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, andTim Tripcony emails them with an 8-line cross-platform solution. No response from from Techtarget at all.
eWeek editorMichael 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 thatclaims 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.




Comments
Posted by Vitor Pereira At 12:33:53 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
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 | - Website - |
Posted by David Vasta At 01:36:53 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Tim Lorge At 01:54:50 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Turtle At 02:16:27 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by denis At 03:59:28 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Corey At 04:05:52 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Tim Tripcony At 05:16:28 PM On 03/13/2008 | - Website - |
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 | - Website - |
Posted by Rob Novak At 04:02:27 PM On 03/14/2008 | - Website - |