The Gospel according to Microsoft. Sometimes, reading co-authored Times articles is a bit like doing source or redaction criticism. Who's responsible for which incompatible parts, and how did they wind up in this form? Today's article on the failure to settle in the European antitrust action against Microsoft ("Microsoft's Bid to Settle Case in Europe Fails") offers an ungainly hybrid of Paul Meller's Brussels-based reporting and John Markoff's from Silicon Valley. Whichever of them wrote the lead is working straight from the Microsoft playbook:

European regulators announced on Thursday that settlement talks with Microsoft had collapsed, leaving it virtually certain that an antitrust ruling would be issued against the company that could limit its ability to add new features to its software in one of the largest and richest markets in the world.

At this late date in the history of Microsoft litigation, how does anybody who isn't a paid Microsoft flack fall for this gag? That the issue is innovation? They don't even believe that in Redmond, for Jeebus' sake.

The article goes on to portray the failure to settle as something like European treachery, positioning a Steve Ballmer statement to imply that Microsoft's good faith has been traduced:

Both regulators and the company said on Thursday that they had made significant strides toward a settlement before the negotiations broke down.

"I believe we reached agreement on the issues of the case," Mr. Ballmer said in a statement.

But the two sides were unable to agree on a new demand [that EU antitrust chief Mario] Monti added in the final days of negotiations.*

Then, just a couple of grafs later, the focus shifts to American reaction to the news, and there's a sudden gain in clarity and in conformance to reality:

Donald M. Falk, an antitrust lawyer for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in Palo Alto, Calif., said that the European Commission "appears set on breaking the cycle of investigations and enforcement actions against Microsoft that have had little or no practical effect on Microsoft's conduct or on the markets it dominates."

Beyond any penalty it faces in Europe, a ruling exposes Microsoft to the risk that its strategy of bundling software applications with Windows will once again make it a legal target in the United States. Microsoft's power and financial success derive in part from its ability to integrate applications - including those in competition with the products of other software companies - as free features of the Windows operating system.

By which I'm guessing that John Markoff has a bit firmer grasp on the issues than his Brussels-based counterpart, who's apparently limited his research to reading Microsoft press releases. (We return to that territory at the end of the piece, which allows Microsoft's general counsel the last, transparently phony, word, to the effect that settlement talks failed because the EU wanted to "address all future integration issues for all time.")

Since Meller's name is first on the byline, does that mean he's responsible for mushing together his reporting with Markoff's? Shouldn't there really be some attempt at intellectual consistency in these co-authored pieces? Maybe even some deference shown to the reporter who (from appearances here, anyway) is the actual domain expert?

*Anonymity flag: The assertion that Monti surprised Microsoft by adding a late deal-breaker to the negotiations is sourced to "one person involved in the talks," who was also apparently capable of seeing far enough into Monti's soul to know that he was "emboldened" by unanimity among EU national regulators. Is that the same unidentified "lawyer close to the talks" who comments on settlement details at the end of the piece? Who can tell? No mitigating explanation offered for the anonymous sourcing, and no attempt—rather crucial in this case—to indicate to which side the source or sources owes (or owe) allegiance. So much for policy.

posted by michael  7:08:49 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

Quick quiz: What's the difference between today's lightweight Kerry-on-vacation piece by David Halbfinger ("Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All") and yesterday's patented Bumiller White House Love Letter ("Yummy, Yummy, Happy Bush", or something to that effect)? Give up? One of them's not a blow job:

John Kerry was in the air, approaching the Continental Divide, and the candidate often ridiculed as straddling both sides of political divides was wrestling with the big matter at hand.

Should he ski, or snowboard? Or maybe both? He gave no clue where he stood. But that was Wednesday night.

A longtime adviser recently suggested that there were two John Kerrys: "indoor John and outdoor John" — one who agonizes over decisions, and another who acts boldly on them.

Kerry may be on vacation, but Halbfinger's just a workin' stiff determined to earn his keep. In a perverse way, this makes me admire Halbfinger. It takes real commitment to refuse ever to give up a chance to reiterate the Official Operative Meme. Double bonus points for showing us how clever (well, for a Times hack, at least) you can be at Kerry's expense, David. Bet that "divide" thing earned you a few yuks on the plane!

But Halbfinger's not done with the horseplay just yet. This comes toward the end of the piece:

Mr. Kerry could not entirely escape the hazards of the arena he had left behind. He had just sat down for a bite to eat on the crowded patio near the lift line when a waiting skier, John Norris, shouted: "Hey, John! What foreign leaders talked to you?"

Mr. Kerry beat a retreat back into the lodge, to an upstairs, out-of-the-way dining area where he would be sure to draw even less attention.

Which manages to be gratuitously unflattering to the candidate (forget those medals he earned in Vietnam, the guy hasn't got enough stones to stand up to a heckler!) at the same time as it repeats (for at least the third consecutive day in the Times' columns) the witless, phony flap over the "foreign leaders" pseudo-quote.

But hey, all in fun, right? So like Dear Leader (aka the Happy Warrior), "insistent," as BJ Bumiller portrays him, "that the barbs he aims at Mr. Kerry are softened with humor."

posted by michael  5:28:33 PM  
tell me about it []