Monday I posted some comments about how journalists edit direct quotes in reference to the AP "report" of Tony Dungy's postgame remarks. Yesterday I interviewed an engineer whom I've interviewed several times before. Never had a problem that I know of with my reporting of his comments. He asked if he could review my write up of the conversation for technical accuracy. Seems he just saw his words in print (in another magazine) and by the time the editing was done the meaning was gone. That's a bad thing when he has to go and face peers who think he's clueless or something--not to mention the disservice to readers. Now here's an analysis of The New York Times report of Steve Job's famous DRM memo from Dave Winer. Makes me even more cautious to be sure to report accurately. In the blog, I throw in personal analysis, but I hope that I can write well enough that you can tell the news from the analysis. If I don't--call me on it.
(Note: I noticed as far back as 1967 that when I read a New York Times (or other newspapers) article that covered something I had been studying that the reporter often used a one or two word adjective to describe someone or something when the reality was much more complex than the word could convey and often the adjective was misleading. I read the news like I read press releases--filter out the adjectives!)
Apple is now a media company. Yesterday we learned that Steve Jobs has yet another pulpit, the web, and he used it very well to get an idea to circulate. The piece was clearly written, persuasive, short, and from what I can tell, very carefully read by all who commented, and many people commented!
Now the morning after it hits me how new this is, because Apple usually communicates through bigpub reporters like John Markoff at the NY Times and Steven Levy at Newsweek. This time he went direct, Markoff's article appeared this morning, more than 12 hours after the essay was published, and makes clear how much better this system is than the old one.
First, the Times has a problem -- they get in the way of the story, and that reduces our trust in them. Judith Miller, writing for the Times in 2003, was the classic example. They ran a series of stories, authored by Miller, that supported the Bush pretense for the war in Iraq. The stories were fabrications, the paper was used, its readers misled. They acknowledged that they did it, and even today they ran an editorial saying that more discussion was needed at the time we went to war. Yet (and here's the key point), the Times has not reformed itself, it still has the instittuional arrogance that causes it to distort stories, even when it's obvious that they're doing it.
When Markoff used the term Web 3.0 in a recent front page story, without explaining where it came from, it was not in use in the industry. It still hasn't been explained. In fact, as far as I know, he was the first to use it, and the last. It didn't catch on. And is that really the job of a Times reporter? Shouldn't they be covering the news, as opposed to making the news?
And in today's piece, titled "Jobs Calls for End to Music Copy Protection," Markoff explains that "the subtext clearly pointed to the prospect of change." Maybe it did, butI can't find it in the Jobs piece. At least Markoff is honest that the justification for the title of the piece was not found in the Jobs article, but where did he find it? In the subtext? What does that mean??
To be clear: Jobs all-but called for the removal of DRM, but was careful to not go that far.
The other day I wrote about point-of-view making it possible to see things that you otherwise might not see. Well, because we saw the Jobs piece, and got a chance to study it for hours before it was spun by the Times, we could see how they add their color to the story, and thereby dramatically change the intent of the story they are reporting.
Perhaps Jobs wanted to communicate more precisely this time, without the filters of other media companies. To me the clear subtext of the Jobs piece is that Apple is today a media company. When the CEO goes direct to the people he wants to influence, without using other media to carry the story, something not too subtle has changed. [Scripting News]
10:51:30 AM 
|
|
