Hilbert College	Issues in Mass Communication: How Microsoft Influences Public Opinion Through Media	- Home - Students - Tutorials - Student Papers -
by: Nick Holliday November 27, 1999   Press coverage of the Microsoft antitrust litigation can be found just about everywhere. It is difficult to pick up a newspaper or especially to read an online publication without seeing news, editorials, or advertisements dealing with Microsoft. How clear is the line between these types of communication, though? It seems the deeper one looks into the case and the media coverage surrounding it, the blurrier the lines between news, opinion, and advertising become. The purpose of this paper is not to determine whether or not Microsoft is guilty of antitrust or what the penalties should be, it is to discuss the the media's role in transmitting information about Microsoft. Few people will argue (except Microsoft) that Microsoft does not have a monopoly in at least one field --operating systems. One will, however, find an array of opinions among the media and the public as to what, if anything, should be done. These opinions appear to stem from a diverse set of factors. Many articles, for example, seem to be using the performance of Microsoft's software on their own computers to form their opinions on whether Microsoft is guilty of antitrust. Others' admiration for Bill Gates seems to prevent them from coming to an arbitrary decision on whether or not Microsoft is breaking the law. Microsoft writes many articles about its own case as well. As one would expect, Microsoft's articles portray them as an innocent child being bullied by their competitors older brother, Uncle Sam. As one becomes more exposed to "news" stories covering the Microsoft trial, he will notice that most articles seem to be more of a popularity contest than an impartial finding of facts. Many times, these articles contain more references to how often the author's computer crashes and the genius of Bill Gates than statistics, facts or the opinions of experts. Reporters are giving play-by-play from the court of public opinion, not the federal courthouse where Thomas Jackson is presiding over the case of Department Of Justice vs Microsoft. The practice of polling the public to determine whether they view Microsoft "favorably" or "unfavorably" has become commonplace and the results are readily published; such as the front page article in the New York Times entitled "Most Approve of Microsoft, A Poll Shows" (Lohr). Question: What does the public know about Microsoft's business practices or market-share? So aside from the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the field of operating systems, there is little agreement among the press about the issues surrounding the case or even what those issues are. Microsoft has always seen public and media relations as an integral part of their success. Over the years, their need to communicate has increased with their size and the controversy surrounding their dominant position in software markets. Microsoft's website has a page devoted to coverage of the antitrust trial (www.microsoft.com). Also on that page are articles from national newspapers and sometimes periodicals that support Microsoft in the trial. Recently, two editorials from the Washington Post were posted. The first editorial, entitled "But Did Microsoft Actually Hurt Consumers" by Robert J Samuelson argues that antitrust laws were enacted to protect the consumer and "the trouble is that Jackson's opinion doesn't show how Microsoft's brutal competitive behavior has hurt consumers (Samuelson)." The article quotes an "inconsistency" in a report by the antitrust judge, Thomas Jackson. The article states Although Jackson says that Windows' price is much higher than "would be charged in a competitive market," he admits that the effect on computer prices is "trivial." The reason is simple. The average price for Windows 98 is $45, says Fred Hickey, publisher of The High-Tech Strategist newsletter. Jackson cites a figure of $89 (Samuelson). The article fails the mention the obvious which is that Jackson cited the retail value of Windows 98 and Hickey cited the averaged cost paid by computer manufacturers and direct consumers. If the $45 dollar figure is the average cost of manufacturers and consumers alike, the article fails to mention that the manufacturers are likely to profit further from the software boasting it as an $89 value. Alongside Samuelson's article on the Microsoft webpage is another article from the Washington Post. This article is entitled "Risks of Restraining." It, also very sensitive to Microsoft's plight, focuses on the age of the current antitrust legistlation in this country and deems it too old to function properly in "fluid high-tech industries characterized by high-velocity change." Another noteworthy excerpt from this article is Will's comment on the Justice Department: "at least President Clinton's Justice Department, which sometimes resembles a torpid lion sunning itself after dining on a succulent missionary, has at last found a violation of law sufficient to bestir it (Will)." Both of the above editorials are presented very articulately and portray the Justice Department and the federal laws governing antitrust as archaic and inept. It is this attitude that led me to belive that the editorials encourage the opinion that the government should just leave Microsoft alone because it would be a miracle if they didn't screw things up. The Microsoft Corporation does more than just post positive articles on their web page to promote their position in antitrust litigation. Bill Gates and Microsoft have donated millions of dollars to various causes and charities. In the 1997-1998 election cycle, Microsoft donated $400,000 dollars in soft money to the Republican party just days before the start of their antitrust trial (Novak). Novak's article states: Coincidentally, about that time, 10 Republican Senators signed a "Dear Colleague" letter criticizing the Clinton Administration for subjecting the software industry to "needless regulation through overzealous enforcement of antitrust" laws. "We must protect our high-tech industry's freedom to innovate," said the Oct. 12 letter, copying Microsoft's p.r. machine practically verbatim. Novak's article all but blatently suggests that Microsoft is responsible for indirectly bribing senators. Making a drastic effort to influence public opinion, in 1998 Microsoft planned to mount a phony grassroots effort to deluge editorial pages with letters and opinion pieces until the national press found out and exposed it in April 1998. Working through a national PR agency, Microsoft would pay freelance writers to write the opinion pieces, and would identify sympathetic regional business leaders to send in pre-written letters. "It was an extremely clumsy attempt." (Pogue). Microsoft didn't learn its lesson even after they were caught red-handed. Earlier this year, full-page newspaper ads were taken out in The New York Times and The Washington Post by a research institute claiming to "adhere to the highest standards of independant scholarly inquiry" (Brinkley). Unknown to the public at that time, Microsoft has been the largest contributor to the institution over the past year. At least one scientist said that if he knew Microsoft was funding the project, he would not have signed the document before it was published. Also recently, Microsoft published newspapers ads stating " ... the government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars in a court case that would stifle competition and interfere with an industry that is responsible for 25% of the nation's economic growth." Strassman's rebuttal follows. What is the merit of its claim? After all, IT-related employment and revenues are only a small component of the U.S. economy. As defined by the Department of Commerce, the information technology and electronics industry revenues accounted for 8.1% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Microsoft itself earns only 2.3% of the industry's revenues. So here we have 0.19% of the economy alleging that government may be jeopardizing a quarter of the nation's growth by stifling Microsoft. (Strassman) Thus the line between advertising, editorial, and fact-finding becomes nearly impossible to draw in this case. In another interesting campaign, Microsoft lobbied to cut funding for the Justice department's antitrust division. The outcome of their campaign has yet to be determined, although funding has been uneffected thus far. Microsoft keeps comprehensive public opinion databases for all demographics. It is from this machine that they decide what campaigns to wage and what fronts to wage them on. Microsoft has recently been documented as having hired a polling firm to ask questions dealing with individuals' opinion on Microsoft as well as questions describing the individuals' demographic (Segal). This information is used to cater to sects of the public. Microsoft isn't catering to just the public. Pugue says "Key journalists are courted, given meals and personal invitations to Bill Gates's new mansion; negative reviewers are harangued and bad-mouthed. ('We really believed in this influencer model,' says a former Microsoft VP. 'The trade press [was] worked from every stage.')" (Pogue). This quote is taken from an article entitled "The Dark Side of the Dark Side" from MacWorld magazine, though, so determining the truth of the matter is difficult. This is the problem with all articles dealing with Microsoft. Discovering where biases lie is extremely difficult. It is impossible to determine them in some cases. Who knows if John Q. Reporter was introduced to a Playboy Centerfold by Bill Gates at his mansion in Seattle? After finishing my research, I still do not know what should be done about Microsoft. This has a lot to do with the blurry reporting on the situation. My reading has convinced me of this: The public opinion should have no bearing on the legal proceeding. The public is not an expert of economics or high-technology. The biased reporting and advertising can fool all but the most diligent individual studying the case. Microsoft is pulling out all the stops to try to gain the public support. They are attempting to sway the pendulum to the political side instead of the legal side of the matter. Hopefully Judge Jackson will be able to sort out the facts better than I can and a resolution fair to the American people and in accordance with the law will be reached. Bibliography: Alsop, Stewart. (Dec 6, 1999) I, the Jury. Fortune.   Brinkley, Joel. (Sept 18, 1999) Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust Suit. The New York Times.   Business Week. (Oct 4, 1999) READERS GIVE THEIR VERDICT. Business Week.   Cohen, Adam. (Feb 1, 1999) The View From Microsoft: Bill Gates sees the world very differently from his antitrust pursuers. Could it be that he is right? Time.   Dvorak, John C. (July 1998) The Big Microsoft PR Ploy. PC Magazine.   Fannin, Rebecca A. (Oct 1999) The ultimate in outreach. Advertising Age International.   Gillmor, Dan. (April 20, 1998) Internet address is dgillmor@sjmercury.com. Computerworld.   Kaye, Russell. (Oct 11, 1999) The Microsoft Massage. Computer World.   Kirchner, Jake. (Oct 6, 1998) You Can't Run PR on a PC. PC Magazine.   Lohr, Steve. (June 15, 1998) Most Approve of Microsoft, A Poll Shows. The New York Times.   Markoff, John. (March 7, 1999) Microsoft Will Alter Its Software in Response to Privacy Concerns. The New York Times.   Nocera, Joseph. (Dec 21, 1998) Spin City: As the Microsoft trial proceeds, the appearance of truth is becoming as important as the truth itself. At least, that's what the spinmeisters for both sides seem to believe. Fortune.   Nocera, Joseph. (Jan 11, 1999) The Empire Strikes Back. Fortune.   Novek, Viveca. (Nov 2, 1998) Influence. Time.   PC World. (May 1999) Software, Lies, and Videotape. PC World.   Petreley, Nicholas. (March 15, 1999) Wear clean underwear, because you never know when Microsoft is looking. InfoWorld.   Pogue, David. (July 1999) The Dark Side of the Dark Side. Macworld.   Roberts, Bill. (1999) Fighting for hears and minds. Electronic Business.   Samuelson, Robert J. (November 17, 1999) But Did Microsoft Actually Hurt Consumers?. The Washington Post.   Segal, David. (November 21, 1998) Microsoft on Lookout for Cracks in Its Image. Washington Post.   Strassman, Paul A. (March 1, 1999) Deflating Microsoft. Computerworld.   Will, George F. (November 9, 1999) Risks of Restraining. The Washington Post.

This page design copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson.

Contents copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson and Authors.

Student enrolled in Journalism 201 are actively encouraged to use

the code from this page.

Version 3.04 (19 July).