

Is Dvorak a Professional Troll? - flinc

After John Dvorak accused Vivek Kundra of being a phony, Tim Oreilly shortly afterward tweeted a link to a youtube video of John "explaining how he lies to get controversy" http://twitter.com/timoreilly/status/3271565056 and later stating that he is "trolling for traffic" http://twitter.com/timoreilly/status/3272103221 Dvorak responded that this was an ad hominem attack http://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/3280289449 The question is still bugging me, Is he a professional troll?<p>Some virology podcasters were recently irked that he uses a podcast with a big audience to spread H1N1 hysteria.<p>Full podcast episode: http://www.twiv.tv/2009/08/09/twiv-44-no-hysteria/<p>Dvorak clip: snippet: http://susdomestica.posterous.com/no-agenda-equals-no-knowledge<p>(I debated whether this is Hacker News worthy but decided to submit for discussion either way as up/down votes will answer this question)
======
RyanMcGreal
His status as a troll was cemented with his infamous anti-CSS tirade:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1987181,00.asp>

My favourite quote: "The first problem is the idea of "cascading." It means
what it says: falling—as in falling apart. You set a parameter for a style
element, and that setting falls to the next element unless you provide it with
a different element definition. This sounds like a great idea until you try to
deconstruct the sheet. You need a road map. One element cascades from here,
another from there. One wrong change and all hell breaks loose. If your
Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your
screen."

~~~
philwelch
I almost instinctively downmodded you for how stupid that remark was before
remembering it was Dvorak saying that and not you.

------
vijayr
Can't the same thing be said about people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?
They twist and turn facts, drum up controversy and spread hate/fear.

~~~
tjogin
Oh, definitely. But they might not be trolling on purpose; there is the off
chance that they actually believe the stuff they're saying.

~~~
vijayr
Possible. But people like Hannity purposefully edit videos (President Obama's
speeches, for example), twist the facts - that seems trollish to me. But I
guess, they get paid to do that. Sad thing is, they are good at it (judging by
the audience of Fox network)

~~~
cwan
Fox could be more accurate than much of the rest of the media (their
manipulations are presumably equally as deliberate and they'll deny their bias
despite the fact the vast majority openly support Democrats -
[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scalliwag/200908/why-
mos...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scalliwag/200908/why-most-
journalists-are-democrats-view-the-soviet-socialist-trenches)) and I suspect
that better explains their audience (but also the decline of the mainstream
media as a whole). There's a reason more people read the WSJ than the NYT
though most people don't realize it.

The irony is that Fox News was scored by UCLA study as being left of center:
[http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-
Find...](http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-
UCLA-6664.aspx)

 __disclosure: I don't watch Fox, I read the WSJ and the NYT though I find CNN
particularly infuriating and I'm quite far from being a Republican.

~~~
Radix
Post is -2. This is one of those times when a disagreement should be followed
by a reason. He cited his reasons, what are yours? Is Psychology Today full of
propaganda? Is UCLA a right leaning university? Why do you disagree?

------
jayro
What's really interesting is that no one here seems to be interested in asking
whether Vivek Kundra is indeed unqualified for the position. That's what's
really important. I mean the CIO of the United States should be a total tech
badass, right? After reading Dvorak's post on Kundra, listening to the No
Agenda podcast where they played clip after clip of Kundra speaking like a
moron and after reading Om Malik's response and Kundra's Wikipedia entry, it
seems like Dvorak may actually have a point.

------
tmarman
Absolutely. Before I started listening to him on TWiT, I used to just think he
was incredibly dumb. He's not - and he knows EXACTRLY what he's doing. He's a
MASTER at creating controversy and posting "maybe true, but definitely
inflammatory" stuff that will generate more clicks - and he's openly admitted
doing this before on TWiT (and apparently this YouTube video too).

------
fallentimes
Yes.

~~~
ujjwalg
I believe he is. However, I believe a lot of news organizations/blog owners
are trying to do it these days. They will have very controversial/eye catching
headlines with no substance in the article to gain more traction. Dvorak is a
few steps ahead, he tries to justify those headlines by pulling fake data.

~~~
btipling
A frequent offender is Alley Insider and the entire Business Insider set of
blogs. Henry Blodget's Internet Outsider blog used to be great, and SAI
started nicely, but now it has devolved into a trolling + link-baiting mess. A
search for 'killer site:businessinsider.com' shows how many titles they have
that are -killer such as 'wikipedia-killer' 'google-killer' etc. They
frequently take a poor claim or projection based on little to no evidence that
is likely to be controversial, assume it is incontrovertible and publish a
litany of bad arguments, stupid opinions and ridiculous forecasts.

The comments on these posts reflect the type of people to enjoy such a blog.

Peter Kafka used to blog for SAI and during his tenure there his posts were as
bad as any other on that site and since he's moved to AllthingsD his posts
have improved wholesale and are now informative, interesting and frequently
make headlines on memetrackers such as Techmeme. I think it's some kind of
policy, and I don't think it works given the greater exposure Kafka gets now
than before when he was with SAI.

/rant

------
nostrademons
Most journalists are. If they weren't, nobody would pay attention to them, and
if nobody pays attention to them, they don't make any money. (Ergo, they can't
be a professional without being a troll...)

~~~
jganetsk
The difference is that Dvorak is little more than a troll.

~~~
blasdel
The difference is that _he's good at it_

------
bitwize
No.

He is a gossip columnist. Always has been, ever suince _PC Mag_ in the 80s.

I like his personality though. He put a funny face on what was considered a
boring and drab industry back when beige boxes prevailed.

------
kirubakaran
His confession cleared up my doubts. Text book definition of a troll. Direct
link : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ>

If someone is a repeat offender, you better blacklist them if you value your
time.

~~~
barrkel
For sure - I'd bait Mac users too, were I in the same situation, as fanboy
fealty to any corporate entity is worthy of little more than mockery.

------
barrkel
I listen to No Agenda (JCD & Adam Curry) primarily for entertainment value. My
gf and I spend quite a few minutes every week mocking their ignorance. The
political stuff is blatantly biased and the faux naive outrage is annoying to
the point that I skip most of it, especially the clips. The H1N1 coverage is
actually rather an _antidote_ to hysteria - they don't think it's as serious
as all that - the hysteria more relates to untested vaccine.

Mostly, though, I just listen for the anecdotes that are actually grounded in
personal experience. I don't take either of them seriously in the least. I'd
be willing to bet that a significant fraction of their audience is similar
(though no doubt there's a larger than average loony fringe too).

~~~
jhs
I'm in a similar situation. My favorite podcast is The Skeptic's Guide to the
Universe, which follows in the footsteps of Houdini and Sagan, applying
critical thinking to life.

Still, even though No Agenda is basically the complete opposite, I just can't
stop listening. There's something about it.

Also, Dvorak is a _columnist_ , people, not a _journalist_. There is a
difference.

------
jacquesm
It's interesting how there seems to be a niche for 'tech gossip' much along
the lines of the celebrity gossip magazines and websites.

I always thought the IT world was above that but it seems that I'm mistaken.

It is almost like an echo chamber where the likes of Dvorak, Carr (not
Nicholas, the 'other' one) and other compadres stir up this amazing foam of
controversy and plain bull shit in order to generate page views and the crowd
laps it up.

By posting and re-posting this drivel we are actually contributing to the
effect.

------
jsz0
Of course. Most journalists are a mix of troll & entertainer. In this case
Dvorak is using the classic tactic of an opinion framed into a factual
context. The truth of the situation is the vast majority of government
appointments, at all levels, are political in nature. Agenda & policy comes
from the top -- these people just go out and work on the President's behalf
using political skill, personal connections, reputation, etc, etc. That's how
the game works.

------
mgrouchy
Dvorak is a troll, but by discussing him we are just validating him and he
will continue doing what he is doing. Trolls generally do their trolling to
bring attention to themselves.

------
alex_c
<http://www.isdvorakaprofessionaltroll.com> coming in 3... 2... 1...

------
njharman
For journalism the proper term is "hack".

------
acex
dvorak is history.

------
kennethreitz
Yes x 2.

------
soar
Mike Arrington is a troll. Dvorak just rocks.

------
ftse
You kids! His persona is often troll... however, his operandi is journalism.
Remember that? You know, telling the ugly truth (as you saw it), without fear
or hinder?

~~~
ftse
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=765301>

