|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 institutional arrogance that causes it to distort stories, even when it's obvious that they're doing it.
A recent example, 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. 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 his story 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 did not go that far. Whether that's important or not, we'll find out. But it's not for a reporter to infer intent when there's no evidence to support that inference.
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. |
Last update: Thursday, June 3, 2010; 4:00:29 PM
Mail:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 1997-2010 Dave Winer. Last build: 6/3/10; 10:16:11 PM. "It's even worse than it appears." Previous / Next |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scriptingnews1mail at gmail dot com.