Tech Giant VS Junk Pirate - An Example of the Evocative Potential of Labels in News Headlines
News media seems to have made it a standard to identify someone according to profession, or some other social label, even when irrelevant to the respective story. One example of this is seen in reports about Eric Lundgren; headlines seemingly label their stories as coverage of a legal battle between an “e-waste recycler” and tech giant Microsoft. Many headlines resemble these:
The objectivity of these articles is belied in the way the headlines play on the affect part of attitude. The LA Times, Seattle Times, and Gizmodo all call Lundgren an innovator in e-waste recycling. The three choice words that these headlines combine elicit certain stances that independently – even more so jointly – arouse positive attitudinal responses. Those words, as defined by Google, are these:
The LA Times article fits some justification into their headline ("Electronics-recycling innovator is going to prison for trying to extend computers’ lives"). Lundgren, the innovator, was only trying to save those computers, you see. He was just helping those computer owners save money by keeping their machines running just a little longer. The Seattle Times declares that an e-waste recycler lost a fight with Microsoft ("‘E-waste’ recycling innovator faces prison after losing fight with Microsoft"). The article reveals that the "fight" was actually a lawsuit and subsequent appeal. The Gizmodo headline actually identifies Lundgren’s offending action ("E-waste Innovator Will Go to Jail for Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked with Valid Licenses"). Gizmodo, a publisher of tech-related media of hobbyist-level and higher, presupposes its readers know how software disks work, and that they would agree that Lundgren was unfairly jailed for distributing them; the disks would not work for customers who hadn’t already purchased Microsoft’s software.
However, the truth is a little more sinister than these headlines would suggest, and it is found outside of the blurbs of Lundgren’s accomplishments, sympathetic quotes from dithering judges, and impassioned denials from Lundgren himself. The aforementioned articles declaring Lundgren's innocence have two key features in common: they rely on Lundgren's perspective and were published before Microsoft released a statement. The statement, posted on the company's official blog, describes Microsoft's perspective and presents some compelling evidence. In consideration of this additional context, it is clear that, in truth, Lundgren had been "playing dumb" and that his defenses of his innocence and good intentions were unfaithfully delivered.
In reality, Lundgren ordered the creation of thousands of disks of Microsoft restoration software to be distributed along with his business’s refurbished computers. Microsoft’s license transfer policies aside, Lundgren’s disks were legally dubious in other ways; they were packaged with Microsoft’s logo to look legitimate and were to be sold for $0.25 a piece – even though Microsoft offers the software to refurbishers at a discounted rate of $25 per copy. Lundgren had mass-produced disks containing copies of this software and intended to profit for it. In order to access this software in full, Lundgren's customers would be required to either purchase a new product license from Microsoft or register it with their existing license.
Microsoft was alerted to Lundgren's activity when US Customs discovered a shipment of these disks arriving with Lundgren’s refurbished computers inbound from China. US Customs formally warned Lundgren that his operation was illegal, but he continued regardless. US Customs soon caught him at it again, this time with the official-looking packaging, and subsequently indicted Lundgren for 21 charges relating to copyright violations and piracy and folded Microsoft into its case against him.
Multiple headlines promised stories about a humble pioneer of e-waste recycling who was failed by the US justice system when he was targeted by a heartless tech giant. Those headlines get more openly-biased the further one strays from major media outlets, and tech industry websites get particularly hostile against Microsoft. In general, Microsoft received harsh criticism, either for crushing small tech business, impeding e-waste recycling efforts, or both.
It is worth noting that the articles described in this post refer to the 2018 appeal of the case, USA vs Lundgren, to which Lundgren originally pled guilty in 2016. Most of these articles were published shortly after the appeal court's decision and predate Microsoft's blog post. Microsoft waited to release a statement until the appeal was rejected, but not before Lundgren gave multiple interviews bemoaning his defeat therein.
Many news media who initially reported on the appeal proliferated Lundgren’s perspective of himself as a victim of an overzealous tech giant, when in truth, he was actually a nefarious businessman. It is not immediately clear how much of the evidence would have been available to journalists, especially if Lundgren filed for appeal immediately. Perhaps the challenges of a digital news cycle are to blame for the fact that multiple, established leaders of news media believed and spread Lundgren's version of events without investigating much further. Regardless, those aforementioned, sympathetic headlines didn’t just bury the lead; they left it in a shallow grave.
- Electronics-recycling innovator is going to prison for trying to extend computers’ lives [LA Times]
- ‘E-waste’ recycling innovator faces prison after losing fight with Microsoft [Seattle Times]
- E-waste Innovator Will Go to Jail for Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked with Valid Licenses [Gizmodo]
- E-waste Recycler gets 15-months in Prison Thanks to Microsoft [Legit Reviews]
The objectivity of these articles is belied in the way the headlines play on the affect part of attitude. The LA Times, Seattle Times, and Gizmodo all call Lundgren an innovator in e-waste recycling. The three choice words that these headlines combine elicit certain stances that independently – even more so jointly – arouse positive attitudinal responses. Those words, as defined by Google, are these:
- e-waste – any discarded electronic or electrical devices or their parts
- recycle – to convert (waste) into reusable material
- innovator – a person who introduces new methods, ideas, or products
The LA Times article fits some justification into their headline ("Electronics-recycling innovator is going to prison for trying to extend computers’ lives"). Lundgren, the innovator, was only trying to save those computers, you see. He was just helping those computer owners save money by keeping their machines running just a little longer. The Seattle Times declares that an e-waste recycler lost a fight with Microsoft ("‘E-waste’ recycling innovator faces prison after losing fight with Microsoft"). The article reveals that the "fight" was actually a lawsuit and subsequent appeal. The Gizmodo headline actually identifies Lundgren’s offending action ("E-waste Innovator Will Go to Jail for Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked with Valid Licenses"). Gizmodo, a publisher of tech-related media of hobbyist-level and higher, presupposes its readers know how software disks work, and that they would agree that Lundgren was unfairly jailed for distributing them; the disks would not work for customers who hadn’t already purchased Microsoft’s software.
However, the truth is a little more sinister than these headlines would suggest, and it is found outside of the blurbs of Lundgren’s accomplishments, sympathetic quotes from dithering judges, and impassioned denials from Lundgren himself. The aforementioned articles declaring Lundgren's innocence have two key features in common: they rely on Lundgren's perspective and were published before Microsoft released a statement. The statement, posted on the company's official blog, describes Microsoft's perspective and presents some compelling evidence. In consideration of this additional context, it is clear that, in truth, Lundgren had been "playing dumb" and that his defenses of his innocence and good intentions were unfaithfully delivered.
In reality, Lundgren ordered the creation of thousands of disks of Microsoft restoration software to be distributed along with his business’s refurbished computers. Microsoft’s license transfer policies aside, Lundgren’s disks were legally dubious in other ways; they were packaged with Microsoft’s logo to look legitimate and were to be sold for $0.25 a piece – even though Microsoft offers the software to refurbishers at a discounted rate of $25 per copy. Lundgren had mass-produced disks containing copies of this software and intended to profit for it. In order to access this software in full, Lundgren's customers would be required to either purchase a new product license from Microsoft or register it with their existing license.
Microsoft was alerted to Lundgren's activity when US Customs discovered a shipment of these disks arriving with Lundgren’s refurbished computers inbound from China. US Customs formally warned Lundgren that his operation was illegal, but he continued regardless. US Customs soon caught him at it again, this time with the official-looking packaging, and subsequently indicted Lundgren for 21 charges relating to copyright violations and piracy and folded Microsoft into its case against him.
Multiple headlines promised stories about a humble pioneer of e-waste recycling who was failed by the US justice system when he was targeted by a heartless tech giant. Those headlines get more openly-biased the further one strays from major media outlets, and tech industry websites get particularly hostile against Microsoft. In general, Microsoft received harsh criticism, either for crushing small tech business, impeding e-waste recycling efforts, or both.
It is worth noting that the articles described in this post refer to the 2018 appeal of the case, USA vs Lundgren, to which Lundgren originally pled guilty in 2016. Most of these articles were published shortly after the appeal court's decision and predate Microsoft's blog post. Microsoft waited to release a statement until the appeal was rejected, but not before Lundgren gave multiple interviews bemoaning his defeat therein.
Many news media who initially reported on the appeal proliferated Lundgren’s perspective of himself as a victim of an overzealous tech giant, when in truth, he was actually a nefarious businessman. It is not immediately clear how much of the evidence would have been available to journalists, especially if Lundgren filed for appeal immediately. Perhaps the challenges of a digital news cycle are to blame for the fact that multiple, established leaders of news media believed and spread Lundgren's version of events without investigating much further. Regardless, those aforementioned, sympathetic headlines didn’t just bury the lead; they left it in a shallow grave.
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives indepth information. Thanks for this nice article. Waste clearance london
ReplyDelete