Those same sources added that when Crawford was working for the Macworld, Jobs would call him up any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was about to run.
Let me correct a major falsehood here. Apple has never, in my 10 years at Macworld, had access to ANY editorial content in advance of publication.
When people from Apple complain about what we write, they do it after we post it. And while Apple (and all other companies) can -- and do! -- complain about negative coverage, that doesn't remotely equate to changing coverage in order to appease those companies.
I'm sure if you talked to Apple they would tell you that the Apple-Macworld relationship is about as far away from "yes sir, anything you say sir" as you could get.
It sounds as if the article in question was to be one of those lame anti-Apple lists that the great PC unwashed love so much. Crawford, Apple-literate and presumably interested in attracting some Apple advertising dollars says that this sort of teenage nonsense isn't on anymore.
I love it. After twenty-five years of following the Apple soap-opera you can almost feel the world shifting its axis.
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.
First of all, (sigh), it isn't hairsplitting.
Seocondly, a pundit doesn't have to be an expert in the sense that you might want to think. He, or she, just has to be familiar with the area. No one ever expects them to be correct, just loud, annoying, and interesting. Dvorak fits those catagories.
Writing for a magazine doesn't make one a journalist either. It makes one someone who writes for a magazine.
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.
The cowards path is to not walk out.
The Chinese had a torture called "The death of a thousand pricks."
You may only bleed a small bit from each one, but altogether, they will kill you. There are variations on that scheme.
How long does one wait to decide that they have compromised their integrity? How much does one accept before realizing that it's too late?
If he accepted this one, and the one after, and the one after that, would we be accusing him of not leaving the first time?
You bet we would! You would probably be the first in line.
Let me correct a major falsehood here. Apple has never, in my 10 years at Macworld, had access to ANY editorial content in advance of publication.
When people from Apple complain about what we write, they do it after we post it. And while Apple (and all other companies) can -- and do! -- complain about negative coverage, that doesn't remotely equate to changing coverage in order to appease those companies.
I'm sure if you talked to Apple they would tell you that the Apple-Macworld relationship is about as far away from "yes sir, anything you say sir" as you could get.
-Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld
I'm not sure that Apple's having pre-publication access was exactly what was being hinted at.
But, as you have posted here, surprisingly, I must say, are you telling us categorically, that there was never any interference with the magazines content from non editorial individuals?
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.
Yes that's it. I'm not cynical in this but realize that when I pay a mere $2.95 my magazine (off the shelf mind you most subscriptions are $1.xx per copy) I realize I'm not paying enough to pay salaries, printing costs and mail/freight. Common sense dictates that I employ a bit of "reading between the lines" with reviews. If the review contains a product from company advertising heavily in the magazine I know it'll receive kind words. I've seen Dell win so many PC shootouts despite not being #1 in many benchmarks. Kind of hard not to give'em the checkered flag when they buy an 8 page spread every issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
You can't say that. Well, you can, but it's not a fair statement (yes, I get your irony, such as it is).
Of course I can. This is the United States. Integrity doesn't exist Capitalism does. If there's a magazine to trust it is Consumers Reports as they do not accept advertising dollars. Once you begin to accept money from a source you are beholden to the income of that source in some way. It's why America has a broken Democracy...the rights of the people mean nothing if they aren't contributing cold cash to the campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There's a balance that must be observed.
Yes indeed. I find it strange to see such naivete regarding Journalism today. Integrity is something that people scream about but in earnest Integrity must be displayed and not spoken about. MacCracken may or may not have shown Integrity. I tend think it's more like he wanted change and found a scapegoat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
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.
The public at large are fairly ignorant about computing and Tech. How are they going to know that Dell or any other heavy advertising manf is getting preferential treatment in reviews ? By and large they don't know and will aquiesce to the authority. The magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut
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.
Because I took it more tongue-in-cheek. I don't think the author was serious about any of those 10 things. But hey, feel free.....
But then again, wasn't the PC World article supposed to be "...light fare, just really innocuous stuff," and "The same kinds of things people have said about Apple before -- things that teased Steve Jobs."
All kidding aside, this pundit, John Soat, is clearly trying to usurp Dvork's throne.
10) The same reason the Dow won't stay at 13,000--gravity. Last week, Apple reported eye-popping second-quarter financials: a 21% increase in revenue and a whopping 88% increase in profits. Apple attributed the results in part to continuing strength in the sale of its personal computers. That's called being on a roll. You've been on a roll, right? And what happened?
He actually went with "What goes up must come down." Are we talking business and technology or junior college philosophy here? What a douche bag!
9) Just about everyone who might possibly want an iPod has one. I can't get on an airplane or enter a mall without half the population sporting earbuds. Yet, according to its recent financial results, Apple sold 10.5 million iPods last quarter. It makes me think of the rumor about how the Church of Scientology kept L. Ron Hubbard's book, Dianetics, on best-seller lists month after month: by buying hundreds of copies itself and burning them in the basement.
Soat starts off implying that Apple won't be able to sell anymore iPod because everyone already has them, therefore, the market is gone. He then finishes by implying that Apple is buying the iPods themselves to fake sakes. Two points: Apple reports actual sales, not shipments, unlike MS with its Zune; and buying hundreds of copies of a book won't make a lick of difference in nationwide sales.
8) Apple hasn't refreshed its computer line in a few years. Take a lesson from Detroit: Upgrade.
What! Did he sleep through the Intel transition?
7) When an online impersonator of the CEO is more interesting than the CEO himself, that's not a good sign. If you haven't read The Secret Diary Of Steve Jobs (fakesteve.blogspot.com), you should. It's not only funny but more than a little insightful on Apple's internal politics.
Where is the logic of a Steve Jobs impersonator spelling Apple's ultimate doom?
6) Apple opened seven stores last quarter, for a total of 177 worldwide, and a third store is planned for Manhattan. Are there enough thin, cool, good-looking young people in the world to staff them?
Again, how does this spell Apple demise? Opening brick and mortar stores can stress profits in today's virtual society, but Apple has shown that selective locations are not only profitable, but valuable in generating switchers whom may otherwise never experienced using a Mac.
5) Everyone is getting tired of those "I'm a Mac ... And I'm a PC" commercials. The Mac dude comes across as smug while the PC guy, who not coincidentally bears a striking resemblance to Bill Gates, elicits sympathy. And if the public starts feeling sorry for Bill Gates, you've lost.
This schmuck is actually saying that people will shun Apple and buy Windows because they feel sorry for Bill Gates. Dvorak has officially been dethroned.
4) There's increasing speculation the iPhone will flop. And it's not like Apple hasn't had flops before--remember the Newton?
We'll have to wait and see how the iPhone does before passing judgement, but I've read many a comment from people who will and won't buy an iPhone for various reasons.
3) Windows Vista is better than it's getting credit for. Conventional wisdom says Apple gains market share as Microsoft loses because of a backlash against Vista. But Vista hasn't been given a fair trial, and Microsoft has been known to pull products out of the fire. And beware the backlash against the backlash (see No. 5).
Vista is not better than its getting credit for. It's been toted as an equal to OS X Panther or Tiger, but it's not. It's just a Mac-like veneer on top of legacy code. My advice to MS, choose a a Unix foundation for your next OS release.
2) That pesky stock options backdating thing won't go away. Last week, Apple's former CFO said Jobs knew the regulatory implications of backdating and agreed to it anyway. The company's board of directors issued a statement of confidence in Jobs, including board member and former Vice President Al Gore. When Al Gore's your backup plan, it's time to reassess.
Ah! Now Soat's blatant stupidity becomes clearer.
1) I just bought an Apple iMac, which carries with it my personal version of the Sports Illustrated cover curse. The last PC I owned was a Sony Vaio, and look at what happened to that company. Before that, I owned a Micron PC. You didn't know that Micron, the microprocessor company, made PCs? It did, and good ones, back in the 1990s. In 2001, Micron sold its ailing PC business to an investment firm, which subsequently changed the name of the company to MPC.
If I'm following this correctly, Soat's number one reason why Apple will perish is that he bought an iMac. His logic cdictates that if he buys a computer from a company it willno longer be the success it once was. A technology cooler, if you will.
Seocondly, a pundit doesn't have to be an expert in the sense that you might want to think. He, or she, just has to be familiar with the area. No one ever expects them to be correct, just loud, annoying, and interesting. Dvorak fits those catagories.
Writing for a magazine doesn't make one a journalist either. It makes one someone who writes for a magazine.
Great. Wonderful. You're disagreeing with the Oxford American Dictionary. Guess which one of you is more likely to be right.
As I said before, you've got an informal definition of journalist in mind, and that's fine. There's a reasonable chance it matches my own informal definition. I don't particularly think that writing for a magazine qualifies someone as a journalist. I think there's a lot more to being a journalist than that. I also don't think writing a blog on the internet makes one a journalist, either.
But these are not my definitions to make. Neither are they yours. Furthermore, the two terms are obviously not mutually exclusive. So you can't say a person isn't "A" because you think he's "B". I didn't disagree with "B". Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough in my post. I'm just saying you didn't nullify "A".
I was simply making a passing reference to someone in a post, using terms I figured we could agree on because they adhere to the formal dictionary definitions. You don’t want that common ground. I actually have a lot of respect for you, Mr Gross. Please, though, refer all further corrections to the fine philologists at Oxford. When they change the definition, I’ll be happy to adhere to the new one.
Great. Wonderful. You're disagreeing with the Oxford American Dictionary. Guess which one of you is more likely to be right.
I think I'm more likely to be right in this case.
Words change meaning over time. You may not have noticed, but standards for many things have been lowered. Anyone who gets on a talk show, or writes for a web site can be called a pundit these days, just as bloggers expect to be treated as journalists.
Quote:
As I said before, you've got an informal definition of journalist in mind, and that's fine. There's a reasonable chance it matches my own informal definition. I don't particularly think that writing for a magazine qualifies someone as a journalist. I think there's a lot more to being a journalist than that. I also don't think writing a blog on the internet makes one a journalist, either.
But these are not my definitions to make. Neither are they yours. Furthermore, the two terms are obviously not mutually exclusive. So you can't say a person isn't "A" because you think he's "B".
Actually they are ours to make. How do you think definitions in dictionaries are made and changed? Popular usage does that. Just as the word "fun" is being used these days against the dictionary definition. How fun is that? We will see the change in the dictionary over time.
Quote:
I was simply making a passing reference to someone in a post, using terms I figured we could agree on because they adhere to the formal dictionary definitions. You don’t want that common ground. I actually have a lot of respect for you, Mr Gross. Please, though, refer all further corrections to the fine philologists at Oxford. When they change the definition, I’ll be happy to adhere to the new one.
If we wait for them to change a definition before we use the terms, they will never see a reason to change the definition. Sort of a circular problem. Is it the chicken or the egg?
The list doesn't start well. Number 10 claims that "gravity" is the reason the Dow won't stay at 13000. Funny thing about the Dow: it is valued at the same amount in GOLD, at 13000 as it was in 1929.
Sort of a circular problem. Is it the chicken or the egg?
It's neither. It's the horse. The dead one. Please, for the love of mike, stop beating the poor thing.
You've made your point clear. You do not accept a common ground based upon the most authorative source of the English language I know of. Let it go. I understand the dynamism of the language. I understand it exquisitely well. So do the people at the OED. Without a common ground, then all argument is just "Winner by exhaustion." A very hollow victory, indeed. I don't recommend it.
The list doesn't start well. Number 10 claims that "gravity" is the reason the Dow won't stay at 13000. Funny thing about the Dow: it is valued at the same amount in GOLD, at 13000 as it was in 1929.
Comments
Those same sources added that when Crawford was working for the Macworld, Jobs would call him up any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was about to run.
Let me correct a major falsehood here. Apple has never, in my 10 years at Macworld, had access to ANY editorial content in advance of publication.
When people from Apple complain about what we write, they do it after we post it. And while Apple (and all other companies) can -- and do! -- complain about negative coverage, that doesn't remotely equate to changing coverage in order to appease those companies.
I'm sure if you talked to Apple they would tell you that the Apple-Macworld relationship is about as far away from "yes sir, anything you say sir" as you could get.
-Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld
I love it. After twenty-five years of following the Apple soap-opera you can almost feel the world shifting its axis.
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.
First of all, (sigh), it isn't hairsplitting.
Seocondly, a pundit doesn't have to be an expert in the sense that you might want to think. He, or she, just has to be familiar with the area. No one ever expects them to be correct, just loud, annoying, and interesting. Dvorak fits those catagories.
Writing for a magazine doesn't make one a journalist either. It makes one someone who writes for a magazine.
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.
The cowards path is to not walk out.
The Chinese had a torture called "The death of a thousand pricks."
You may only bleed a small bit from each one, but altogether, they will kill you. There are variations on that scheme.
How long does one wait to decide that they have compromised their integrity? How much does one accept before realizing that it's too late?
If he accepted this one, and the one after, and the one after that, would we be accusing him of not leaving the first time?
You bet we would! You would probably be the first in line.
He did the right thing.
Let me correct a major falsehood here. Apple has never, in my 10 years at Macworld, had access to ANY editorial content in advance of publication.
When people from Apple complain about what we write, they do it after we post it. And while Apple (and all other companies) can -- and do! -- complain about negative coverage, that doesn't remotely equate to changing coverage in order to appease those companies.
I'm sure if you talked to Apple they would tell you that the Apple-Macworld relationship is about as far away from "yes sir, anything you say sir" as you could get.
-Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld
I'm not sure that Apple's having pre-publication access was exactly what was being hinted at.
But, as you have posted here, surprisingly, I must say, are you telling us categorically, that there was never any interference with the magazines content from non editorial individuals?
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.
Yes that's it. I'm not cynical in this but realize that when I pay a mere $2.95 my magazine (off the shelf mind you most subscriptions are $1.xx per copy) I realize I'm not paying enough to pay salaries, printing costs and mail/freight. Common sense dictates that I employ a bit of "reading between the lines" with reviews. If the review contains a product from company advertising heavily in the magazine I know it'll receive kind words. I've seen Dell win so many PC shootouts despite not being #1 in many benchmarks. Kind of hard not to give'em the checkered flag when they buy an 8 page spread every issue.
You can't say that. Well, you can, but it's not a fair statement (yes, I get your irony, such as it is).
Of course I can. This is the United States. Integrity doesn't exist Capitalism does. If there's a magazine to trust it is Consumers Reports as they do not accept advertising dollars. Once you begin to accept money from a source you are beholden to the income of that source in some way. It's why America has a broken Democracy...the rights of the people mean nothing if they aren't contributing cold cash to the campaign.
There's a balance that must be observed.
Yes indeed. I find it strange to see such naivete regarding Journalism today. Integrity is something that people scream about but in earnest Integrity must be displayed and not spoken about. MacCracken may or may not have shown Integrity. I tend think it's more like he wanted change and found a scapegoat.
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.
The public at large are fairly ignorant about computing and Tech. How are they going to know that Dell or any other heavy advertising manf is getting preferential treatment in reviews ? By and large they don't know and will aquiesce to the authority. The magazine.
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.
Yes..money talks...loudly.
10 Indications Apple is Headed for a Fall
Interesting. Why don't you create a new thread on this and we can discuss it.
But then again, wasn't the PC World article supposed to be "...light fare, just really innocuous stuff," and "The same kinds of things people have said about Apple before -- things that teased Steve Jobs."
Maybe some folks have a better sense of humor.
...and yet, this week in InformationWeek...
10 Indications Apple is Headed for a Fall
They should rename themselves InformationWeak.
All kidding aside, this pundit, John Soat, is clearly trying to usurp Dvork's throne.
Because I took it more tongue-in-cheek. I don't think the author was serious about any of those 10 things. But hey, feel free.....
Then I feel like a dope for thinking it was real. Thanks a lot, Jupiter!
AI, where are those sarcasm tags we've been asking for???
Then I feel like a dope for thinking it was real. Thanks a lot, Jupiter!
Damn, you're quick!
First of all, (sigh), it isn't hairsplitting.
Seocondly, a pundit doesn't have to be an expert in the sense that you might want to think. He, or she, just has to be familiar with the area. No one ever expects them to be correct, just loud, annoying, and interesting. Dvorak fits those catagories.
Writing for a magazine doesn't make one a journalist either. It makes one someone who writes for a magazine.
Great. Wonderful. You're disagreeing with the Oxford American Dictionary. Guess which one of you is more likely to be right.
As I said before, you've got an informal definition of journalist in mind, and that's fine. There's a reasonable chance it matches my own informal definition. I don't particularly think that writing for a magazine qualifies someone as a journalist. I think there's a lot more to being a journalist than that. I also don't think writing a blog on the internet makes one a journalist, either.
But these are not my definitions to make. Neither are they yours. Furthermore, the two terms are obviously not mutually exclusive. So you can't say a person isn't "A" because you think he's "B". I didn't disagree with "B". Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough in my post. I'm just saying you didn't nullify "A".
I was simply making a passing reference to someone in a post, using terms I figured we could agree on because they adhere to the formal dictionary definitions. You don’t want that common ground. I actually have a lot of respect for you, Mr Gross. Please, though, refer all further corrections to the fine philologists at Oxford. When they change the definition, I’ll be happy to adhere to the new one.
Great. Wonderful. You're disagreeing with the Oxford American Dictionary. Guess which one of you is more likely to be right.
I think I'm more likely to be right in this case.
Words change meaning over time. You may not have noticed, but standards for many things have been lowered. Anyone who gets on a talk show, or writes for a web site can be called a pundit these days, just as bloggers expect to be treated as journalists.
As I said before, you've got an informal definition of journalist in mind, and that's fine. There's a reasonable chance it matches my own informal definition. I don't particularly think that writing for a magazine qualifies someone as a journalist. I think there's a lot more to being a journalist than that. I also don't think writing a blog on the internet makes one a journalist, either.
But these are not my definitions to make. Neither are they yours. Furthermore, the two terms are obviously not mutually exclusive. So you can't say a person isn't "A" because you think he's "B".
Actually they are ours to make. How do you think definitions in dictionaries are made and changed? Popular usage does that. Just as the word "fun" is being used these days against the dictionary definition. How fun is that? We will see the change in the dictionary over time.
I was simply making a passing reference to someone in a post, using terms I figured we could agree on because they adhere to the formal dictionary definitions. You don’t want that common ground. I actually have a lot of respect for you, Mr Gross. Please, though, refer all further corrections to the fine philologists at Oxford. When they change the definition, I’ll be happy to adhere to the new one.
If we wait for them to change a definition before we use the terms, they will never see a reason to change the definition. Sort of a circular problem. Is it the chicken or the egg?
... that's not what happened. The editor didn't reject the piece, and the writer didn't resign...
You're right. I stand corrected, sir. Thanks.
But it was a great rant, though, right? Right?
What Record High? (Dow 13,000)
Sort of a circular problem. Is it the chicken or the egg?
It's neither. It's the horse. The dead one. Please, for the love of mike, stop beating the poor thing.
You've made your point clear. You do not accept a common ground based upon the most authorative source of the English language I know of. Let it go. I understand the dynamism of the language. I understand it exquisitely well. So do the people at the OED. Without a common ground, then all argument is just "Winner by exhaustion." A very hollow victory, indeed. I don't recommend it.
The list doesn't start well. Number 10 claims that "gravity" is the reason the Dow won't stay at 13000. Funny thing about the Dow: it is valued at the same amount in GOLD, at 13000 as it was in 1929.
What Record High? (Dow 13,000)
We all know how the price of gold swings.