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."
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
> 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?
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.
And how much of this did we already hear about last year? And the year before that?
Vista is so slow coming out the gates, I expect it to ship with Nukem. No one cares about MSN search because we have google. As most admins, I associate hotmail with spam. A new windows media player is nothing to celebrate: Why would we? It's like they achieved all the functionality you might need at about 6, and from there on out it's been all about adding bloat. IE: It's starting to play feature catchup with firefox, hardly news.
So none of this is really news, and most of it is old garbage.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Because I've used Linux, Windows, and OS X (among many, many others). Given the choice, I'll take OS X every time. I value my time -- that leaves Linux out. I value my productivity -- that omits Windows. I value my sanity, that leaves OS X.
This is known as being a fast-follower and it is often a good position to be in. Follow up on a good idea and (more importantly) get the little details right. Often it is not the first company to market with an idea to make it big.
Alta-vista was big in the early search engines, but Google is the one still thriving. I don't even remember the name of the first company to come out with a MIDI card for PCs, but Creative is still going strong. There's lots of examples like that.
Apple is doing some things right these days and reaping the rewards. I don't have a problem with that.
Dell, however, has a different business focus. They're a commodity company and they're doing very well at what they do. There's room for both kinds of companies.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
Dvorak has always been a fairly clueless commentator, but lately he seems to have been exceeding his previous best efforts. This is in line with his recent 'misses the point entirely' would-be hatchet-job on Creative Commons.
Dvorak is too old an industry hand not to know how things work. Quite aside from whatever Apple's doing behind the scenes to encourage people to write about them (or encourage editors to demand stories on Apple), there's the fact that Apple is currently The Story. They've turned their business and their stock price around, they have a charismatic leader (Jobs) and a charismatic product (iPod), and they're aggressively rolling out new products which can be expected to sell well. Whether you want to write an "It can't last" or a "Apple is unstoppable" story, there's lots of material for even the laziest journo to work with. Whereas most journalists realize that writing a "Vista still isn't close to being ready, but it'll be really wonderful when it is." story looks a little ridiculous. ("Still not king.")
It's worth remembering that not so long ago, Apple was getting a lot of coverage and none of it was good. I've always wondered how much of the Apple crisis of the '90s that nearly sunk the company before His Steveness came riding to the rescue was actually caused by the negative coverage they got, and how much of that negative coverage was 'encouraged' by certain interested parties (no names, no pack drill). If I'm right that a certain amount of that coverage was the product of someone whispering in the shell-like ears of the industry editors that they might like to run a few more "Apple is doomed" stories, then presumably those same someones will be back when Vista is good and ready, and we'll see nothing but "Microsoft triumphant" and "Vista changes the future of humanity" stories for six solid months.
Coverage has everything to do with what the editors decide is The Story this week. It has nothing to do with today's journalists being Apple-centric because (unlike John "Manly Man" Dvorak) they're too wimpish to go mano-a-mano with a balky Windows box and don't know what real computing is. Nice try, John, but you're still talking rubbish.