Quote:
Originally Posted by webmasterchecks
dont mean to beat a dead horse, but the washington post is one of the majors, thought it was newsworthy
kimmel got his own mention, the bastard that started this mess
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines
The breach was first reported on the blog In Corruption We Trust, by Keith Kimmel, who has two adult Web sites and uses the software. Kimmel claimed that "tens of thousands" of users' personal data may have been accessed. Albright, however, said it was hard to determine how many people are affected.
Customers may also be more reluctant to report a problem when the issue involved is online pornography. "Would you really want someone out there to know you surf porn sites, and the hardcore bondage stuff?" said Kimmel. "The guy out there buying a membership for his own personal pleasure has no clue." |
The "bastard" (your words, not mine) that started this are at Too Much Media. Don't blame me for making light of other people's monumental fuckups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evildick
The way they worded that, you'd think he had his own affiliate program.
|
The way they worded it, you'd think I was a user on their software. Which I am. A user. Not a licensee. Not that it matters anyway. Whether I am a user or a NATS owner has nothing to do with any of it, but it is a nice bit for the sigwhores and people who truly do have no interest in this matter other than to attack me to argue about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
I have no problem with the article or the questions directed at NATS. I just don't see how the Washington Post is using someone like minusonebit as a source. The article also makes it look like he's a customer of NATS. It's akin to asking the homeless guy on the street who uses the daily newspaper to keep warm what his thoughts are on a scandal in the paper. I can't fathom they couldn't get in touch with a program owner or someone who actually is in the industry to get a quote.
|
No, thats not what it is like at all.
They used me as *a* source because my information checked out. It was verified by many, many people. Another reason was the fact that it was my story. I was the first one to get it covered, both on my blog and in mainstream press. And I was the first person to contact Keith at WashPost. I specifically sought him out after reviewing alot of his other stuff and through that he or Robin there would be the best prospects. I then called the managing editor's office, explained the story and they put me in touch with Robin who said she was busy with another story at the time and then sent me to Keith who was very interested. I specifically mentioned the Daily News fiasco and he said "I credit my sources". Sure, someone else could have probably done the same thing, hunted for a reporter, got the seed planted, followed up, etc. But they didn't and I did. Could had, would have, should have doesn't count for shit. What counts is what was actually done.
Why have I gotten this covered so well? Because when you are running a campaign, you do not target the media with a bazooka and blast a press release into every general editor's mailbox. Great way to get absolutely no coverage. Instead, you attack with a sniper's rifle. You seek out reporters who have covered your topic before and covered it from your viewpoint. You read their most recent coverage so that when you call them you can point out any connections to stuff they have recently done. Media wants a story, you give them a story, you don't give them a press release.
I am in the industry. I have two sites. That counts as being in the industry. Sure, you all like to say I am not, but that is actually in and of it self a lie. My industry involvement was verified. None of you have ever answered the question about what exactly constitutes being in the industry. How many sites do you have to have before you are in the industry? If you make money peddling smut, you're on this boat, you're in the industry and you have just as much right to bitch about things that affect you as the owners of Falcon Studios, Twistys or any other the other "big guys" do.
And they did get in touch with several people in the industry. They quoted several of them and they talked to several more people who did not get mentioned, maybe because some of them did not want to be mentioned. I know because I along with a few other people spent quite a bit of time on the phone with the reporter telling him where information could be verified and who would confirm what facts. Papers like WP do not just run with stories without multiple sources backing up every single statement, allegation and claimed fact. They have a group of people who do nothing but check facts independent of the reporter before the thing goes to print.
The fact of the matter is you and others are trying to tear down the WP's use of me as *a* source because you dislike me and because you don't like the fact that I got it out there and I got credited with it. Tough shit. Cry to someone who cares, because I sure do not.