesting story for my readers, many of whom (perhaps wrongly) consider Groklaw an impartial source. The next email I got on the subject was from Ziff Davis Enterprise editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, accusing me of attacking Jones in a public forum (The Jem Report) via my call for stories, and advising me that this is not tolerable on his Internet Press Guild mailing list, of which I have been an active member for a few months. He then kicked me off the IPG list. It seems you aren't allowed to write about Steven J Vaughan-Nichols' friends, or question the operational practices of Web sites friendly to free software ideals, and remain an IPG member. This is a sad day for me, not because I am now an outcast -- on the contrary, that's the best part! -- but because a writer I'd held a great deal of professional respect for sacked me because -- I know this is bizarre -- I was being too much of a journalist. I am sad because I thought SJVN was a pillar of professional journalism, the sort of guy who would encourage a hard charger like me to chase important stories like this one. That Vaughan-Nichols would kick me from an unofficial online journalism group to pressure me into killing a story and to show support for his friend Pamela Jones is, to me, shocking and heartbreaking. Unfortunately, among journalists who are also members of the free software social/political movement, there are questions you are not allowed to ask, people you are not allowed to write about, and personal politics and cronyism trump professional obligation. So let's clear a few things up and air some dirty laundry, shall we?
Ethics are not determined by personal feelings
Writing critically is not a friendly endeavor. If you are friends with the people you write about, it is difficult to write objectively about them. It's not impossible, but it is difficult, and the longer you write about your friends, the harder it is to determine whether or not you are treating the subject fairly. There are many people I deal with professionally whom I am on friendly terms with, but that doesn't mean I owe them a positive article, news story, or review. A few of them have said angry things to me after an unfavorable review, but for the most part, they've gotten over it. I continually remind myself that I am not doing this to make anyone -- myself included -- look good.
Vaughan-Nichols' problem is that he's been doing this for too long, he's too friendly with too many insiders, and is now more interested in protecting his friends than in protecting a good story. The very point of journalism is to investigate the hidden mysteries of the world; to report on the successes and failures within the internals of social power structures, and to give readers information that they do not have the time or resources to discover on their own. People do not need journalists to report things that can easily be learned; we write reviews to help people make informed buying decisions, we write articles to help readers understand complex concepts, and we write news stories to inform those who were not there to observe firsthand. One thing we do not ever do is influence a story to protect a friend, whether it be writing a story in favor of, or attempting to kill a story in opposition to.
Sacred GNUs
Had I attacked Pamela Jones or Groklaw ad hominem, that would have been unprofessional and I'd have been deserving of a rebuke by an elder like SJVN. However, a Google search for groklaw and deleted shows that there is ample evidence to suggest that Groklaw is censoring comments, many of which appear to be honest attempts to correct errors, and well-reasoned dissent to tightly-held opinions. This wouldn't be such a big deal if Groklaw didn't pretend to be an objective information source that relies on community contributions for accuracy. Investigating and writing about this practice is not an attack -- Stevie Wonder driving by fast could see that. But I understand why SJVN sacked me -- writing anything but praise for Groklaw is taboo among journalists who are also free software supporters. This is what I call the free software journalism club -- the small cabal of online writers who try to mix free software fundamentalism with journalism.
If someone were to show that Groklaw is not an impartial source, that it does not consider any community input that does not fall in line with Free Software Foundation dogma, then that diminishes the viability of the free software journalism club (of which Groklaw is perhaps the founding member) as a whole. It airs a mile-long clothesline of dirty laundry. It shows that advocacy and fanaticism have taken over where impartiality and objectivity should be paramount. We already know that Vaughan-Nichols and Jones are part of this unspoken cabal. Perhaps before I am finished researching the Groklaw story, I will have a few more names to add to the list. Discovering them is not difficult; all I have to do is see who reacts when I publicly sacrifice some of the sacred GNUs in the free software community:
An article or review that suggests a free software program is not as good as a proprietary competitor.
Admitting that most people illegally copy and distribute proprietary software openly.
Any kind of investigative story on Groklaw or Pamela Jones.
Anything remotely in favor of anything Microsoft-related.
Questioning the operational stability of a free software operating system.
Any criticism of the GNU General Public License.
Any criticism of the Free Software Foundation as a moral authority.
Write about these things and expect retaliation and rebuke from the free software journalism club. Email and blog posts from free software supporters are one thing, but I truly fear this disease has spread to the one place that should have natural immunity to it -- journalism. It is a sign that something is deeply wrong in both the free software community and the fourth estate in general when journalists rebuke one another for encroachment not of industry-recognized ethical standards, but of free software taboos.
There is much reasonable debate to be had over the above-listed taboo topics. Disagreement does not have to be in the form of a "troll," and contrary evidence is not always "FUD," though the fundamentalists insist otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with free software philosophy is a troll, their reasoning is FUD, and if they write professionally, they must be being paid off by Microsoft and/or SCO. Such is the free software community attitude toward dissent, fostered primarily by the free software journalism club. Reality and history say that if an idea stands up to time and criticism, it doesn't need your voice to validate it... and if your theories and beliefs cannot hold up to well-reasoned critique, then they are probably ill-conceived. Therefore those who violently oppose dissent have something to fear -- they are afraid that you might show them something convincing that will shake their beliefs. Journalists are supposed to provide or at least enable those well-reasoned critiques, not participate in one faction's defense. You cannot be on the stage and in the crowd at the same time.
That which you deny, you give power to
Those of you reading this in the free software community need to understand that silencing a dissenting opinion does not make it go away, nor does it sway popular opinion, and it certainly does nothing to change reality. Casting out the parts of reality that you deny makes them stronger, not weaker. The bulk of popular storytelling over the past 150 years has revolved around this core theme, yet so many people refuse to accept its lessons.
I vow to continue to show the hidden parts of the reality of the technology world for as long as I maintain my technology Web sites. Those of you in the free software journalism club need to take a hard look at what you are doing, and either learn to separate your beliefs, prejudices, and emotions from your professional obligations, or get the hell out of this industry. You cannot be a free software advocate and an objective journalist; neither can you remain so by forming tight friendships with insiders and defend them by rebuking curious colleagues. You know you're in the wrong group when asking questions gets you expelled.
As readers, the best thing you can do to reject the free software journalism club's altered reality is to stop clicking on, linking to, or otherwise supporting its work. That means articles by Pamela Jones and Steven J Vaughan-Nichols, and their associated Web sites.
As Linux and BSD users, if you are ashamed to be in the same group with the free software fundamentalists, then start associating yourself with the adults -- that means open source instead of free software, Linux instead of GNU/Linux, and rational thinking over blind advocacy.
As publishers, we all need to start taking a hard look at the stories we link to on other sites. There needs to be a better distinction between opinion and journalism. (This very piece, you might notice, is clearly marked as an editorial). Among the journalistic pieces there needs to be better quality control, which means not linking to sites that consistently publish unreliable content (cough, Forbes, cough, ZDNet Blogs, cough). Find better stories to link to; don't support the free software journalism club.
Articles 
