Slashdot Mirror
PC World Editor Returns, CEO Demoted
k1980pc writes "In a nice twist to the recent discussion on Slashdot, PC World editor Harry McCracken has returned to the magazine. In turn, Colin Crawford has been removed as PC World's CEO, where 'he will be responsible
for driving IDG's online strategy and initiatives in support of our web-centric business focus' ... safely out of the way of the magazine editors. McCracken was pleased to return to his position: 'I'm thrilled to be back with the PC World team. IDG is a company I've loved working for over the past 16 years, and one with a remarkable history of enabling editors to serve our customers--the millions of people who depend on our content online and in print.'"
If your magazine was suffering from the problem of "Review Inflation" that many outlets seem guilty of, what better way to recover integrity than by the old "Quit in a high profile way -> Get rehired -> Bad Guy Demoted" scenario. Especially since the CEO is still drawing a fat paycheck.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
While it's always heartwarming to see someone stand up for a principle like this in such a dramatic manner, it's even nicer to see it actually pay off for him in the end.
I hope IDG gave him a sufficiently good deal to get him back, because it would have been very much worth it for any of their competition to snap him up and brag loudly about it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Cause he probably has one sickening golden parachute...like every other CEO at a big company. (Home Depot anyone?) Cheaper to throw him in a closet than fire him I wager.
To the guys who run slashdot; take a bow. Without being nasty, you made some accurate and justified criticisms of the goings-on that led to the resignation. Nice to see that magazine do the right thing and restore some of their integrity.
Best regards.
I posted this on the original story but it bears repeating...
People act as if this is uncommon. I'm alarmed that people have reacted in this way.
It's very common.
I used to freelance for a large, well-known video game site (not hard to guess which -- there's only a couple). This was back when CD games were first introduced, and a lot of companies were experimenting by cramming as much video as they could onto a disk (with no respect to video quality, acting, and especially gameplay).
Anyway, a company came out with something particularly wretched. Basically some "video game" where interacting involved pushing an arrow key on your keyboard every 10 minutes or so while actors hammed it up. I bluntly gave the game the lowest possible score and walked away.
A few months later, I get an email from editor. The game's maker wasn't happy, and they were threatening to pull advertising from the online rag. Now, the editor didn't say "change the review". He just subtetly requested that another review "rereview it" to give a "counterpoint". That counterpoint would be provided by the editor himself.
Needless to say I wasn't happy, but this was a burgeoning new online rag and I didn't have much say as a freelancer.
However, ever notice when sites like GameSpot or IGN go soft on a review for a crappy game when that same company has front page splash rights (they cover the page in their company or game logo)? Now you know.
Harsh, man...
First of all, the guy tried to do something mildly shady with the intent of increasing ad revenue (which would have been good for the magazine's bottom line, and in line with his duty as CEO). My understanding is, he asked the editor to take it easy on favored advertisers. As sins go in this day and age, that's pretty mild. If you want to see something REALLY nasty, look at Enron or Halliburton. So the guy's not evil, and he tried to help out his magazine, which is his job.
Second, he was probably reacting to orders from his board of directors, so you can hardly blame them for not beating the guy up over it! They probably felt that he did his best to carry out their will, and it didn't work out. No harm, no foul. Shift him somewhere else in the company and defuse the situation, problem solved.
Third, really, what's the big deal anyway? He asked McCraken to suck up to some advertisers, McCracken said no, the whole world beat him up online in forums like this, and the magazine transferred him and re-hired McCracken without ever actually going soft on its advertisers. No harm has been done, nobody has been lied to, really, NOTHING has HAPPENED. They tried it, it didn't work out.
I think it's kind of a non-issue.
NO CARRIER
Based on the article, it doesn't seem like the guy was demoted. I think he was "promoted out of the way."
Weellll...technically he *was* CEO, so any involuntary change from that would be a demotion.
I have to figure out how to do that...
OK. Here you go.
See? Easy!
The big deal is, that US society is now so morally bankrupt that we don't even worry about blatant unethical behaviour anymore. As long as lying and cheating results in someone profiting from it, it's not just fine and dandy - it's all but required! So if you ever take a job in which you somehow have to interact with the public you'd better get used to lying, cause if someone tries to force you into unethical behaviour, the public will be on his side. If something mildly inconvenient happens to him because he's found out - well then the public will feel sorry for him.