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