Not so long ago there was a set very high profile cases against two notable web sites in the mac news sphere: Think Secret and Powerpage.org. While I won’t go into the merits of the case or even the details, much of the defence rested around the idea that bloggers should be treated as journalists. But while freedom of speech and the Internet give everyone the right to say what they like that certainly does not mean that anyone with a weblog has the experience and integrity of a trained and seasoned journalist. But why bring this up now? Well, Yesterday there was something of a fuss over a piece noted tech blogger Robert Scoble wrote criticising the press for not fairly reporting Apple’s faults. He mentions Time and Newsweek as well as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Business Week.
According to Scoble, these publications demonstrate a clear pro Apple bias
“because mainstream press are sent Apple products to try and use before anyone else sees them”
he goes on to ask
“Does the mainstream press not want to attack Apple cause Apple is so exclusive and this exclusivity turns into MAJOR TRAFFIC on blogs and Web sites (and, sales of magazines, etc)?”
Clearly he has a bone to pick with Apple, but that is beside the point. This is where the difference between a true journalist and a blogger comes in. A real journalist would think through the consequences of his or her actions before writing them in print (or electrons). Some bloggers on the other hand, seems to think it is quite ok to throw a temper tantrum online without realising what he or she is actually saying. Is it the anti-apple nature of his arguments that I am referring to? No, not at all. After all, this particular blog is renowned for it’s pro Microsoft focus, and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But what Mr. Scoble has done, because he is pissed at Apple over a macbook needing repair, is to question the integrity of some of the most respected publications in the US and some of the most noted journalists in the world, without any evidence or facts to back his claims up. If he worked for any kind of media outlet he would never get such a baseless claim past an editor.
Take the New York Times for example. Regarded around the world as a bastion of true journalism, the real world’s “Daily Planet” if you will. Their technology columnist, David Pogue, one of the most widely known tech journalists in the English speaking world, and Scoble is accusing him, his colleagues, and the paper of pimping themselves for an exclusive with Apple. Apart from the fact that it is absolutely ridiculous, it is highly offensive, both to those hard working journalists and to those of us who value objectivity in their reporting. Is it the fault of the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal that Apple frequently makes good products that capture the attention of the public? Does that mean they are going to bias their reporting to sell a few extra copies. Hell no. Even just over a week ago The New York Times was particularly hard on Apple over it’s stock options scandal. To say that the mainstream press never criticises Apple is just wrong.
The whole idea of an Apple bias in the mainstream media is ridiculous. The problem for Scoble and his readers, is that the mainstream press is not biased enough against Apple. When objectivity doesn’t favour your point of view it is easy to come up with conspiracy theories as to the cause. That’s what people on the extremes of the political divide have been doing for years. But to think that the direction of a publication like news week would stretch its ethics to please a computer company is insane. Are those bloggers on the Microsoft side of the fence that insecure about the rise of Apple that they have to come up with these kind of outlandish accusations?
Further reading of Scoble’s entry reveals what is probably the true motivation behind his attack.
“After all, I don’t see many, if any, bloggers getting access to its PR events Steve Jobs keynotes. That’s quite different at other companies.”
So is he basically miffed because Apple doesn’t treat him and fellow bloggers like a reporter from the Times? (Apart from the fact that anyone can purchase a ticket to the Apple Keynotes at Macworld.) Well, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. I consider myself a blogger and I don’t get offended because I’ve never been given a press pass to every Apple event, and I write mostly pro Apple stories. (then again I’ve never sought one either) I’m not a journalist and certainly don’t claim to be. And with this kind of diatribe, if I worked at Apple, I certainly wouldn’t give him a press pass now. If Microsoft has embraced bloggers that’s great, but just because Apple hasn’t yet it’s hardly fair to blame the mainstream press.
The irony is that he complains at one point
“when I write something provocative about Apple I get more traffic than anything but Digg’s front page sends”
and yet his entry mysteriously appears on a number of Apple news portals shortly thereafter. To paraphrase Shakespeare “the blogger doth protest too much, methinks”
[updated: added the line; "without any evidence or facts to back his claims up. If he worked for any kind of media outlet he would never get such a baseless claim past an editor." and " (then again I've never sought one either)"]
No related posts.
Subscribe To RSS feed
I don’t think “most bloggers” want to be known as journalists. I certainly don’t in my blogging. However, I do want my first ammendment rights protected. The Lanham Act, which will almost certainly be updated with case study of the Apple vs Bloggers case and my own case (Bidzirk vs Smith), is very clear … it’s not whether you are a journalist or an award winning reporter. It is the intent of the article. In other words, did you start a blog solely to cover the hatred you have for a company or is the article posted a pattern of your typical critique where no one single business is constantly singled out? Are there other blogs and information outlets reporting the same thing? The Lanham Act, which clarifies the first ammendment, as it pertains to patent, service mark, and trademark says that ALL FORMS OF NEWS 7 NEWS COMMENTARY are protected. This would include your typical; news outlets, but would also include blogs. I comment on Apple Computer and eBay news at my BLOG. David Pogue comments on Technology Industry news at The New York Times. While he is certainly more educated than me, won many more pretigious awards than me, and known the world over … I am no less of commentator or editorial delivery outlet than he is. A rant about a business, service, company, or product serves as a helpful study for consumers. Most of the time, you can read between the lines of any ranting blog post and see the true intent of the post. By looking at the writing style of the author … often you can tell if they are delivering useful information or if they are on a maniacal witch hunt so as to defame the business.
I don’t see how you could interpert this as a first amendment issue? I clearly stated that everyone has the right to their opinions. But to blanketly accuse some of the worlds most respected publications of what amounts to bribery without one shred of evidence is something a mainstram journalist would never do. (and their editor would never let them) and scoble clearly believes he is better than those mainstream journalists he is complaining about. It’s all about standards, not absolutes. Blenty of bloggers hold themselves to journalistic standards. Unfortunately there are some who believe that they don’t need to.
I think what he’s saying is that bloggers should be considered journalists for the purposes of free speech protections, such as being able to protect their sources, etc.
So he is alarmed at you saying that bloggers are not journalists because he feels this means you are against these protections.
I think we’re all for those protections for anyone who does original reporting (like Think Secret does), blogging or no.
D
I never once questioned that bloggers should not be allowed protection under the law. In fact I specifically made a point of respecting their right to free speech:
“But while freedom of speech and the Internet give everyone the right to say what they like that certainly does not mean that anyone with a weblog has the experience and integrity of a trained and seasoned journalist.”
That sums up my opinion. Bloggers need to show responsibility if they want to be taken seriously. Not everyone with a blog thinks they are the cutting edge of journalism, but some certainly hold themselves in that esteem. I don’t see how that should interfere with his rights. Perhaps if I had simply wrote “Scooble is an Idiot” that childish remark would be more acceptable than pointing out why he should not be taken seriously.
I never once questioned that they should not be allowed to write what they want, or that they should be less protected than anyone else, but If Bloggers want to be treated with the same respect as a Journalist then they have to act as one. Journalists are accountable for their writing. Bloggers are not. Not under the law, but from being fired. Case in point the BBC reporter whos made up comments led to the death of a scientist a few years ago. He was promptly fired for his remarks, once they were found to be untrue. But if he had been a blogger, who would have held him to account?
Scooble didn’t just express an opinion, he made a specific accusation against specific publications.
But FIX Your Thinking seems quite contradictory in his remarks. On the one hand he is attacking me for saying that bloggers are not journalists, that that is an inflamatory remark, but then he writes his own piece, saying that bloggers don’t want to be Journalists. So What’s the point exactly?
I believe Mr Smith’s problem is that he disagrees with my opinion that The New York Times is a reputable publication. It is certainly his right to have that opinion, but I believe that it is more due to his political view than anything else. As for his overly defensive “rebuttal” of a sentiment that was never there to begin with, I think this might have something to do with that.