<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fighting security FUD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/fighting-security-fud/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/fighting-security-fud/</link>
	<description>A SearchSecurity.com blog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/fighting-security-fud/#comment-525</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://security.blogs.techtarget.com/2008/04/17/fighting-security-fud-and-tying-up-loose-ends/#comment-525</guid>
		<description>Best of luck, Bill, as you begin your next adventure. On behalf of PR practitioners, though, while you choose to take us to task in your blog from time to time, please keep in mind that the proliferation of FUD is only enhanced by media coverage. While you may choose to point the finger at PR folks, remember that you only continue to get pitched FUD because you continue to cover it.  

As you point out:   
"The big thing that strikes me is that we’ve written a lot of stories about the latest flaw or exploit and someone is always banging on the alarm bell with a hammer."   
   
So, I would pose this question to you:   
"If a PR person bangs on an alarm with a hammer and no journalists are around to hear it (or acknowledge it) -- did it really happen?"

At the end of the day, I certainly agree with your parting advice and that folks should take all of the FUD with a grain of salt. However, as long as journalists continue to follow their edict to generate "clicks" versus what was once considered by many to be higher value editorial content, my guess is that the FUD factor won't get better any time soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best of luck, Bill, as you begin your next adventure. On behalf of PR practitioners, though, while you choose to take us to task in your blog from time to time, please keep in mind that the proliferation of FUD is only enhanced by media coverage. While you may choose to point the finger at PR folks, remember that you only continue to get pitched FUD because you continue to cover it.  </p>
<p>As you point out:<br />
&#8220;The big thing that strikes me is that we’ve written a lot of stories about the latest flaw or exploit and someone is always banging on the alarm bell with a hammer.&#8221;   </p>
<p>So, I would pose this question to you:<br />
&#8220;If a PR person bangs on an alarm with a hammer and no journalists are around to hear it (or acknowledge it) &#8212; did it really happen?&#8221;</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I certainly agree with your parting advice and that folks should take all of the FUD with a grain of salt. However, as long as journalists continue to follow their edict to generate &#8220;clicks&#8221; versus what was once considered by many to be higher value editorial content, my guess is that the FUD factor won&#8217;t get better any time soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- dynamic -->