Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!topaz!RU-BLUE!BRAIL@SEISMO
From: BRAIL%SEISMO@RU-BLUE.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: InfoWorld
Message-ID: <8180@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 02:18:01 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8180
Posted: Sun Feb 10 02:18:01 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 04:46:25 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 22


	Let me clear up two points:
	1) A magazine should be unbiased, but not in the case of
product reviews.
	2) InfoWorld is generally unbiased, except in the case of
product reviews. They have said some negative things about products.
Ex: They pretty much panned WordStar 2000, and only gave the IBM PC-AT
two stars (or whatever it is they give). 
	
	You're right about the ethics. A magazine should try to
protect its readers from defective (or dangerous, but most software
isn't dangerous) products. At the same time, it should present the
facts in an unbiased manner. InfoWorld, for the most part, does this.
It also provides the latest gossip, which is usually about as accurate
as gossip gets, except maybe for the Apple //X rumor. It provides a
news service; you won't find any juicy hacker info, but you will find
news: something lacking in most mags.

			ARPA: BRAIL@RU-BLUE.ARPA
			UUCP:...ihnp4!ut-sally!topaz
						    !ru-blue!brail
					  ...allegra