Cool Mac Gear

This week a reader correspondent to my OS X Odyssey column wrote in response to my frequent criticism of OS X performance relative to the speed I get with OS 9:

You can read the entire letter in OS X Odyssey 193. I’m not planning to discuss the OS X performance issue in this column, but rather the assertion that Mac journalists should predicate their commentary and temper their criticism of Apple products with regard to what potential effect they might have on Apple stock valuations.

Actually, I’m flattered that the reader thinks that I might have sufficient influence in the Mac community to s significantly influence the ups and downs of AAPL. Personally, I rather doubt that my opinions could have any noticable effect on Wall Street, but I have been accused on several occasions of writing things that allegedly could do just that, and such arguments are made frequently enough that they merit some thoughtful scrutiny.

Last fall, Steve Gilliard posted a withering critique of tech journalism in general and Web journalism in particular entitled “The Failure of Tech Journalism” on the netslaves.com community site. Regrettably, the link I had to Gilliard’s piece no longer works, but the gist of his screed was that computer journalism is in a parlous state, and most of its practitioners are biased, partisan cheerleaders for their favorite OS platform, and/or pathetic, sycophantic toadies sucking up to industry, more concerned with ingratiating themselves than with providing useful and helpful criticism of products they report on and review to their readers. Ouch! Is this a fair assessment?

Certainly, it was hard to argue with specific examples Gilliard cited -- mostly in the Windows and Linux camps. However, one had to concede that a lack of professionalism often extends well into the Mac Web journalism category as well.

“Journalists, as a rule, are not to be trusted,” said Gilliard. “The only people who will EVER make money online in journalism will make it being outsiders. I get all the conventional wisdom I can handle every Monday afternoon when the trades arrive. If you have this tool, the Internet, and you use it to serve up the same old insider crap, you have to be kidding yourself. No one is going to pay for that over time.”

As a Mac Web writer, I do consider myself an outsider, or least not much of an insider. I have industry contacts, and some of them have enough confidence in me to entrust me with what might be defined as “insider information” from time to time, but I don’t doubt that such intelligence would dry up in a jiffy if I didn’t respect my sources’ confidence by using it ethically, which means not blabbing it until I am authorized to do so.

“The idea of journalism,” wrote Gilliard. “especially online journalism, is about being a clear and independent voice, not some lackey for this year’s paper billionaire... The one thing that a reader expects is for you to be honest. Placating advertisers to get sales is stupid. Because if you can’t be truthful, no one, no one, will care to read you... It may seem like a sure thing to get your nose deep in the ass of your advertisers but in the end, you only serve one audience: your readers.”

Personally, my primary orientation in writing for the Mac Web, and about the Mac in print media, has always been as a reader advocate. I have not infrequently been accused of being too harshly critical of Apple, and of some of its products, from time to time, but I have also occasionally been told that I’m a Jobs-worshiping Apple acolyte. In fact, I try to be neither, but just to give an honest and fair accounting of what I write about the way I see it.

The way I don’t see it is that because I am a Mac fan and writing for a Mac advocacy Website, that it is my responsibility never to write anything that would cast Apple or its products in an unfavorable light, or worse (horrors!) negatively affect the AAPL stock valuation, People who suggest that woefully misunderstand the purpose of journalism, even the niche of Mac journalism, and the distinction between being a Mac advocate, and being a publicity flack and cheerleader. I want Apple to do well, but I’m not going to compromise what I perceive to be the truth, and the best interests of my readers in order to serve a slavish ethic of never speaking negatively about Apple or its products even when I think they deserve it.

If I find shortcomings in a product I review, whether it’s from Apple or another developer or manufacturer, I will say so. I have given “star” or “Applelinks A” ratings as low as “two” in reviews of certain software products.

I don’t do this callously or casually. I’m aware that in the vast majority of cases people have put a great deal of effort into creating a product, and it must be very difficult to read someone negatively criticizing the outcome of one’s sweat and toil, especially if it is done with cavalier indifference. I take no pleasure in writing negative reviews, and I always try my best to emphasize good or positive aspects of review subjects. A fair in even-handed assessment is what I strive for.

All this is not to say that I’m not a zealous Mac evangelist; I am. I’ve sold a lot of computers for Apple, and helped a lot of Mac users to enjoy a more satisfactory experience with their machines. I continue to vigorously recommend the Mac to the not inconsiderable numbers of folks who seek my input, both on and off the Web, and for the record, I advocate that new users learn OS X and not bother with OS 9.

While we’re at it, another point that needs to be emphasized is that writing or editing breaking news stories is substantially different from doing reviews and commentary. For hot news about products, one is usually almost entirely dependent upon press releases and/or other publicity materials released by the manufacturer or developer of the product, which can be counted on to be presented in glowing and enthusiastic terms.

In editing press releases, I try to weed out the most expansive hyperbole, and retain more factually descriptive stuff, but when reading news about new product releases, it is prudent as a reader to keep in mind that this sort of information should not be confused with critical reviews. Most of what I include in “Notable New Product News,” or “Shareware Beat” here on Applelinks is edited material directly from the manufacturer or developer. Reviews are explicitly presented as such.

Journalism is an odd calling. Even after more than 15 years as a full-time (at least as full as I could manage) freelance writer, I still find the definition of “journalist” difficult to nail down. Canadian pundit Allan Fotheringham once defined journalists as “those who come down out of the hills after the battle and shoot the wounded.” George Orwell said honest writers would admit to two motivations: “the habit of noticing unpleasant facts, and a desire to show off.”. Veteran Canadian journalist and editor John Fraser says that two basic traits distinguishing good journalists are “curiosity and a desire to communicate,” and that “the most you can hope for... is relative honesty.”

One thing that journalists are usually not, is experts in the fields they write about, a point frequently misunderstood by readers. For instance, I’m a reasonably competent and knowledgeable Mac user, but I’m neither a hardware technician nor a programmer. I depend on research, advice from sources who are experts in these fields, and personal lay experience, to inform my writing on computer topics.

At one time I was an editor and the principal writer for a magazine that covered marine-oriented industries -- shipbuilding, offshore oil and gas development, and commercial fishing. I am neither trained, personally experienced, nor an expert of any sort in those fields, but I managed to do a competent job of covering them journalistically. Ditto for another magazine I wrote for that focused on saltwater sportfishing. I’m not a trained philosopher, a theologian, or a political scientist, but I write commentaries on all three categories for publication.

Steve Gilliard said:

I’m inclined to agree in principle, although the last couple of years have been very difficult times in the dot.com publishing world. Readership is actually up, but ad-revenues have sharply declined. I’m sure that Mr. Gilliard’s instincts are correct, but it takes steely nerves and a lot of intestinal fortitude to publish content that may antagonize advertisers in the present business climate. This is even more of an issue for Web sites than it is for print magazines, which derive at least some of their revenue from reader subscriptions. Gilliard is right. Ultimately, establishing a publication as a useful and trusted resource for its readers is a formula for long-term success, but publishing is a business, and there are short-term realities that obtain as well.

However, as Gilliard observed, “If you don’t serve the people who buy your magazine and read your pages, ads won’t matter because no one will trust you and if they don’t trust you, they will not need you.”

That’s the bottom line. I have my biases and idiosyncrasies, and I’m not infallible in my judgments. However, I do try to be honest and consistent and to earn the trust of my readers that whatever information is filtered through my interpretation is presented in good faith and a striving for accuracy.

I’m also pleased when AAPL stock is doing well. I’m not a shareholder (unless one or more of my retirement nest egg mutual funds is invested in AAPL -- I honestly don’t know), but I want Apple to survive and thrive, not least because I want to continue using Macs.

However, in the long view, that will or will not happen based on Apple’s ability to continue turning out insanely great products -- not because of what some Mac Web journalist says or does not say about OS X or other Apple products. I shall continue to call ‘em as I see:’em, without geeping my eyes glued to the stock ticker.

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear