ESCAPE VELOCITY :: So-called tech journalists

I'm sure that being a technology journalist isn't easy. Studying journalism doesn't necessarily empower a person with the knowledge to understand technology, and understanding technology doesn't necessarily give one the communications skills needed for the press.

But I have been stunned at the abysmal state of technical journalism lately. Let's take a few examples...

Searchdomino.com publishes an article on getting configuration settings from a Domino server. It turns out the article is far too complex, and Tim Tripcony emails them with an 8-line cross-platform solution. No response from from Techtarget at all.

eWeek editor Michael Hickins posts an article about IBM Lotus, citing market share figures from Dan Lyons... from 2005. The article has a "Comments" option, so I do, at 11 am on Tuesday. It is now Thursday afternoon, and the comment is not on the site. In fact, NO comments are, and I'm certain I'm not the only person who reacted to that article. (My reply here.)

Business Week publishes an article that claims 80% market share for MS Exchange. No source is given.

Channel Reseller News publishes an article about their annual Channel Champion awards ceremony. Page 22 says of IBM "took home an armful of trophies, including awards for Program and Support in Collaboration Software" while Page 17 says of Microsoft "for the fourth year in a row picked up the trophy for Overall winner for Collaboration Software, sweeping the category." How does Microsoft sweep a category in which IBM won an award?

Do these people not have editors? Do they not understand fact-checking? Do they conduct technical reviews? Do they not understand what the concept of "interactive media" means?

I might think some journalists to lack objectivity, but at least they write competent articles and actually conduct conversations with the audience. These other examples are just laughable.

I'm sure someone will make a comment about IBM's press relations efforts, so let me head that off. I'm sure IBM could do a better job with press relations. But a lot of these articles are just clearly 3rd rate, regardless of whether IBM was out in front of them or not.

It seems like Dr. Sara Radicati got it precisely backwards, and tech journals are no longer a credible source of news.

Disclaimer

Welcome to Escape Velocity!

Opinions expressed here by Nathan T. Freeman are not necessarily those of his employer. However, there's a decent chance they are, so check with them if you really want to know.

But really... do you need that kind of validation? Are the opinions expressed here in doubt?

Comments

1 - @5 Man, those geeks even talk weird when they are hitting on the girls! I think you just want to make baby's, right?

Posted by denis At 03:59:28 PM On 03/13/2008 |

2 - Very well said, Nathan! I have questioned my ever growing migration away from "official" news sources but after this compilation maybe this isn't such a bad thing. I can admit that much of what I blog about is skewed toward Lotus products, but I believe that I can generally be fair. Hell, we bloggers in the Lotus community can be harsher on IBM than the mainstream or tech media, but at least we make an attempt to get our facts straight!

Posted by Corey At 04:05:52 PM On 03/13/2008 |

3 - I agree completely. I just went through and cleaned up my Netvibes and my newsletter subscriptions. I'm down to 27 feeds (not including comments) and two newsletters.

Tim said he did get a response from TechTarget: "He responded less than an hour later, thanking me for the feedback and indicating that he'd update the tip as soon as he got a chance." I don't know if it's updated or not since you have to log in to view the content.

Posted by Charles Robinson At 01:19:34 PM On 03/13/2008 |

4 - Wow! I think Vitor said it well and kind of cut to the thick of things.

Posted by David Vasta At 01:36:53 PM On 03/13/2008 |

5 - They need to clone Libby Ingrassia. She was the best tech editor I ever saw... skilled on both sides of the issue. There were other editors I worked with who were decently "tech" and didn't steer me wrong, but I suspect they relied a great deal on my own integrity and perfectionism about what I wrote and may not have caught it if I wrote some complete BS that was laden with technical errors. Libby was unique in that regard, so she must be cloned at once. Lib, you weren't doing anything this afternoon, right?

Posted by Turtle At 02:16:27 PM On 03/13/2008 |

6 - @5 Gosh, Turtle - thanks. I'm blushing.

Of course, the problems Nathan points out aren't about being technical - they're about being clued in, skeptical, and able to check and report facts.

Still, I was always grateful to be technical first and journalist second. It opened doors and made my life an easier place. Gee I miss it.

-- Libby

Posted by Libby At 09:26:49 PM On 03/13/2008 |

7 - Yes, I received a response indicating the tip would be updated to include the feedback I provided as soon as possible... took about four days.

Posted by Tim Tripcony At 05:16:28 PM On 03/13/2008 |

8 - They are too busy fighting bloggers and other f*cktards to do any fact-checking.

Posted by Vitor Pereira At 12:33:53 PM On 03/13/2008 |

9 - As a former technical editor, I have to agree with pretty much every point made here. And as Libby points out, quite a bit of it's not technical but just common sense and for many of us common knowledge.

Posted by Rob Novak At 04:02:27 PM On 03/14/2008 |

10 - Yeah ... sad to say, tech journalism has been this way for years. Back in '95, a friend of mine who went to journalism school and worked on a number of newspapers became a tech editor for a printing trade pub. I asked her what she knew about technology and she said "Well, nothing." Sad to say that things haven't changed much in 13 years.

Posted by Tim Lorge At 01:54:50 PM On 03/13/2008 |

ESCAPE VELOCITY

So-called tech journalists

Comments

Post A Comment

Comment Preview

Get Evolved

Downloads

Archive

Search

Disclaimer

MiscLinks