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."
I think some of the same could be said for Slashdot too.
Don't worry, I will post this anon.
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...
After living through the 1988-2003 years where the media bias was pro-Microsoft, it's nice to have a new media darling. I'm sure it as more to do with the profit potential for investors than anything else, of course.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
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,
Let's see, the author uses windows and is therefore microsoft biased. Should he declare this inbuilt bias in every column?
:))
The vast majority of the world has a Microsoft bias (myself included, sadly, tho I have an offsetting Unix bias as well
Since MS users are trained to handle an overly obtuse interface, we find Apple interfaces simplistic and limiting.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
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?
Several analysts pointed out that John C Dvorak might not be fully qualified to analyze Apple either due to his prolific tendency to spew forth useless garbage completely devoid of any logic or insightful content.
Ugh. Of course MS won't get coverage if it doesn't do anything actually newsworthy -- but if it does, it will. Note how long it's been since XP came out (the service packs in fact get -much- more coverage than the free updates to OS X) and how much buzz there's been recently over Vista.
Also behold E3, one of MS' few opportunities to introduce cool new hardware like Apple does every five minutes.
I would like to use this opportunity to humbly request a new Article filter - a John Dvorak Filter. There's no reason to give this hack a moment of my time.
> 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?
Is this Bill's Birthday or something ?
5 MS Stories on Slashdot homepage, many looking like marketing speak
Slashdot hire a MS PR Guy as of late ?
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...
The bias for Apple is clearly obvious (full disclosure: I'm a Machead). However, look back at the early 90s when Apple was clearly not doing as well. It's not like media coverage was overwhelmingly in favor of Apple then. Was it that Apple made interesting products that caused media coverage or media coverage that caused Apple to make interesting products? I think it's the former. I remember reading/seeing good coverage in favor of Microsoft when it came out with Windows 95, Internet Explorer, and the XBox. What have they done since then that's all that interesting or even good? Until they come out with products that are as interesting as their milestones in the past, they're not going to get good media coverage. My point is that you're essentially missing what the cause is and what the effect is. No matter what, there will be bias, but look beyond that, and you'll see that the coverage itself has merit.
Dvorak's 1984 view of the Mac
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
enough said
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.
But I thought Windows was supposed to be easy to use... Perhaps Dvorak is right, and everyone who isn't a CS major should give up Windows and switch to Macs.
Good idea, John!
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?
I think it was Wilt Chamberlain who said, "Nobody roots for Goliath".
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.
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.
As opposed to the current "qualified" observers who cannot be bothered to use anything besides a Windows computer? Maybe like you, John, who admitted that you didn't understand Creative Commons, and therefore it must be worthless. Or saying that large hard drive storage only serves as a replacement for the VCR. Or that the PC has become bland, boring, useless? Maybe it has, if your nose is stuck up the ass of Microsoft.
If it's anything different from the current "Microsoft can do no wrong" mainstream press, I'm all for it. The real question should be can PC Magazine survive?
The World is Yours.
No, Apple takes a close second to Google on slashdot. I swear not a day goes by without some story about one of these 2 companies. Even this one is a sort of meta-story about apple stories. Really quite useless, but here it is just because it has "Apple" in the title.
I guess Zonk thinks the media should be reporting on all of Microsoft's great product releases over the last couple of weeks. Like ... umm ... err ...
I'm sure it'll be different when Longhorn or XBox 360 are released, and we'll see that these "horribly biased" media companies report on Microsoft. And when the Playstation 3 comes out, the media will report on Sony. It's only to be expected. Reporting on new products that are likely to make a HUGE market impact is a sensible thing for a tech writer to do, and right now Apple's innovation machine is in overdrive.
Good one. I'm still ROTFL. Made my day. Hey, that's a good one. Gotta love it. Good going. A winner.
Umm, all the PC Magazines are published and printed with Macs, and always have been. Doesn't stop them from writing about Microsoft, the x86PC, or any of that stuff. A lot of ads for PCs, PC gear, PC software, etc are laid up on Macs. Doesn't stop them from selling PC gear.
What's changed is the company and it's products (Apple); in particular the iPod. In fact, the player is really the one responsible; everyone, including PC users, seems to have bought one and that's what's creating the buzz. Before the iPod, people kind-of-sort-of knew there was probably a difference but didn't really pay attention. Now, they are curious and the media simply reflects that by talking about it more (a lot more).
Is it only me who noticed that Dvorak is writing about Macs in an article about too much Mac coverage?
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.
And honestly, how many "enthusiastic" windows users do you know?
I think I know the answer as to why there are not more "enthusiastic" windows users. It's not strictly because of a lack of material to be excited about. The prevailing geek culture absolutely prevents it. The prevailing culture is so biased, yes biased, against Microsoft that anybody claiming to be a MS enthusiast in not-so-proverbially booed off the proverbial stage. I am not being a troll, and I am not claiming at all that at least part of that bias is justified, I am just saying that's the way the wind blows. And most geeks are no less susceptible to cultural pressure than anybody else... maybe even more susceptible.
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
I do; I use Firefox, Thunderbird, NeoOffice, Adium and Colloquy, and a big-ass pile of command-line apps courtesey of Fink (which has the Debian nature). Of course, I'm also a long-time Linux and *BSD user.
I also use iTunes, becuase honestly, it does two things that I want -- plays MP3s and keeps my iPod synced, and otherwise doesn't irritate me or inundate me with ads.
I'll probably choose to use Photoshop, because Gimp (and MacGimp) are limited to 8-bits-per-pixel and have crap for color management.
Why are all these important?
Because I choose to use them. There are alternatives, to varying degrees, but overall, the stuff that comes bundled with OS X is all quite usable, unlike the crap that comes bundled with Windows. When you buy a Mac, you get a tabbed browser based on the Gecko engine, a decent mail application that can support PGP, and an OS that can talk to just about any type of service -- AFS, NFS, SMB, you name it.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
I'm somewhat in agreement with this statement, even though John Dvorak usually overreaches with his generalizations.
Apple products are boutique items. They are products with style and image for people who care about such things (and with the money to pay for it).
In the educational world, Mac still has a dominant influence (where educational discounts abound). I once took an graduate instructional technology course and was amazed to find that all the computer labs we used were Mac based. (That was 4 years ago, when open source was still viewed with suspicion).
I don't like windows, and lots of open source people probably don't either. So by default does that mean we love Macs?
Well, no. For me, I am cost conscious. When talking about the MS tax, we must not forget that Mac hardware just is out of the league to comparable PC products.
The ipod/itunes products have represented major advances in their respective industries (although not too advanced;; dollar for dollar the iriver (for example) matches better against ipods, and even supports open source codecs like ogg. Itunes has innovations, yes, and usability, but more importantly they have implicit support from content providers and can cobrand their products with the music they sell. Pretty clever, but....how does that help consumers wanting to find new, cheap and independent music?
Here's an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the NYT in 2003 complaining about the inordinate amount of coverage of itunes/pay musical services...
"If 90-95% of all mp3's out are by unsigned artists who allow downloading and if the only download methods mentioned in your articles are subscriptions with multibillion dollar media companies, what does this say about the journalistic integrity of the New York Times? I know New York Times accepts advertisements from all of these companies, and this seems to be an example of how the Times is compromising its journalistic integrity by ignoring the vast majority of legal ways to obtain mp3's for free. These articles seem designed more to appease advertisers than to provide reliable newsworthy information."
(To be fair, after I sent that letter, NYT did provide light coverage of free and nonDRM download services. But every three months or so NYT does the obligatory roundup of pay music services, and every time it concludes that the best "deal" is to buy DRMed music from Universal/Sony/etc. )
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
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.
Hand it to Dvorak to take a thoughtful argument and throw in some utter bullshit (the ipod video comments) to make him sound like the hack he is. He's wrong about the video ipod in so many ways. TV episodes are NOT free, as you have to watch commercials (and pay with your time), or pay money for a TiVo-like service to remove them. You most certaily can not watch older episodes unless it's in syndication and you need the previously mentioned Tivo-like service to record them. Also, you don't need the iPod video to watch the TV shows. You are free to download and watch them right in iTunes. Fuck you Dvorak. You are as biased as those you are bitching about. Instead of discounting out of hand, any product that Apple creates, why don't you give it some intelligent consideration first? The little iPod you hate sells the fuck out of any other mp3 player on the market.
It's a natural bias. Media Writers use apple. And Media Writers are biased towards Media Writers. Just as there are so many movies about movies, how the content of the Internet is biased towards computers, how so much Hip-Hop is about making Hip-Hop, how journalists make a sensational news from a journalist being assaulted. Just see such rage from journalists if, say, laws of a farmer get broken that way!
It's a natural bias, that authors of given media are creating works about their media. And since media writers use macs, they write about macs. Nothing strange here.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Eh, just read a different columnist. I'm a big fan of Bob Qwerty, he seems to have his head screwed on right.
*runs for cover*
Please help metamoderate.
What I find interesting is this story yesterday in the largest Swedish morning news paper and The Register. After a Dvorak column a few days earlier.
Is Dvorak (of all nitwits!) so much copied!? Is this some sort of campaign?
I remember reading at least a decade of rah rah articles about Microsoft, up to being declared guilty in their big trial. And quite a bit after.
(-: I mean, it is a well known phenomenon that big advertisers get terrible press. So of course Microsoft gets slaughtered in the press. :-)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
but here it is just because it has "Apple" in the title
Unlike every Linux story.
EricAre clicks from China and India automatically invalid?
20 years ago he would (and probably did) have the same thing to say about Mac vs DOS. How many of today's windows users, journalists included, do you think could effectively deal with using DOS?
I might even go so far as to suggest that most people who use macs -- and I mean acutally USE them to do real work -- spend more time in their Terminal window than a windows user of the same caliber. Is it because of a failing of the "simplistic" UI that doesnt bother the user with 1000 options that will be used by almost nobody or is it because Windows lacks both the tools and organizational structure to actually manage anything on the commandline?
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.
So, if you're a big-name tech reviewer - i.e., you pay for none of your own gear - you have a preference for stylishly designed, high-end equipment? Who woulda thunk it?
"10 percent of computer users are Mac users, but remember, we are the top 10 percent."
- Douglas Adams
And yes, I selected that quote free from any bias whatsoever.
Why would that be weird? Is it weird if the entire newsroom were Microsoft Machines? Would it be weird if they were all Dells?
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this),
Wait... I just need to stop here. Why do we care if he's ever asked a woman? Ok, forget it, let's go back...
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this), all say that they use a Mac "because it is better." Right. And that attitude doesn't affect coverage now, does it?
Yeah, so when a tech columnist sits down to write an article about new/cool technology (sort of their job), they choose to write about the technology that they, as professionals, believe to be "better". Yeah, I'm still completely failing to see the problem here.
Microsoft should make some headway with this biased crowd once the fanciful Xbox 360 arrives. It's got a creative GUI, is easy to use and navigate, and kind of has a Mac look to it. It also interfaces perfectly with the iPod. "Oh golly gee whiz wow!" And that feature alone will be the clincher.
If he's so utterly unbiased, why does he care so much when Microsoft will 'get their due'. And, well, yes, it's been a while since a release of Windows or Office, so releasing their first major product in several years will probably get them into tech columns. Having a great GUI and the ability to interface with the most popular MP3 player around certainly won't hurt. So... what's all the whining about?
Go off-topic with John C. Dvorak
Oh, he's not just off-topic, he's irrelevant, and apparently a bit out of his mind as well.
Have you seen how many Microsoft and Windows stories are on the front page this morning? OK, so maybe it's not all positive coverage, but it's still coverage.
Am I the only guy who remembers the time period when you were hard pressed to find an Apple-related article that didn't include the word "beleaguered" to describe the company? The same time period when (IIRC) a MacWorld columnist named John Dvorak pronounced the platform dead and went over to the other side?
Journalists prefer Macs now because Apple has gotten their shit together since the advent of OS X and the iPod, and has been putting out good stuff. The journalists have found modern Macs usable enough to try them out for longer periods of time, and have found that they like what they're seeing. Historically, people who have a decent amount of experience* with both platforms overwhelmingly prefer Macs.
~Philly
* "Decent amount of experience" = Having done actual work on a Mac, not spent 5 minutes playing around with a one in an Apple Store before prnouncing it 'lame' or 'stupid' and going home to their 'leet gaming rig.
I'm hoping you're aware of the circularity of that argument, given that the subject is media bias towards Apple?
Dvorak's comments make sense to me. Apple is the flashy, style, radical, celebrity, hype, media focus's tech company, and the meticulously cultivate that image. Microsoft is the grey cubicle, work 60 hours a week, flyover country tech company. I associate Apple with "looking cool", and the PC world with "work". Its probably because I have had PC's at almost every job I've hard. We've all had jobs with aging, nasty, dustbunny PCs performing some menial function. You rarely if ever see Mac's in that role unless you are in the publishing/marketing world.
I'd say that most people who use macs to do real work do so in any of the following apps, ALL GUI based, (and several mac only):
* Adobe Photoshop
* Adobe Illustrator
* Adobe InDesign
* Quark xPress
* Digidesign ProTools
* Apple Logic
* Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
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.
Packaging and Content is an almost orgiastic celebrated experienced Apple orchestrates (I mean look at this engadget piece of gargantuan designer-porn for heavens sake). It's showbiz. The media just looooves showbiz. I you've ever watched Fox News you immediatly recognize that they just serve a giant horror flick that tries to scare you - but it's a movie "based on real events" as they say in showbiz.
Asking if the showbiz is biased towards showbiz is like asking, if the fat kid is biased towards candy.
I think John C. Dvorak has an inherent anti-showbiz attitude that I give him great credit for. If you visit This Week in Tech, Episode 22 you will hear from 7:30 on that he holds an ipod in his hands for the first time in his life and he says it's pretty cool. This is the effect this product has on many people and mostly people connect to this positive experience.
On another point - media is expected to cover events of interest to the general populace. As Apple tends to implement certain changes earlier in their finished, shipping consumer product (USB, WIFi, iTMS, ZeroConf, mac-mini-formfactor, Quad processors come to mind) they do provide a nice outlet of new and upcoming tech trends in consumer tech land. So while there may be a correlation between showbiz-loving cutting-edge consumers and their reports on a showbiz-cutting-edge consumertech corporation I do not think it is necessarily a causality.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
I worked in journalism for 10 years. Maybe the percentage of Macs around was a bit higher than you'd find in the general business population, but not by much. Most media companies have large LANs full of Windows boxes. Sorry, but the offices of the New York Times and Time magazine aren't some Mac utopia where there's a Mac on every desk. There's a Dell on every desk. And most of the laptops are Thinkpads or Dells.
This is just Dvorak being a nut again.
Considering the source, so what? Dvorak does nothing but trash Apple. Everyone of his articles is Microsoft slanted. He's basically a MS Fanboy who probably gets paid well on the side by MS to say nice things.
After years of Dvorak's predictions of doom and gloom about the demise of beleagured Apple, he's probably just pissed that his predictions weren't only wrong, but that Apple's enjoying some success. So he does what everyone else does--blame it on the media.
go Astros!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
If one's choice of hardware and operating system play such a key role in determining their journalistic bias, then it might usefully be argued that journalists and newsrooms that use Microsoft software running on Intel hardware would find it impossible to view Apple software & hardware in a positive light.
If this is so, then it might also explain the second-banannadom that Apple has suffered over the years. Mod me down if you like, O Macolytes, but part of the fervency of your devotion is that, for many years, you have gotten short shrift in the press, in the form of constant ruminations of Apple's imminent collapse. At best, Apple was damned with faint praise.
Personally, I think the present fuss has more to do with Apple's absolutely killer marketing and branding, which far surpass anything that the competition has yet been able to muster up. Their Stalinist level of control over everything--software, hardware, accessories, look, feel, heft, etc--has given their products a very consistent look across all lines. Even the name "Apple," is technical, nonthreatening, and cuddly.
personally i find them more appealing if they were more neutral, and actually be news for nerds, instead of, just a biased view of tech news. Dont get me wrong, what goes in the comments area i do not care, people have their own view and opinions about MS, apple, goolge, ibm, sun, sco etc. BUT the news article submissions must be neutral, and it is the editors jobs to get that right
They already seem to be doing that. They are abusing their near-monopoly position in the online music market and the victims of that are the poor record company executives and share holders.
By refusing to increase the price of songs and albums on the iTunes Music Store, these people now have a hard time scraping a living and feeding their children.
I think it is time for the DoJ to step in and end this unfair business practice.
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.
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.
Heh. Now there's an argument the WinMedia didn't use against Linux. I'm not sure it speaks well of Windows though.
Meanwhile, some of the Unix sysadmins I know have recently switched to a Mac.
Therefore, if the non-technological end of the market goes to Apple because they 'simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer' and the tech-savvy are running Linux (and/or Mac's), what will become of Windows?
It sounds almost like Dvorak is trying to say 'Windows is dying!'??
--
Baremetalbits: A minimalist barebones computer review site
Geeky modern art T-shirts
It's good to see that he's keeping with the times. This is the same argument that the neocons use to galvinize their base.
Just like the oh-so-threatened christians out there, the PC users are being oppressed by the nasty minority! Woe is them! Oh, the humanity! The unjustness of it all!
How dare this minority continue to exist and, worse, be noticed!
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The thing is, and here's where media coverage is biased, Steve Jobs is charismatic. The reality distortion field is nothing more than that. He's a strong and interesting leader that can make people feel the way he wants them to feel. He's a skilled orator.
Bill Gates, on the other hand... Isn't. He's dull, both to look at and to listen to.
Pretty and interesting people get more coverage in the media because they "give good face." Steve Jobs is probably the most stylish tech personality there is. That's why the media listens to him.
Shinma
It's always lovely to hear Dvorak's extremely biased voice saying shit like this.
After all, the Newton was just a rehash of...well...um...er...Oh yeah! Apple actually DEFINED the term PDA.
Once again, Dvorak is to be ignored. Why do people read his slanted crap anyway?
Jory
...just makes me want to THROW A CHAIR!!!
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
I'd like to see some hard evidence that supports his claims. He says: "...today's newspaper and magazine tech writers know little about computers and are all Mac users. It's a fact."
But in typical Dvorak fashion, provides no evidence to support his positions. Where are the hard numbers that he based his conclusions on? There aren't any, because he pulls his supposed "facts" out his ass and presents them to the world. Typical Dvorak BS.
"...90 percent of the mainstream writers being Mac users..." --- Support your facts John. Where'd you get your numbers?
"I could list 50." -- So, then there's only 55 newspaper and magazine tech writers in the media? What a load of crap.
I remember back when the Macs first came out. I was about 19 or so at the time, and doing some work where my father was employed, CSC. And an interesting phenomenon started to happen once the office got a few Macs for word processing work.
There were 5 Macs, and over a dozen PCs around, that could be signed up for to do the work. This was prior to everyone having a PC at their desk. Most guys didn't need one there.
The 5 Macs had a waiting list of a few days for doing word processing. You could walk in at any time and use a PC, no worries or hassles over someone else using one. Why?
Because when you used a word processor on a Mac, what you saw on the screen was what you saw on the paper when you printed it. Plain and simple. You could use any word processor on a PC, and it wouldn't be a truetype font, no matter what you used. So, folks started to fight over the use of the Macs to get a proper visual representation of what their document would look like.
That sentimentality really took hold with journalists. They really wanted to see what that article was going to look like, so it went to the editor with a better presentation. And a mindset was born.
Add to that the prevalence that most schools/universites had for Macs through special programs that Apple has/had, and journalists came out of school knowing the Mac more often than they knew the PC outside of gaming. And with the lack of games for the Mac, it carries are more "workplace computer" air than the PC does.
Apple is very good at product placement, too. If you watch any movie that has someone that does writing, they always seem to have a Mac laptop in hand, or a Mac in their office. It's a deliberate ploy by Apple to make sure their computers are viewed as journalist friendly.
Today, you can do all of that with a PC, for sure. But, the mindset of most journalists have been set.
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.
I will see your print design and audio engineering workforce and raise you video producers, web developers, software engineers, nearly the entire biomedical research industry, HPC engineers, and all mac system administrators or users who have ever had to use or manage an XServe or a mac network in recent years. Why do you think that Apple bothers to ship both X11 (Yes we know it's a GUI), XCode and all these other commandline tools standard if there exists no userbase for them? My powerbook has Terminal.app going 100% of the time and it seems that among the mac users that I affiliate with it's quite normal.
It's also worth noting that although I fail to see the point of your list of productive, worthwhile applications with a GUI (Holy cow! I'm using a GUI even NOW!!!), the only mac-only app you listed is Logic, not that it even really matters. "The right tool for the job!"
A decade ago, about one decade after the launch of the Macintosh, virtually EVERY mention of Apple by the press attached the adjective "beleaguered" to the word "Apple." It was as if the press had universally decided to change the name of the company to "Beleaguered Apple Computer Inc." They spoke in glowing terms about such industry darlings as Gateway and Compaq. (heh) Mr. Dvorak, who spent a stint as a columnist at MacUser magazine in the Mac's first peak years ('88-'94), followed the herd and became the tech journalism's leading Apple-basher. He, more than any other industry pundit took it to the logical extreme and repeatedly pronounced Apple dead. Or near dead. Or almost nearly kind of dead. Over, and over and over again.
Now, Jobs has managed to turn Apple around, and make it into an industry leader once again. Mr. Dvorak's favorite monopolists have become the General Motors of the tech industry (read: bland, predictable, flawed, and boring - producing pablum with zero innovation or appeal.) The herd is all flocking to Apple now. Big deal.
Now Dvorak has stopped writing anything particularly useful, and his just become a industry gadfly; saying stupid things to piss people off. He hasn't stopped beating this anti-Apple drum for the past 10 years. Why? It gets him attention. That is all. He has decided to just be a black sheep. Same herd, just a different coat. Just because.
The thing that is odd, is that in some ways he was right. Apple is dead. The old, Performa/Quadra/Michael Spindler/John Sculley/Pink/Taligent/Copland Apple is dead. The Apple of today is nothing like the Apple of a decade ago. Nothing. Thank Jobs.
The technology journalists aren't "biased" they are just praising a set of quality products from a quality company. The fact that they actually USE the products isn't a bias, it just is.
--chuck
I can only think of you with pity for having encoded all 8000 songs in WMA, and then not being able to use them with a decent portable player.
You can use the iPod and never once have a DRM song touch your player. I have hundreds of CD's and they ripped just fine to DRM free MP3's.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This article by Dvorak represents something of a huge milestone for Apple. It was just a few years ago that the media was all over Apple - in a bad way! Everything that you read about Apple indicated that it was a sinking ship (or already sunk). I was at Apple's World Wide Developer's Conf. just after Jobs came back to Apple, and he said that step #1 for Apple was to stop the bad press (which he admitted was well deserved). Step #2 to empower developers (gotta say that at a WWDC), and step #3 was to produce great products. He's been sticking to the plan. The bad press slowed down, then for a couple of years you didn't hear anything about Apple in the press (most thought they had gone away). Now Dvorak has confirmed that they're back - in a big way. It's been an amazing turnaround!! If I recall, Dvorak was one of the ones in the media leading the charge in smearing the Apple - only difference between now and then is that back then he had lots of company and he was lov'n it. Now he's pretty much alone, so all he can do is whine.
"...observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer."
They report about Macs, because Macs are computers that people can use.
I stopped reading at: According to John Dvorak
Writers overwhelmingly use Macs because they can't afford the effort required to keep them running, or the downtime when they are stopped cold by viruses. They are certainly being "objective" in the choice of machine that they demand for their work. They can't afford to be "impartial" about their bread-and-butter. That should say something.
I have two author friends. Both run Macs. The first one used a pc until he lost weeks trying to keep the damn thing running. No he doesn't have an"IT" guy to maintain a firewall, virus software, malware software, and daily windows fixes. He took my advice and bought a iBook. He never regrets it.
Be heard || Be herd
let me put it this way: people contribute what they know to the conversation. if the majority of people aren't on linux/freebsd, they come up with something to say and it may not enhance the main thrust of the article.
and even though i do use linux (the config options rock) i don't usually feel like writing about it. there's all this free software, and i can download it and compile/run it, and that's really cool. i'm not all that interested in how ready everybody's proverbial grandmother is to run linux, or how well a hypothetical set of "average" users will respond to the gui; it's just not that pertinent (imo). now a program that does something new and does it well would be good to hear about, as would a new thing you can do with linux/bsd computers. stories about people using free software to do big things are also pretty neat. yro articles are important to me, and maybe some action articles like petitioning a manufacturer for driver info would also be welcome. articles that invite furious debate over brand recognition aren't as enriching to me.
Its hard for me to believe that these writers are so incompetent
that they can't manage to use Windows.
On the contrary its more likely that these professionals, who use
computers to get their job done every day, are exceptionally
discriminating in the selection of the tools that they use.
Their careers depend on it. They can't afford to
constantly stub their professional toe and skin their knuckels using
cheap hobbyists tools that they picked up on special in the bin under the
big red cardboard sign near the exit of a discount store.
Computer software that is a constant security risk and whose security can
only be improved according to its manufacturer by installing
a dysfunctional service pack needs no one to give it a bad name.
Software that refuses to save a file for no apparent reason doesn't need
a bad rap it creates its own truthfully bad rap.
Pushing stupid spin statistics about how everything else out there
is just as defective and insecure will fool some people but not people
who truly value their time and just want to get their job done. For these
people the boolshite detector has a hair trigger. They don't worry about a few
hundred dollars price difference when a cheap piece of trash sucks down a half
a day of their professional time because they didn't happen to know something that
means nothing and relates to nothing but the fact that the people who manufactured
the software fracked up. For the rest of the population it seems
that a good cleverly spun explanation/argument using statistics about
why a PC is dysfunctional (but lets not forget inexpensive and fast)
is a 100% substitute for a computer that actually is functional.
Its quite and interesting social phenomenon.
Maybe the problem is that Dvorak doesn't distinguish between trash knowledge
and real knowledge. Trash knowledge is all the things that you have to know
to use a PC without stubbing your toe and skinning your knuckles while trying to get
your work done without the help of a professional IT staff whose main job
is to limit the use of the machines to the narrow range of things
that they can do well without trashing files and fracking up in general.
Its a sad fact that many noncomputer professionals are strutting proud of the
fact that they can master a PC. They act as though there should be something to
master in the first place. How did we get to a situation where its the user
who feels inept when its the software manufacturer who should be
subjected to class action law suits and prosecution for fraud.