Slashdot Mirror
Are Media Writers Biased Towards Apple?
Art Vanderlay writes "Readers should not be surprised by overcoverage of Apple Computers since the tech writers and columnists for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and Fortune are all Mac users. According to John Dvorak of PC Mag, no one seems to point out the connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs. He feels the newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias and are also Mac users." From the article: "This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer. With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good. The company essentially brought this on itself with various PR and marketing policies that discouraged knowledgeable coverage. I'll save those complaints for a future gripe session."
Umm... Isn't it human nature to root for the underdog? Good vs. Evil? Et cetera?
More
And HA!
I am astounded that such an astute observer as Dvorak didn't seem to pick up on the fact that the virulent "Apple is Dying" meme in the 90s was perpetuated primarily by PC-using columnists...
Decides that writers are all using Macs, are biased and of course must be wrong.... because they have no frame of reference unlike himself who works for a magazine that talks of Windows Vista as being the second coming.
Hello Pot... have you met kettle?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer.
Perhaps these happy Mac users are former Windows users? Dvorak is going on a limb by assuming they're techo-illiterates who haven't used Windows.
Trolling is a art,
Not meant to be a troll, but what splashy and cool stuff that's appealing to the public has Microsoft done lately outside of the XBOX 360 that might merit some coverage?
> connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar
>conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs.
So Mac users are biased and have a conflict of interest, while Microsoft users don't? That's ridiculous to suggest that someone can't be objective if they use a particular platform.
I knew that person who used to accuse me of being platform-biased since I use a Mac. I ignored it until once I responded to him, "Look, I purchased Microsoft Office, I purchased Microsoft Windows to work with Virtual PC. I have no problems using Windows, Linux, or whatever. I even own Microsoft stock. How much Microsoft stuff do I have to own for you to considered me unbiased?"
> From the article: "This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get
> worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers
> who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer.
Dvorak's just trying to troll. Dvorak admitted years ago that he trolled for responses: calling the iBook a makeup case (1999), writing articles about fake dreams ("In my dream, Jobs was in line at a movie theater with Bill Gates..." from 1998), and my favorite,
He's just doing it again. Moreover, he's claiming "bias" without suitable proof -- and the burden of proof on Dvorak is a lot greater than "I could list 50". Hey, John, if you really think your fellow columns and analysts are biased, then name names. But waving around your secret list in order to troll is silly.
Crying bias! is just Dvorak's way of crying for help.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The article does go on to say that many editors use macs, which would be one good reason why coverage would be a little more pronounced. But the fact that Apple makes a few products (their own) for a few systems (their own, for the most part) helps some too, I think. People are used to seeing innovation from Apple - products that at the very least look sleek and stylish, and in the best cases do amazing things as well.
The "press" is human as well, and I would find it hard to fault them for acting that way. To sum it up - a company that generally has interesting media events has another coming up. Wouldn't you be inclined to pay attention?
This says a lot.
People who write about technology are going to know a lot about it, and so they are going to be in a better informed position to choose what is best because they have both seen a lot of technology and thought about it a lot. They choose Macs.
Dvorak writes for a Windows magazine...
Hmmm.... so people who like Macintoshes enough to use them should be disqualified from voicing their opinions because they've demonstrated a preference for Macs? Any possibility that, you know, they use Macs for good reason?
This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer. With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good.
Ok, so, I think I'm beginning to understand. You need some genius-level technical prowess to get a Windows computer to work, so as coverage is turned over to normal people, they're bound to prefer Macintoshes. Without being Microsoft-biased, Microsoft cannot look good.
The company essentially brought this on itself with various PR and marketing policies that discouraged knowledgeable coverage.
Huh? Which company? Apple? So Apple "brought this on themselves", the 'this' being good press, by various marketing/PR policies? In other words, their marketing/PR is effective? Is that a criticism?
Or does he mean Microsoft brought it on themselves by marketing with FUD? And finally...
He feels the newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias and are also Mac users.
From the news I see, I'd say editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see any of their biases. Or else they're paid off by their advertisers, as PC Magazine seems to be.
Whenever Steve Jobs shows all those media quotes at his keynotes praising apple products, there is always one from the new york times, and the writer is always David Pouge. He is highly qualified to write articles on the Mac beat, he used to edit macworld (I think, or was it macuser) and he wrote Macs for Dummies and many other books. He is probably the most extreme example of what DVORAK is talking about. But, his articles are generally good, they aren't fan-boy by any strech, he explains why the apple experience is better for the end user, but he does often have a lot of complaints about apple products. Now, I work in a newsroom myself, for a very small newspaper, we are mac based. Every time somebody new comes on they are like "Oh, I don't get macs" and spend the first couple weeks complaining about them, but within a year, 90% of them have bought Macs for themselves, after experiencing OS X, they want it for themselves. It makes sense to me that editors would have no problem with pro-apple articles, nor should they. Yes, they use macs, but they use them for a reason: they are better.
Dvorak didn't just jump the shark with this one, he did a backflip, danced on its snout, and drank a tall glass of Microsoft Kool-Aid while doing it...
First of all, "it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer"? Is Dvorak really insinuating that only the elite use Windows these days? I mean, c'mon, by virtual of nothing less than market share Windows is used by the vast majority of people who still wonder what that cup holder thingy is supposed to do. Mac users by and large tend to be infinitely more technically astute than Windows users. His argument as as asinine as it comes here.
The fact is that Macintosh has undoubtedly attracted a large following with members of the media. Dvorak's essential thesis is right on the money. Time might as well be a division of Apple's PR department. Walter Mossberg gives glowing reviews to anything Apple. David Pogue at The New York Times tends to be a big Apple booster as well. Apple users are known for their fanatical devotion to the brand, and Apple has a lot more mindshare in the media industry than Microsoft.
The problem with Dvorak's article is that it takes a good argument and turns it into a piece with all the coherency and logic of a USENET troll. Let's face it, at least Apple boosters are part of the in crowd. People who continually make such ad hominem excuses for the fact that Microsoft is losing mindshare at a massive rate end up looking like a bunch of crochety Kool-Aid guzzlers. Yes, Apple has a disproportionate influence in the media, but its hard to argue with the fact that much of it is due to the fact that they make a better set of products and they work harder to ensure customer loyalty than Microsoft.
"This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer."
doesn't that, sort of, imply that windows is too difficult to, you know, use?
Someone (here?) recently made a very convincing argument that journalists consistently give light-and-thin laptops much better ratings (on average) than heavier notebooks, even though the two are really for two different things. Why? Because all journalists seem to have roughly the same usage pattern - cart laptop around on plane, use it to take notes at the conference, post stories from hotel room using WiFi, and so forth. Thus, journalists need a smaller laptop, and thus give them better reviews, but unfairly bash larger ones as being inadequate. They are - but only if you're a journalist who's running around all the time. A college student who just wants something he can leave on his dorm room desk, but easily take home on break, is probably going to prefer a larger, more powerful notebook or DTR.
I'm not sure if this is as true for Macs, but it probably enters the equation somehow. If the writer says "I would never give up my Mac for anything, and I hate Microsoft and Linux even if they were better, yada yada", there's certainly some emotional bias involved, and they should probably think twice about their journalistic integrity before submitting the review for publication. Certainly the _editors_ should be concerned about the reputation of their publication.
Ideally, a computer review shouldn't be just one person's thoughts on it - they would have a team of three or four people (the gamer, the journalist, the businessman, the IT guy) that each post their own thoughts on how the computer performs for them, and how well it meets their expectations given cost. They should be reasonably open-minded about different operating systems, and also be skilled with all of them (not as hard as it sounds, really).
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Microsoft's got a horizontal monopoly, but it looks like Apple's going for the vertical monopoly.
There's nothing wrong with operating a monopoly per se - and in the Microsoft case the problem was never with Microsoft being a monopoly - the DoJ case was brought because it was alleged that Microsoft had abused its monolpoly position.
In other words, wake me up not when Apple have a monolpoly, but when they start abusing their monolpoly position.
This is where the serious fun begins.
It has been patently obvious for years now that Dvorak is intentionally caustic to generate banner ad impressions on his web column. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
When the Dvorak Reality Distortion Field is fully engaged, it's possible to rail on other members of the press for bias while ignoring your own.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
but here it is just because it has "Apple" in the title
Unlike every Linux story.
EricAre clicks from China and India automatically invalid?
Maybe tech writers use Macs because they are attuned to the details of technology, and they have a budget to buy them.
Apple gets a lot of coverage right now because a) they have new products to cover right now, b) they have a history of important innovation, c) they are one of the largest computer makers in the world, and d) they are succeeding at a strategy that all computer makers are trying--transitioning to a large consumer electronics company.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Am i the only one who thought this was totally backwards? I no longer pay much attention to mainstream news, but i've seen countless stories about viruses, trojans, system failures stranding US Navy ships, and so on, never with any mention of the fact that these problems are specific to Microsoft platforms. I can see some argument that in the case of things like ship navigation computers failing, the general public doesn't really care what OS the thing was running (i don't really believe that argument, but i think it could be made with a straight face). But the fact that end users could protect their home computer from the very threat that stories about viruses and the like are reporting on is directly relevant to the story at hand for the general public. The fact that i've never heard this mentioned at least suggests the existence of a pro-Microsoft bias in the stories.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Ok, I'm a PC user, always have been. I like the idea of Macs, but I'm a gamer, so I have PCs. With that in mind...
So what he's saying is that mac writers are biased towards the benefit of Apple... They have Apple computers, they use Apple computers, they like Apple computers, and so they write about Apple in a positive way.
Now, think about the bias of windows users. They have Windows, they use Windows, they hate Windows, they write about Microsoft in a negative way (or not at all).
This is not just about bias because Apple computers are what people happen to use at the time. This is bias because Apple has created a product that its users appreciate. This is why Apple is in a position right now where its products are almost universally lauded, while Microsoft's are often reviled. The media reflects this.
It's Microsoft not living up to peoples' expectations, while Apple gives them a superior experience (and the people are glad for it). So yes, I guess you could say that people are biased towards getting what they want.
As far as I'm concerned it's not bias, it's karma.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
I have used both platforms and have thrown my mouse against the wall with a "Fuck You Bill Gates" more than once and have never been so provoked by frustration with Mac. Is this due to media spin or my user experience?...I think the later.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.