I don't know exactly what a hack is, but the article uses a writing style that makes me think the author is short on evidence. For example: 'the Wired editor’s theories have no sticking power and the backlash against him has begun"

"have no sticking power" is an untestable claim, and "backlash" can be as little as one person writing a blog post that says "Chris Anderson's long tail theory is wrong, wrong, wrong." The only specific examples cited of evidence are a reference to Rupert Murdoch and the discussion of a study by Page and Bud.

To me, it's pretty unimpressive article, but I will confess to holding a previous conviction that Orlowski is a pinhead. I'd be glad to hear counter-arguments.

It might be more accurate to say that the Register just goes around denigrating everything popular, well-known, or well-liked...being a British publication.

Seriously, I've never read anything in the Register that wasn't an attack piece on something popular. It's the tech equivalent of the type of tabloid that that revels in airing the dirty laundry of the rich and famous, with some sub-par trolling added as "commentary".

Well, one man's hack is another mans journalist.

Unfortunately, after a reading various pieces by Andrew Orlowski over the course of the past decade, my conclusion is that he has low standards for fact, and poor taste in opinions. Ergo, a hack.