You can't say that. Well, you can, but it's not a fair statement (yes, I get your irony, such as it is).
Consider my point about Dvorak, in the post above. Letting a guy troll endlessly, pushing buttons, and saying anything he wants, just because he wants to... where's the integrity in that? If John Dvorak went away, would it make the advertisers happy? No doubt it would. But it would also increase the journalistic integrity if his (suddenly-former) magazine, as well. Nobody seems to stand up to Dvorak. Feel free to speculate on why that is, but it's sure not because of his flawlessly brilliant analyses.
Letting journalists say whatever they want is NOT always equatable to "integrity". Sometimes the journalist is just a troll, trying to use a magazine as his personal loudspeaker. And if that's the case, I say, "Good riddance." We've had soooooooooo much trolling lately.
Like I said before, none of us really has enough information to make a proper judgment about what happened. But if the title of the article is anything to go by ("10 Things We Hate About Apple"), well... you know, it sure does sound like trolling to me.
We don't like Dvorak, but he isn't a journalist, he's a pundit. Pundits are controversal, and they increase readership, or listenership. They don't speak with the voice of the magazine.
It seems that someone forgot to take his Ritalin before going to work. To quit over a stupid article about what you hate about a computer company shows a certain lack of maturity.
If you're going to quit your job on principle, do it over something that matters, please.
And if you're going to spout off about something, take the time to know what you're talking about. The struggle that goes on between editorial integrity and advertising sales isn't limited to PC World, nor is it limited to magazines -- although "major" U.S. magzines have been dealing with the problem for years:
A major advertiser recently approached all three newsweeklies - Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News - and told them it would be closely monitoring editorial content. So says a high newsweekly executive who was given the warning (but who would not name the advertiser). For the next quarter, the advertiser warned the magazines' publishing sides, it would keep track of how the company's industry was portrayed in news columns. At the end of that period, the advertiser would select one - and only one - of the magazines and award all of its newsweekly advertising to it.
Get it? Whichever magazine put the potential advertiser in the most positive light would receive the advertising dollars. And it's not like product placement in a copy of InStyle. These are "news" magazines -- except that the news is viewed through the eyes of people afraid of offending potential advertisers. There are plenty of other examples of advertising dictating the news, throughout the media. Here's a start: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...09/ai_n8761685
I have to agree... Macworld's "Product reviews" have gotten so bad that if I click through it's often just to get to the product link as the vendors invariably do a more thorough job of marketing than Macworld does. And include pictures.
Frankly, I'm not surprised at this now that I think about how my attitude has changed towards MacWorld's content.
Wow. I consider myself a realist, but that take is pretty cynical even for me.
The logical corollary to your perspective then is that the accuracy of the content in the magazine or web site is irrelevant--so long as one can attract advertisers to subsidize the publication.
Makes no sense.
Of course it makes sense. Business sense. There have been too many cases of computer magazines being biased in favour of their advertisers to maintain the credibility of the whole computer publications industry. Where have you been living in the last 20 years? You don't really take their content as an example of good journalism, right?
It only makes business sense if analyzed on a "per quarter" basis. Beyond the very short term where one can ride off a previously established reputation, you can only shill for a short term before you lose readership, and as such lose value in your advertising. This is why a balance must be struck; effectively the value you must provide to your advertisers is a trust relationship they have built with their readers. If that relationship is broken, you might as well be publishing a large rag full of adverts with no editorial content.
Make no mistake, the behavior we see in MacWorld/PCWorld are the death throws of a very sick organization.
Yes both are symbiotic but advertisers are the ones footing the bill to get your publication off the ground and solvent. When it comes to the pecking order it's clearly
Advertisers first
Readership second.
I don't blame them. It's a business and integrity doesn't pay the bills. Money does.
If the public has no faith in the credibility of the reviews, they are not going to buy that publication. If the reviews and articles are censored by Steve Jobs and other tech CEO, the Magazines basically become a large advertisement. In addition, a company knowing the faults of a product or the way the company is doing things it help both it and its customers down the road.
Might have something to do with not seeing anything but a new option for super pros since basically last fall. I'm used to new Macs in early january and it's early May.
...a grumpy old baby boomer that thinks its his way or the highway and the others better shut up or get to know his full wrath....only difference is he has millions and i don't....
We don't like Dvorak, but he isn't a journalist, he's a pundit. Pundits are controversal, and they increase readership, or listenership. They don't speak with the voice of the magazine.
Sigh.
Time out for semantics and hair splitting, which of course gets us nowhere. Dvorak was simply an illustration.
Journalist: a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
Pundit: an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.
[Source: New Oxford American Dictionary, which you'll find find on your computer]
Does Dvorak count as a journalist? Yes. He fits the criteria from clause 1: he writes for a magazine. Is he what you consider a "proper journalist"? Apparently not, judging from your correction. But your correction was incorrect.
Is he a pundit? I suppose he is "called upon to give opinions." Or is he. He sure gives a lot of opinions. Whether that's the second implies the first is something that requires more behind-the-scene information than I possess. My only point was to suggest that the reason he's called upon to give those opinions isn't because they're so brilliant. His magazine pays him because trolling makes money, and they seem to be happy with that.
But he's more truly a journalist than bloggers are, sadly. And being a journalist carries a number of ethical obligations. He just doesn't live up to them.
...a grumpy old baby boomer that thinks its his way or the highway and the others better shut up or get to know his full wrath....only difference is he has millions and i don't....
Yes both are symbiotic but advertisers are the ones footing the bill to get your publication off the ground and solvent. When it comes to the pecking order it's clearly
Advertisers first
Readership second.
I don't blame them. It's a business and integrity doesn't pay the bills. Money does.
Lets get something straight here. There is a difference between being critical of a product or company in a publication - and SLAMMING or mocking a company just for the sake of mocking it - which is what this Apple piece sounded like. Especially when that company is an advertiser in your magazine.
I'm not sure how much money Apple spends on PCWorld advertising, but it seems the days of them smacking Apple are over now that Apple is big enough to contribute to it's bottom line. Oh how times have changed.
No. You don't have enough information to say that. The man quit. He says he quit because he has principles. A man can say anything. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not.
Another possible scenario: a writer with mediocre talent likes to push buttons, because he can't think of anything with genuine substance. He doesn't have much insight into the notion that he's just writing hackwork, but his editor doesn't think the latest article is anything but trolling for hits. The editor says, "Nope. Not gonna publish." The writer storms out. How sure are you that this isn't what happened? But you're ready to punish the magazine.
But we know for certain that's not what happened. The editor didn't reject the piece, and the writer didn't resign.
The editor-in-chief (in most reputable publications, he is the final and only authority on what makes it into print) accepted the piece. The publisher then told the editor that he couldn't run the article. So the editor quit. Rightly so.
Maybe the publisher had good reasons to block publication too. But if that's the case, then the publisher should have given his reasons for suggesting that the article be suppressed, and convinced the editor to step back in this case. If that failed, the publisher's legitimate recourse is to fire the editor because he or she apparently doesn't accurately represent the interests of the publication any more.
Its not a matter of advertisters first and readers second, or vice versa. It ia about strking a balance between the two:
- If readers don't feel they have a quality news source then they won't read it
- If advertisers get insulted too badly then the won't advertise
- If there aren't enough readers then advertisers won't advertise, or at least pay the same amount
Advertisers need to advertise, readers need a quality news source. Between the two the compromise is that advertisers need to accept some critiscim and readers that there will be some bias.
And if you're going to spout off about something, take the time to know what you're talking about. The struggle that goes on between editorial integrity and advertising sales isn't limited to PC World, nor is it limited to magazines -- although "major" U.S. magzines have been dealing with the problem for years:
A major advertiser recently approached all three newsweeklies - Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News - and told them it would be closely monitoring editorial content. So says a high newsweekly executive who was given the warning (but who would not name the advertiser). For the next quarter, the advertiser warned the magazines' publishing sides, it would keep track of how the company's industry was portrayed in news columns. At the end of that period, the advertiser would select one - and only one - of the magazines and award all of its newsweekly advertising to it.
Get it? Whichever magazine put the potential advertiser in the most positive light would receive the advertising dollars. And it's not like product placement in a copy of InStyle. These are "news" magazines -- except that the news is viewed through the eyes of people afraid of offending potential advertisers. There are plenty of other examples of advertising dictating the news, throughout the media. Here's a start: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...09/ai_n8761685
Pull your head out of your ass.
Whoa, such venom. Did you forget to take your meds, too?
The battle over journalistic integrity is not new. It has been with us since the beginning of journalism and there will always be the battle between which of two masters one will serve. But wait and quit over something with some substance and not some lame article which draws it's title from some '90's teen flick.
When you quit your job on principle, it is best to do it in a principled manner. Just walking out is a coward's path.
Comments
You can't say that. Well, you can, but it's not a fair statement (yes, I get your irony, such as it is).
Consider my point about Dvorak, in the post above. Letting a guy troll endlessly, pushing buttons, and saying anything he wants, just because he wants to... where's the integrity in that? If John Dvorak went away, would it make the advertisers happy? No doubt it would. But it would also increase the journalistic integrity if his (suddenly-former) magazine, as well. Nobody seems to stand up to Dvorak. Feel free to speculate on why that is, but it's sure not because of his flawlessly brilliant analyses.
Letting journalists say whatever they want is NOT always equatable to "integrity". Sometimes the journalist is just a troll, trying to use a magazine as his personal loudspeaker. And if that's the case, I say, "Good riddance." We've had soooooooooo much trolling lately.
Like I said before, none of us really has enough information to make a proper judgment about what happened. But if the title of the article is anything to go by ("10 Things We Hate About Apple"), well... you know, it sure does sound like trolling to me.
We don't like Dvorak, but he isn't a journalist, he's a pundit. Pundits are controversal, and they increase readership, or listenership. They don't speak with the voice of the magazine.
It seems that someone forgot to take his Ritalin before going to work. To quit over a stupid article about what you hate about a computer company shows a certain lack of maturity.
If you're going to quit your job on principle, do it over something that matters, please.
And if you're going to spout off about something, take the time to know what you're talking about. The struggle that goes on between editorial integrity and advertising sales isn't limited to PC World, nor is it limited to magazines -- although "major" U.S. magzines have been dealing with the problem for years:
A major advertiser recently approached all three newsweeklies - Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News - and told them it would be closely monitoring editorial content. So says a high newsweekly executive who was given the warning (but who would not name the advertiser). For the next quarter, the advertiser warned the magazines' publishing sides, it would keep track of how the company's industry was portrayed in news columns. At the end of that period, the advertiser would select one - and only one - of the magazines and award all of its newsweekly advertising to it.
Get it? Whichever magazine put the potential advertiser in the most positive light would receive the advertising dollars. And it's not like product placement in a copy of InStyle. These are "news" magazines -- except that the news is viewed through the eyes of people afraid of offending potential advertisers. There are plenty of other examples of advertising dictating the news, throughout the media. Here's a start: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...09/ai_n8761685
Pull your head out of your ass.
Frankly, I'm not surprised at this now that I think about how my attitude has changed towards MacWorld's content.
Wow. I consider myself a realist, but that take is pretty cynical even for me.
The logical corollary to your perspective then is that the accuracy of the content in the magazine or web site is irrelevant--so long as one can attract advertisers to subsidize the publication.
Makes no sense.
Of course it makes sense. Business sense. There have been too many cases of computer magazines being biased in favour of their advertisers to maintain the credibility of the whole computer publications industry. Where have you been living in the last 20 years? You don't really take their content as an example of good journalism, right?
Make no mistake, the behavior we see in MacWorld/PCWorld are the death throws of a very sick organization.
god mac news is boring lately.
I've been thinking that all week.
Yes both are symbiotic but advertisers are the ones footing the bill to get your publication off the ground and solvent. When it comes to the pecking order it's clearly
Advertisers first
Readership second.
I don't blame them. It's a business and integrity doesn't pay the bills. Money does.
If the public has no faith in the credibility of the reviews, they are not going to buy that publication. If the reviews and articles are censored by Steve Jobs and other tech CEO, the Magazines basically become a large advertisement. In addition, a company knowing the faults of a product or the way the company is doing things it help both it and its customers down the road.
I've been thinking that all week.
Might have something to do with not seeing anything but a new option for super pros since basically last fall. I'm used to new Macs in early january and it's early May.
We don't like Dvorak, but he isn't a journalist, he's a pundit. Pundits are controversal, and they increase readership, or listenership. They don't speak with the voice of the magazine.
Sigh.
Time out for semantics and hair splitting, which of course gets us nowhere. Dvorak was simply an illustration.
Journalist: a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
Pundit: an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.
[Source: New Oxford American Dictionary, which you'll find find on your computer]
Does Dvorak count as a journalist? Yes. He fits the criteria from clause 1: he writes for a magazine. Is he what you consider a "proper journalist"? Apparently not, judging from your correction. But your correction was incorrect.
Is he a pundit? I suppose he is "called upon to give opinions." Or is he. He sure gives a lot of opinions. Whether that's the second implies the first is something that requires more behind-the-scene information than I possess. My only point was to suggest that the reason he's called upon to give those opinions isn't because they're so brilliant. His magazine pays him because trolling makes money, and they seem to be happy with that.
But he's more truly a journalist than bloggers are, sadly. And being a journalist carries a number of ethical obligations. He just doesn't live up to them.
...a grumpy old baby boomer that thinks its his way or the highway and the others better shut up or get to know his full wrath....only difference is he has millions and i don't....
Billions actually.
Yes both are symbiotic but advertisers are the ones footing the bill to get your publication off the ground and solvent. When it comes to the pecking order it's clearly
Advertisers first
Readership second.
I don't blame them. It's a business and integrity doesn't pay the bills. Money does.
Lets get something straight here. There is a difference between being critical of a product or company in a publication - and SLAMMING or mocking a company just for the sake of mocking it - which is what this Apple piece sounded like. Especially when that company is an advertiser in your magazine.
I'm not sure how much money Apple spends on PCWorld advertising, but it seems the days of them smacking Apple are over now that Apple is big enough to contribute to it's bottom line. Oh how times have changed.
No. You don't have enough information to say that. The man quit. He says he quit because he has principles. A man can say anything. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not.
Another possible scenario: a writer with mediocre talent likes to push buttons, because he can't think of anything with genuine substance. He doesn't have much insight into the notion that he's just writing hackwork, but his editor doesn't think the latest article is anything but trolling for hits. The editor says, "Nope. Not gonna publish." The writer storms out. How sure are you that this isn't what happened? But you're ready to punish the magazine.
But we know for certain that's not what happened. The editor didn't reject the piece, and the writer didn't resign.
The editor-in-chief (in most reputable publications, he is the final and only authority on what makes it into print) accepted the piece. The publisher then told the editor that he couldn't run the article. So the editor quit. Rightly so.
Maybe the publisher had good reasons to block publication too. But if that's the case, then the publisher should have given his reasons for suggesting that the article be suppressed, and convinced the editor to step back in this case. If that failed, the publisher's legitimate recourse is to fire the editor because he or she apparently doesn't accurately represent the interests of the publication any more.
For The Love Of God Apple - Just Fucking Release Something!!!!!
Absolutely! I'm tired of waiting for everything.
- If readers don't feel they have a quality news source then they won't read it
- If advertisers get insulted too badly then the won't advertise
- If there aren't enough readers then advertisers won't advertise, or at least pay the same amount
Advertisers need to advertise, readers need a quality news source. Between the two the compromise is that advertisers need to accept some critiscim and readers that there will be some bias.
I agree with the assessment of Macworld as sucktastic, too...
Absolutely! I'm tired of waiting for everything.
COUNT ME IN FOR THE TIRED OF WAITING CLUB!
And if you're going to spout off about something, take the time to know what you're talking about. The struggle that goes on between editorial integrity and advertising sales isn't limited to PC World, nor is it limited to magazines -- although "major" U.S. magzines have been dealing with the problem for years:
A major advertiser recently approached all three newsweeklies - Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News - and told them it would be closely monitoring editorial content. So says a high newsweekly executive who was given the warning (but who would not name the advertiser). For the next quarter, the advertiser warned the magazines' publishing sides, it would keep track of how the company's industry was portrayed in news columns. At the end of that period, the advertiser would select one - and only one - of the magazines and award all of its newsweekly advertising to it.
Get it? Whichever magazine put the potential advertiser in the most positive light would receive the advertising dollars. And it's not like product placement in a copy of InStyle. These are "news" magazines -- except that the news is viewed through the eyes of people afraid of offending potential advertisers. There are plenty of other examples of advertising dictating the news, throughout the media. Here's a start: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...09/ai_n8761685
Pull your head out of your ass.
Whoa, such venom. Did you forget to take your meds, too?
The battle over journalistic integrity is not new. It has been with us since the beginning of journalism and there will always be the battle between which of two masters one will serve. But wait and quit over something with some substance and not some lame article which draws it's title from some '90's teen flick.
When you quit your job on principle, it is best to do it in a principled manner. Just walking out is a coward's path.