[saulrh]

> Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased.

This article gives a factual list of the topics the book covers, asks the book's author several questions about those topics, and directly quotes the book's author's responses. Yeah, that's marketing. Anything they could have written in that format would have necessarily been marketing. The only way not to support the book in that format would have been to not publish the article at all. Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

If you just want to never see anyone advertise anything, uh, okay? Every bit ever communicated is an opinion designed to accomplish some goal in the mind of another person. To escape this I suggest renouncing all interaction with other humans and moving to an uncontacted area in the depths of some rainforest.

[nailer]

> Because simply quoting the author won't suffice.

It would establish a separate voice from OReillys and the publication that should be reporting on, not marketing, his new book.

> Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

Already answered multiple times in this thread.

> The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter

Or they could review it. 200 words. There's a lot of books reviewed that way, many far more complex than OReilly's.