Two things that would end hypocrisy and make the world a better place: Priests should be allowed to get married, and the New York Times should update its Ethics Policy.
The venerable and vulnerable newspaper finally starts talking about the “Pogue Problem” out loud to its readers. For years David Pogue has covered Apple (and other tech companies). And for years he has been authoring books on Apple products. He doesn’t get paid by Apple for the books, but his bias is clear and he has been accused to conflicts of interest more than once by other mainstream media. Dan Lyons has a very funny take on the whole story which is worth reading.
If you have any doubt about Pogue’s opinion of Apple, this should clear it up.
We actually celebrate this kind of behavior, as long as it’s disclosed to readers. But the New York Times has a different standard, and Pogue’s reporting is a clear violation of their Policy on Ethics in Journalism, in my opinion:
Though this topic defies firm rules, it is essential that we preserve professional detachment, free of any hint of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship. A city editor who enjoys a weekly round of golf with a city council member, for example, risks creating an appearance of coziness. So does a television news producer who spends weekends in the company of people we cover. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and look at whether we have drifted too close to sources with whom we deal regularly. The test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.
The NY Times generally self-regulates. If you’re too close to a source, you need to “step back” and evaluate your writing and “must be especially wary of showing partiality.” Of course, we think it’s best to show your partiality instead of hiding it, tell readers your relationships and then let them decide. Pogue’s bias is obvious, and we have no issue with it.
But we do take issue with the NY Times preaching about ethics when they continue to engage in the same behavior, sans disclosure.
The NY Times ethics policy also says “When we first use facts originally reported by another news organization, we attribute them.” But in our experience that isn’t always the case.
The one thing the NY Times has is its brand and its people. They aren’t first to stories but they generally get things right. Trying to hide conflicts of interest hurts that brand, particularly when they hide, hypocritically, behind an ethics statement that prohibits the behavior they’re hiding. It’s far better to keep everything in the open. Transparency is what’s important, not appearances.
I got interest in him due to some valid reasons. I should read the articles.
So buying $29 OS involves buying of $4000 CS4?
How is that efficient? Cost effective? anybody?
I have been using CS3 with Snow Leopard with no problem. What problems are you having?
you mean a $30 dollar service pack. not $29, im not caving into their stupid marketing lolz everything ends in 9
I must have woken up in Bizzaro world. Is it me or is the Apple RDF enforcement camp out to sleep. Never would have imagined people calling out shills in the MSM Apple iCabal.
I guess the whole Jon Gruber and his lil birdie episode and Apple caught being deceptive has finally woken up some and especially those in the Valley media. Either that or they can continue to run interference for Apple.
Kudos TC. Atleast you guys don’t pussyfoot around MG’s obvious biases.
I must have woken up in Bizzaro world. Is it me or is the Apple RDF enforcement camp out to sleep. Never would have imagined people calling out shills in the MSM Apple iCabal.
I guess the whole Jon Gruber and his lil birdie episode and Apple caught being deceptive has finally woken up some and especially those in the Valley media. Either that or they can continue to run interference for Apple.
Kudos TC. Atleast you guys don’t pussyfoot around MG’s obvious biases.
RDF? MSM? Too many unknown to me acronyms.
LOL!
All your acronyms are belong to us.
I get that you’re complaining about their ethics policy; what’s missing is why you’re complaining about this now, or even why they attempted to clarify it. Is there some case we should be concerned about where we have been misled? I feel like I’m missing something here. Is this about disclosure, or content?
OK, I think I found it: he wrote of “frustrating glitches” in his review, which he then expanded to “data-losing crashes with Adobe CS3 and Office 2008″ when talking to Venture Beat. It might be good to mention stuff like that rather than rely on readers to hunt through all 12 links to find it so they know what you’re getting on about
i don’t really have a problem clicking on links but i agree with you in that instead of saying ‘this will clear this up’ as the link instead he could link it the way he did in the last paragraph with the NYT is ‘it’s brand and it’s people,’ which links back to the NNYT piece. otherwise i know who pogue is vaguely, and i know about the nyt ethics policy, but what i don’t get is basically the same things you mentioned (see i’m doing the same thing he did because instead of repeating what you said or what i was thinking, i left it vague and said same thing you mentioned, where it could be asked what things did you mention? there should be no room for minsinterpretation i guess is the bigger and more valid point).
misinterpretation.
I think I “mins-interpreted” that
Mike Arrington has the same fixation on the NY Times as he complains about with respect to Pogue and Apple. It’s glaringly obvious to any regular reader here.
Absolutely. 100%
Love TC. Not digging the religious comment. Stay cool Mike. No need to add that in so casually, some of us care.
i see many similarities between the way the Vatican and the New York Times view themselves.
Which, while possibly true to a superficial extent, doesn’t back your comment on priests being married Mike.
Have to agree with Facebook User, just kinda a pointless statement. Totally love TechCrunch, but please stick with what you know! You do the stuff you know so well!
suggesting priests should be allowed to marry may be controversial but it certainly isn’t pointless.
it’s not that it’s pointless (if the two guys above said that then i don’t agree…although i don’t know if the point i’m going to make is going to effectively support their pointless argument), it’s because you start the piece of with two things, mention the two things, then actually focus on to what the story is about without tying the the story back to one of the two things you mentioned. so basically although i agree with the priest comment you made and the contradictions within religon and the way it’s applied/mass communicated, what i don’t agree with is the religious comment being left like a lonesome cliff hanger that doesn’t even get mentioned again in this write up. it just makes it look irrelevant and takes away from the overall point. you could have just written this an left that out and it would have been a better read. just my opinion. i don’t have a platform so no way am i trying to say what i think it absolute and it’s my way or no way. anyways but it’s an observation and i think the piece would be more effective that way…or else tie the religious comment back in with a linking paragraph, but if you did this you might have to change the title. well i looked at the title (rem ref=nice), and i guess you could probably keep the title and expand on the contradictions within religion and those who are chosen to continue and spread this religion. i really dislike priests and ever since the nnyt article i’ve been reading the nyt…and i still have the same problems i had with it. i’m glad i stopped reading that newspaper.
Why don’t you just become an Episcopalian then, and get it over with.
If you make a statement like this, it would be much better to provide your reasoning, otherwise you just end up sounding like an attention grabbing fool.
Comparing a newspaper with a 2000 years old religion is not exactly a brilliant analogy.
Do you just don’t like New York in general?
Arrington, priests can get married. They just need to join the right church first.
Michael
You turned off the comments from Brazil post. This is a lack of transparency too.
no, it was simply that i was tired of deleting death and rape and spitting threats. you can’t imagine how that kind of hate piles up and it absolutely ruined my weekend. Done with it. nothing new was being said.
that sucks! you mod the comments on this website? i guess you do since your name is attached to this.
The joy of the anonymous internet
The Brazil post pretty much backed up everything Paul Carr says about anonymous posting.
lol, but to be fair that thread was such an epic-est fail ever devolving non-conversation and mostly criticism. it flew out of hand very very fast and even if i agree that the piece had one or 2 valid points that were buried under someone’s anger…i don’t feel like the author needs to be threatned because of her views. everyone has an opinion and they all look and smell like sh*t.
You said New York Times and Journalistic ethics in the same sentence! Ha!
ha indeed. i thought the same thing and almost spit out my drink.
but then again it’s coming from someone who also has been involved in quite a lot of what some people would say isn’t the biggest supporter of ethics especially with the whole twittergate scandle. i actually supported posting the emails, but then again i don’t go around saying or acting like i’m a beacon for morals.
For some people celibacy is voluntary.
The part that surprises me about this article is that you are clearly biased about the NYT and every other print media. Pot and kettle.
You are obsessed with picking on the NYT. It’s getting old, we get it you don’t like them. What’s your ethics policy BTW, do you have any rules about your relationships with sources?
NYT is one of the last organizations in the world actually collecting news. An organization that has it’s own people in places like Iraq. Have a little respect for what they represent, even if they don’t always get things right it seems they are genuinely trying…
if they’re worth saving, they’re worth calling out on their hypocrisy. If they finally realize it, they may change and save themselves.
+1
-1
-1 for riprap and +2 for the calling out of NYT hypocrisy.
-1 NYT just because it’s the NYT.
Let’s keep some perspective here. The NY Times is struggling for many reasons, but I doubt David Pogue is very high on that list. Only the geekiest would even recognize his name.
Is it just me or does it seem like a news organization of long established repute that save for one or two departments toeing the ethics line is still far and above much more credible than a relatively un-edited blog that wears its plainly fad-of-the-day fancies on its sleeves?
I find it quite humorous that Arrington of all people is criticizing the NYT on ethics.
i kept thinking while reading this, that as much as i like transparency more than appearance, that this company cannot say that everything that has been posted on this website has been transparent, and that they aren’t also in the game of appearances either. it’s weird trying to understand this and have it settle in your stomach but i found it pretty funny that the nyt’s lack of ethics is mentioned here. i don’t think that TC is so different than the NYT in this case.
we celebrate our bias.
yeah i know. i don’t have a big problem with tc like a lot of people do because atleast you don’t speak from both orfices
but i can’t really excuse the nyt either. i’m sorry to say that most of that paper bores me senseless and i really dislike the format, layout, etc…but that’s all superficial. the content otherwise is so-so or like some people would say, ‘the nyt is the paragon of good journalism,’ cue me rolling my eyes. if i want to read/see something i will like thanks to the internet it’s all possible. i can’t wait for things to change.
oh and most of the time like when you have a guest author you usually have the person’s information and affiliation posted, but that’s not always the case. you guys do a pretty good job of that. otherwise sometimes things are (subject wise) are pretty all over the place and there isn’t a subtab (s) on this website where i can just click for news of the day or have it all organized by popular companies like apple news, twitter news, ms news, etc…i think the layout of this site should be upgraded all the time. nice of whoever to add the twitter connect button to comment box.
But its nice not to live in an echo chamber, which is what the vast majority of internet blogs pretending to be news and information dissemination points are.
Your biases are made even more plain by the fact that its clear that they are generally biases based on favoritism rather than objectivity in many cases. Point in case I didn’t see a lot of anti-Apple posts from you (@Arrington) until you very dramatically left the iPhone fold. C’mon are we in secondary school or something?
I would respect TC and its editors a lot more if they reported and covered more objectively and on merit.
Why shouldn’t Pogue? He is an opinion columnist after all, not a news reporter. It would be like complaining that George Will never says nice things about Democrats.
it’s “its”, “dammits”!
**sorry Brazil** NOT !!! brazil 0 -USA+1 chuckle
The New York Times has no ethics, but rather an agenda. They preach that blogs (like this one) are the devil, when in reality they are no better.
This was made evident to me when the decided to Economist Ben Stein claiming that his Clear Eyes and Comcast commercials clearly distorted his ability to write articles on the current economic condition. Real reason: he’s too conservative for the newspaper and does not help support their agenda.
*decided to fire
I don’t buy it – Stein became a pretty useless writer in his last year with the Times. He made some stupid recommendations (”Keep buying stocks, even if it looks like we’re in for a downward trend”) and wrote increasingly pointless articles. I don’t miss him at all.
man. ben stein’s nyt column was pretty crap (much like my comments), and i swear the day i saw his commercial on cnn for freescore.com or whatever that site was, and then right after that was the nyt’s weekend commercial they have on cnn, i said please god let ben stein get fired from the nyt. and then a couple of days, weeks later i saw online that he was let go. about fucking time. i don’t miss him at all. we know he’s not suffering for money or anything because god knows he lets anyone within hearing know this.
If the NYT hates blogs why do they have so many blogs?
Blogs vs. Newspaper
The war will never end.
i think it will and it wont.
it will end because everything is going to end up on the internet which is a death/change to old ways (maybe the method of news collecting and news will not die but the way it’s published will).
it won’t end because the newspaper will become something else when the news that used to be found in/on paper will still continue. news will not be dead. paper might die out. i think it’s just confusing because there will be/already is, new format(s) and we don’t have a widely recognized word for news on the internet. i mean is it supposed to be called news on a screen or newsidata or whatever it will be? where are all those people who create words when you need them.
I agree. The war between blogs/newspapers will never end.
everyone is a sellout no doubt about that, the minuite a jurno meets the big corp, ethics goes out the window, its shame, sham, bham, ty ma’am !!
I think you underestimate the intelligence of your readers, Anyone can tell he is an apple fanboy when reading his articles.
So we take his views on apple’s actions and products with a grain of salt.
let me translate: he’s a partisan joker, a hack.
The NYT has a similar problem with the Criterion Collection. Like Apple, it is a cult brand that gets massive coverage in the Arts & Leisure section, week after week. I am not complaining, though, having been a faithful Apple and Criterion customer for decades (and NYT reader as well, obviously).
Pogue’s music video is a little bit embarrassing to see now, especially the part where he complains about his old phone’s lack of coverage; I was in Palo Alto the other day and it was impossible to get coverage on the iPhone.
Natural growing pain of a giant in the newspaper industry as it tries to change direction as dictated by forces not under it’s control (the web).
I see the same things about to happen in the TV industry, the publishing industry and any other industry that fails to recognise the openness of mass communication today. We don’t simply eat what is served to us by the news giants anymore because we each individually have a voice that can be heard at the same volume as the news giants.
This post and my comments are a pure example of this.
You gotta love it
let it go… do you honestly think anyone reads CNN, the New York Times and expects an unbiased truth. Everything is slanted in this world. Always some higher level agenda. Even you have your slants… your favs.. It is life and perhaps one of the biggest illusions we has was thinking you could take such biases out.
No.. we all watch Foxnews – “fair and balanced”.
When ever one does not agree with someone else’s comments or views it is biased. But when someone agrees with your own views… then it is “fair and balanced”. Get real.
With Pogue and the opinion columns as an exception, I have usually found the times to be one of the least slanted news sources. It is remarkable in that sense. There are only a few biases that I have consistently seen in the New York Times. One example would be that they hate the Chinese government. There are many articles attacking China, and very few praising it.
Pogue is the least of the problems over at the NYT.
As a commenter already said, we already know Pogue is a fanboy, but he often shares interesting insight, is a good writer and his humor is refreshing.
David Pogue’s columns always came across to me as editorial, anyway. All of his columns are clearly his own opinion on things, aren’t they?
David Pogue’s tech column is for my mother. It’s for my grandfather. It’s nicely packaged, consumer-grade bytes of anecdotes and a few flashing lights.
The fact that anyone cares kind of blows my mind.
Finally, the voice of reason.
Spot on.
The “funny” thing is that no one is calling out what most techie to semi-techie people know: Pogue knows very little about consumer electronics or consumer tech. Read his column, and count the times you say “WTF” on his claims.
i’ve been there many times. when i used to read his column i didn’t really know what i was doing because half the time i would be going “wtf”…but sometimes he does prvide absolute crap. i usually just waited for him to talk about adobe.
That is so true. I’m shocked that anyone beyond the most basic tech comfortable person finds anything of use in his columns. The platform he has is remarkable given how markedly he seems almost determined not to let anything resembling insight beyond what you might get from a press release seep into a review. How is it possible Macworld’s review of Snow Leopard is more balanced than his?
Michael, I’ll ask you the same question I asked on Twitter. Since apparently being open about his conflicts isn’t enough for you what would you do?
I don’t see firing or re-assigning him as really realistic since as pretty much everyone will admit despite his (arguable) ethical conflicts he brings good insights in his writing, nor do I think that NYTimes would ever ask him to give up writing manuals nor would he oblige if they asked. So what would your solution be?
Meant Michael Arrington btw although it’s an open question, I don’t see any way to solve this while still making everyone happy.
solution is to rewrite the ethics policy to reflect the reality at the paper.
but why should they do that when they don’t realize how contradictorary they are being. just because you are calling them out on it doesn’t mean they are going to change their document or that the document doesn’t have very good points/intent. it just means it’s flawed or isn’t being implemented effectively. they could just fix this by making sure all their writers as well as the company itself is transparent like they preach in their ethics document, by putting disclaimers to everything they publish.
I would actually say Mr. Arrington has recently been as biased against Apple as Mr. Pouge is to Apple. Pouge gave Palm an equal opportunity, but it does not compare.
Please Mr. Arrington, which other platform commands the attention as the Iphone platform does? Would you have been upset at the New York Times for mainly review Windows software in the late 1990, while ignoring Mac. The Iphone platform has well over 60,000 apps, which begs for more attention.
So the true fact is that you, Mr. Arrington, are the more biased one for not recognizing the common facts, and pretending that things are different. While your blog may have some sway, you can not change reality.
I realize that the whole point here is to generate attention and drama, but in case you’re genuinely interested in this issue:
First, when you write that “for years he has been authoring books on Apple products,” you’re either uninformed or deliberately misleading your readers.
I write or edit Missing Manuals about Apple software, Microsoft software, Adobe software, FileMaker, digital photography, Twitter, and so on. By mentioning only the Apple topics (and not, for example, my 5 books on Windows), you’re telling half-truths.
Second–even more mysteriously!–you rant about the lack of disclosure in my Times columns, but you choose not to mention the final paragraphs of the Public Editor column today! Where it says that we will indeed disclose my book projects from now on in relevant columns.
By the way: I’ve been suggesting that for years. My editors always felt that mentioning my books would amount to a great big plug, which would be an even BIGGER conflict.
I actually think they’re right, but whatever. Anyway, I’m delighted that you and I agree on this–that adding a disclosure is the best solution!
–Pogue
I agree with Arrington that it was sloppy not to mention the poor program compatibilities (like photoshop and word), but I think that Arrington overreacted.
What do you mean by “My editors always felt that mentioning my books would amount to a great big plug”?
when i see a music video by pogue on windows i’ll start mentioning them as well.
And how many music videos has pogue made in total? 1?
Either way, the iPhone is categorized as an iPod (a MUSIC PLAYER) and a phone.
A music video on windows mobile? Noted as one of the worst, most dated, mobile software OS’s?
Pogue does a great job echoing the consumer’s sentiment. How many people have stood in line for windows mobile?
Pogue does a great job at giving products equal chances, but ultimately it’s up to the consumer.
So Mr. Arrington, please stop picking fights with companies and people when you have your facts wrong. It makes your blog look so bloggy.
When you gain at least a shred of ethics, you can begin calling out the NYT.
“I agree with Arrington that it was sloppy not to mention the poor program compatibilities (like photoshop and word), but I think that Arrington overreacted.”
Sloppy? Really? As sloppy as reporting that Pogue is biased for Apple because he’s written books about that platform, and then “forgetting” to mention Pogue’s written five books about windows?
But the sad truth is these un-fact checked sensationalist pieces is what I’ve come to expect from TechCrunch; its quickly becoming Drudge Report of the tech. world.
Mr. Pogue, I think you do a fantastic job at making technology interesting and fun. Thought your piano piece at Ted was pretty cool!
yeah i didn’t know that you only wrote about apple…lol because i actually thought you covered apple and ms, adobe and other companies. that’s good that they are making a change to your upcoming pieces. i actually think it’s a good thing to let people know what you are working on or whatever you have published or are affiliated with, even if some people will look at it and think it’s a big plug. you can’t help it. you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t and people will still hate you either way. but overall i agree with transparency and anything you can do tpo be transparent by putting a disclaimer above your piece or at the end or top by your name if you put the information of what you have published or are published and made money off of.
David, I certainly didn’t rant about any lack of disclosure, or even mention it. The issue here is disclosure isn’t an issue at the NY Times, is it? It’s all about impartiality so you don’t have to disclose. I actually don’t think you read my post. How do you reconcile your writing with the NY Times ethics policy, which is the main thrust of my post?
Michael, you write: “I certainly didn’t rant about any lack of disclosure, or even mention it”
OK, then I must be losing my mind. Even more than usual.
In MY browser, I read this: “We actually celebrate this kind of behavior, as long as it’s disclosed to readers.”
And this: “we think it’s best to show your partiality instead of hiding it, tell readers your relationships and then let them decide”
And this: “It’s far better to keep everything in the open. Transparency is what’s important”
Sure seemed to me that disclosure is your point.
As for my impartiality: I’m actually quite impartial. Believe me–I’m sensitive to these “Apple fanboy” attacks, so I work very hard to back up every conclusion with examples, comparisons, facts. I don’t give Apple, or anyone, a free ride. I’m the guy who called iMovie 08 “an utter bafflement” and called MobileMe a “MobileMess,” after all. (25 more examples: http://www.davi...tos/fanboy.html)
You know what’s really odd? Equally often, people call me a *Microsoft* fanboy!
Yet nobody ever seems to notice that I’ve given a much HIGHER ratio of positive reviews to Google, TiVo, BlackBerry, Sonos, and Canon (cameras). Why am I not a “shill” or “fanboy” for them?
Because Apple and Microsoft are hot-button issues; it’s a religious war. The bias is in the people calling names–not in me. At least not if I can help it!
–Pogue
i have called you an ms and apple fanboy and also an ms and apple hater. it’s neither here nor there and i bet you no one cares. you guys don’t need to make this into anything personal or into a big deal. the same thing happens when readers read things posted on TC.
pwnd?
No, I was pointing out that the NYT doesn’t like disclosures, they like impartiality. Disclosures imply a lack of impartiality, which the code of ethics requires. For you to read my statement and think i accused you of non disclosing the conflict is really odd. But anyway, you didn’t disclose it so whatever.
You’re finding yourself in the position of having to explain everything that you wrote. Trust me, I’ve been there. It’s much easier just to admit you’re bias and write whatever you think. But the NYT needs to get comfortable with that.
You’re not impartial. You may think you are, but you aren’t. How many negative reviews on apple products before they take you off the golden list of those 3 men who get them two weeks in advance? you know your place in the world, and you seem comfortable with it. stop trying to convince yourself it’s something different than it is.
also, i gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn’t bring up that fairly disturbing point made by Lyons about you panning SL to venturebeat after you had written a glowing review. that’s pretty scary imo. much scarier than being impartial.
So by bringing it up now you are no longer giving him the benefit of the doubt? Why because he dared to post a reply?
Re: your comment above – you know that you directly contradict your original post which appears on this very same page, right?
“Of course, we think it’s best to show your partiality instead of hiding it, tell readers your relationships and then let them decide.” Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like you want more disclosure.
no, it doesn’t. I’m not complaining about any lack of disclosure. I’m complaining that he may have not written what he really thought was the truth.
i don’t really think this is much of a rant at all, and if it is, it’s not hard enough because we all know all rants must cut you off at the knees and be very insulting of the subject matter(s). i think this is more about the nyt than you, even if you are mentioned by name and you obvious bias here (which anyone who has read what you write would know this already). his point which i’m sure you probably understood because it did take up a good portion of all that writing (even if he quoted it directly and didn’t retype the ethics policy) is that the words are meaningless because they are not implemented across the board for all nyt writers/employees. so his solution is for there to be a rewrite. my solution is that the document or the ideas expressed in the ethics policy aren’t flawed because they publish what you write without mentioning your affiliations (and like i said i’ve read some things on this website where people forget to mention their affiliations or think that it’s widespread/common knowledge, but it isn’t especially to new readers or people who happen to come across some of the articles on this website) but what they should do to show that they are not double talking is to have you or they publish all of your affliations in a way that is easily found and clear to readers of your articles. so this can be something that is posted before or after your pieces or have that information in your bio that can be linked straight to your name that is attached to the articles. they, the nyt, just have to make sure that things like this happens so that it doesn’t look hypocritical on their part…even if anyone with half a brain can tell your apple bias, even like anyone who reads anything MG posts on this website can see his apple bias. sometimes he mentions that he loves apple (even though he doesn’t need to mention it all the time because anyone who reads what he writes can tell) and sometimes he doesn’t. i actually really don’t care. it’s not that hard to tell when a writer/person has bias.
You should be a writer on here or get some similar job. Your name pops up more than Arrington’s…
“The New York Times has no ethics, but rather an agenda.”
True. But that applies to all the MSM (propaganda) outlets. What’s hard to believe is that some people would actually pay for this propaganda, and even consider themselves intelligent for doing so.
And blogs don’t have agendas? Blogs don’t spew their own form of propaganda? Why else would someone write them?
They do. But that agenda is clear and is not obfuscated as it is in the MSM. Blogs also allow for a democratic conversation and a back and forth, which the top down MSM propaganda outlets do not. Furthermore, blogs are free and largely operate around corporate copyright laws and the whole corporatist mafia with their stifling monopolies.
I usually read Pogue’s weekly column. The style in which he rights is not conventional for a newspaper. He writes more like a blogger than a journalist.
Because the writing is so informal, I believe that he is allowed to have opinions about things. I doubt that he gives positive reviews to apple so that his books sell more.
This is probably the first TC article that seems to be a low quality rant. My high respect for TC went down a notch after reading this article. Even the Brazil fiasco didn’t bother me at all (though that may be because I’m not from Brazil).
is this really a rant? i was going to post my own comment at the bottom of the page about how i also have read pogues pieces and have found them to be more of an op ed quality. i don’t mind his writting at all, especially when i picked up that he’s an equal oppertunity hater and fanboy, which just leaves him really in the middle. he’s not exposing anything controversial, and i’ve found that over the years he’s just gotten better as a writer and better in being impartial.
if i thought this was a rant, i would think pretty much everything/most things posted on this website are rants too
and i don’t want to have to think like that. i like the idea of this website, but now that i’ve been here i’m not sure if it’s the same idea i had pictured in my head. it’s not really a steep learning curve to figure out the bias of people who post here, but atleast they don’t (well to the best of my knowledge) go around pretending to be x, x, x and most of the time they make sure that readers can read the disclaimers or people’s affiliations. i don’t think they do that bad of a job being upfront with people about the writers here.
I know that Michael is a biased person. That doesn’t bother me. I read a lot of blogs, and no blog (that I’ve seen at least) is impartial.
The thing that annoyed me was that it was a direct attack on a person I respected (and I thought that many of his points were groundless with proof). I don’t care if he directly attacks a company or the CEO of a company (assuming that he has valid points). But this attack on Pogue annoyed me.
The Brazil article wasn’t a rant?
Mike,
I agree that bias disclosure beats feigned objectivity.
So, given your comment re: priests, what’s are your religious background/ current beliefs?
I’d never let my kids (when i have them) near a priest, and I really, really hope there’s something that we get to do after we die. That’s about it for disclosures.
Make grass grow. Or whatever ashes do. That’s it.
Jason,
Hm. Interested to know how you’re privy to that fact.
Mike,
I’d wager that your persistent drive for honesty & ethics has something to do with the hope you mention. Not in a cold calculating way (I want to get a nice fat reward) but in a paradigmatic way (there’s something beyond *this*). Most people I’ve met in this business are satisfied with maintaining the *appearance* of honesty insofar as reputation carries monetary and influence value. I detect something more on your part. If we are ultimately destined to merely “make grass grow,” monetary value does seem like a decent measure of the overall worth of a line of conduct. On the other hand, I think honest people are happier even in this life,… but for some reason an inkling of hope seems to help.
Honesty isn’t about “being there” so much as fighting to get there. No one’s perfect. Keep up the good fight, Mike.
Aren’t you stereotyping? or are you suggesting that the Catholic church systematically preys on children?
..ppl wonder why old media is dying… THIS is why… lack of f’n ethics, ug. The old fat selfish hoarding white guys in charge need to open the doors and allow a little fresh air and transparency to shine thru. Thank for the eye opener, Techcrunch!
really? tc opened your eyes to nyt not enforcing their ethics policy? have you ever read the nyt? do you read anything from msm? do you read the things posted on this website? wow. and as for this is why old meida is dying because of LACK OF ETHICS, is almost a complete lol. i’m at l, o, and almost at the l but i’m waiting for more statements from you…oh wait i think this part will complete the lol and have me lmfao, “The old fat selfish hoarding white guys in charge need to open the doors and allow a little fresh air and transparency to shine thru.” a little fresh air because they must fart lots and their old mentalities must make them oh so stale. you must be sarcastic because if this isn’t then i will be smh more than i already am.
Hey, everyone should be allowed to have their favorite fetishes. In the case of David Pogue, his love of Apple, and in the case of the Mike Arr crew, to bash Apple day after day.
I guess this is all good for business. Whether you praise Apple or trash Apple, as long as you talk about Apple, web hits go through the roof. Brilliant.
Mike should publish his stats that shows how Apple related posts stack up against posts on non-Apple topics. Should be educational.
i agree with your comment about companies getting people to talk about them without even putting out pr releases. these companies get talked about daily even without their efforts, so like they say in the entertainment world all press is good press.
and you must not read the articles posted on this site from old to new, because they don’t bash apple all the time. this blog isn’t about bashing apple or ms or whatever next company comes along. seriously. i don’t know how people buy into this kind of thinking.
boohoo arrington switched phones because at&fail sucks (their sucking is entirely relative to all other telcom companies and is subjective to each individual. i wrote suck based on personal bad experiences with at&fail. sprint sucks too, and so does verizon, and so many other companies) and he likes his new phone (whatever company it’s from and the provider). it must mean he hates apple. as a non apple fan i am so insulted of his incessent bashing and then brainwashing all of his employees to follow his way because we all know they must bow down to what he says and does. isn’t that why he’s boss?
Mike is still hatin’ on Apple.
no one cares. he can love or hate apple. what is the big deal. people have loyalty to brands. people are also either very loyal or very fickle about brands. how is this pieve about the nyt and david pogue about arrington’s apple love or apple hate. why must everything be so black and white. oh wait i guess mg only writes about apple (yes i’ve seen those multi apple posts he has in 1 day…i don’t know how he does it but he’s a better person than me) and paul carr or erick must be the only serious writers on this website because they post the articles with the most words.
I think your recent anti-Apple campaign undercuts your credibility here. At any rate since when is it prohibited for a writer to also be a “fan”? Surely music writers are fans of certain singers/groups. Sports writers are fans of certain athletes. Movie critics are fans of certain actors/directors. Book reviewers are fans of certain authors. Reviewers give their personal opinions which are non-objective. Journalists write books on their subjects all the time, sometimes even co-authoring with subject. They are not thereafter prohibited from continuing to cover that subject.
It will be a relief when Apple finally approves Google Voice so TC can return to a degree of objectivity itself re Apple.
I love fans. Bias is beautiful. objectivity is a myth.
Whenever I hear a journalist brag about his bias I’m out.
Bragging about being bias Michael?
You studied law but you don’t feel the need to be impartial, to be fair, to be a good journalist?
Listen to Tim Berners-Lee!
“On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable. A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging.”
That’s why we need to harness ourself against the very fans you adore so much Mike. We need you to be objective. Don’t be as self-righteous as the institutes you dislike so much.
Also, I can’t imaging your fellow writers agree with this populism either. To me this is huge, how do they feel about this?
there is no such thing as objectivity. that’s my point. striving for it only causes you to hide your true opinions and attempt to mislead your readers. it’s much better to simply have a variety of opinions to choose from. newspapers are no longer the gatekeepers. everyone can speak their mind.
LOL. You’re right on the money there!
what what what @ “I think your recent anti-Apple campaign undercuts your credibility here.”
really? wow.
and i actually didn’t want to read the rest of your comment because your bias is so beautifully clear but here’s the rest of the what reaction @ “I think your recent anti-Apple campaign undercuts your credibility here.” LMFAO. so you’re saying that his switching to android has really bothered you because he’s obviously started a campaing to bring down apple and also bring down at&fail because of google voice and not because of apple’s appleness (which mg argued is the benefit of apple which is almost as bad as apple and their apple speaking lawyers saying that such and such replicates our interface and we control customer experience so consumer can have best customer exsperience…instead of just plainly saying that at&fail is scared out of their asses and that apple is in competion with google…obviously) and at&t’s lack of customer service in dealing with all it’s disgruntled customers saying that they have really bad service and constant dropped calls. i actually agree with mg’s post about netflix providing good customer service, unprompted, and this is something that apple or at&t should follow. you’re so distressed that it will be a relief when arrignton and crew move on from their biased campaign of “apple has become evil”? wow once again.
Why are so many people concerned about priests being married or not? It’s not like the guys entering seminary are shocked when they see that celibacy is a part of the deal. Seriously.
And why start this article with an inflammatory remark like that? That immediately puts people off from the author.
Bad form.
http://en.wikip...sex_abuse_cases
Mike,
The NYT, along with most of Big Media, distorted the priest scandal quite a bit. No doubt there was an ugly problem, but consider the following stats from the Wikipedia article you link to:
- of all U.S. priests between 1950-2002, 4% were accused of child sexual abuse (4,392 priests). 3300 of those allegations were made after the priest in question had died (hmm… 75% are conveniently non-investigate-able). Police were contacted about 1021 of these priests and only 252 were convicted (!).
Between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Education (newsmax link below). I wouldn’t worry about your kids being around priests so much as going to school. They’re safer in a confessional than a classroom.
As for whether marriage would help…
– An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims.
– A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.
Post-pubescent attraction is not pedophilia. These are cases of lude homosexual conduct with minors. Pedophilia among priests remains lower than among Protestant ministers.
http://en.wikip...John_Jay_Report
http://www.amer.../johnjaycns.asp
http://archive....4/5/01552.shtml
Interested in your thoughts…
@Matt:
Wow. Thanks for the info and insights. I admit my view was more like Arrington’s — bitter, chagrined, and like him — I had made up my mind based on what I read in the general press.
But your stats and studies were pretty obvious.
You get a big AMEN.
I guess I don’t understand your argument against celibacy by this post. The major problem here would be the inability for them to control themselves. Having a wife would not solve the problem. They would either continue to abuse minors or they would use their wife rather than love her.
No–I agree. Celibacy is not the issue. Uncontrolled homosexuality among priests was the problem. And I say “was” because the alleged abuses drop precipitously after 1985, the vast majority happened in the 70s. If I were to “prescribe” a solution, it wouldn’t be marriage for priests, but it might include guiding homosexuals away from the priesthood.
yeah. i think controversy (although i agree with what he said about the priests/preistdom/priesthood. god i hate religion and people)/being inflammatory is second nature to him and TC. it’s lots of fun. not good but yes fun and sometimes even funny.
Michael clearly seems to have found some AWESOME scotch this weekend!
GOOD one.
Dan Lyons really honed his skill at fiction when he was the shill boy for SCO. Pot calling the kettle black here.
It’s funny you talk about Bias… TC it’s not an example of that….
Arrington hopes that there’s something to do when he’s dead.
Im hoping Arrington has something to do till he’s dead.
You had me until you brought in Dan Lyons — who remains (IMCO) one of the absolute worst technology reporters ever seen and who’s chief success ended up being to come up with a way to write that required absolutely no actual valid research other than to trade on someone else’s name.
TechCrunch should put a disclosure itself on articles like this. Something like:
“* TechCrunch is preparing to compete with Apple with its Tablet product and thus the above may be colored by competitive interests.”
Walt Mossberg is a Microsoft shill. Pogue is an Apple fanatic. Self-regulation is alive and well.
i think everything i was going to post was dispersed in replying to other commenters. fuck.
well i agree about that video. i quit reading his column for good when i saw it.
aside from that pogue keep wirting about adobe! thanks.
Are you attempting to neuter this thread with your continual posting of boring fucking drivel?
One of the best ledes all year Mike, even though I am generally the one sympathetic to the NYT. The more the NYT tries to compete with blogs, the more it becomes like blogs…
Every post by MA loses him credibility. Wow. Techcrunch is um, como se dice….. on the way down.
I find it very interesting that i read NY Times stories on TC. Not just once or twice. I love TC and NY Times, but still, interesting.
I find it very interesting that i read NY Times stories on TC. Not just once or twice. I love TC and NY Times, but still, interesting.
By the way, “no suitable nodes”. Woohoo! TC can compete with Twitter on scalability!
I impartially like your take on this Mike.
Fans is ok but who writes the match report when everyone is a fan or one team or the other?
Andrew Keen.
World needs a cynic to keep us in check
The basic problem goes way beyond the New York Times. I think the tech industry is very susceptible to “influence” or a level of “coziness” between product brand and product reviewers. I know that in the blogosphere some reviewer’s sell products that they review, while others get paid for favorable reviews. I think Walt Mossberg’s ethics statement that is found on his column at AllThingsD sets the standard that I would like to see all product reviewers follow.
i guess this story should have had a disclosure on it saying:
“The all mighty Michael Arrington was offended by NY Times story and is now going to get his revenge.”
As an industry analyst myself I am all for disclosure, actually I am all for having no conflicts of interest in the first place (that should ultimately be the goal) but with something like an editorial type of writer like Pogue what kind of disclosure in addition to having his books visible in thousands of book stores is needed. Do you want a list of all of his published books next to any of this columns?
give me a break … don’t blog if you have a slow news day
You make a good point.
If Pogue were to name all his books next to his articles, that would create an even greater conflict of interest (people would think he was writing a good review AND advertising for his new book).
I think the problem goes way beyond the New York Times. I think that the tech industry is particularly susceptible to “influence” or inappropriate “coziness.” I think you are on the money with the New York Times.
In the blogosphere, I know that reviewers sometimes sell products that they review, while others get paid for favorable reviews directly or indirectly from brands they review. I think Walt Mossberg’s ethics statement for his column in AllThingsD sets the standard I would like all reviewers to follow.
What is TechCrunch’s policy on such issues?
The tide is transparency.
Mike,
This is another one of your unfair attacks based on loose assumptions. I understand this is the internet, and journalistic integrity does not apply, but one would hope that having a site as large as yours that you would self impose just the slightest bit of self control.
First you go after a popular online personality in Leo Laporte, and now I see you are trying to move into the bigger sphere of the New York Times.
If you have proof that David Pouge lied or misled in his column to sell more of his books, then you have a story. Until then what you have is another one of your attempts to gain limelight by knocking down others. Even when called out by Mr. Pogue above you try to pretend you did not say things that are sitting right in the original article.
Btw, the biggest coop will be when David has to put all his books in his editorials for transparency. His editors were right keeping that out for as long as they did, and I am sure his publisher will be dancing in the street when they get free ad space in the NY Times in every column.
you’re allowing a double standard for the NY Times. why? do they deserve it? I’ve shown numerous violations of their ethics policy.
Its funny that you write something about bias.. when I myself see your company boiased towards twitter.. Your website bores me to death with twitter this.. twitter that…
There was a time when i used to enjoy reading techcrunch. Now, its mostly about twitter
+1
once again, Michael Arrington is here to save the day and teach us all about work ethics, thank you Michael.