It was this: (as recorded by Ars Technica) "sometimes I feel that, in search of eyeballs, people don't care what they leave in their wake. this is a new phenomenon."
What he means is that sometimes he feels bloggers and websites will go to extreme lengths to attract readership. I think he may be right in that, in the past, companies and news outlets had reputations to consider when posting news. Now a website or an individual can post pretty much anything to get readership (and ad money) without worrying too much about reputation—just start a new site if things go bad.
While freedom of speech and the democratization of news is unprecedented on the web, will it become a place where people continually get trampled when someone yells "Fire"?
3 comments:
Funny question- asking Jobs to show how to do the death grip on the bold. More dropped calls than the GS seems like an unexpected step backward. These articles are just like the numerous articles bemoaning the shortcoming of apple's products except this time apple has messed up. Those articles are accurate, there is no yelling fire. If false, Apple wouldn't be giving out free cases. Steve Jobs should realize that criticism is always greater for the guy at the top, it doesn't matter that it is a problem for all smartphones (cuz the other phones suck) but that there is a problem with the best phone on the market. It also wasn't just the antenna, their 2 year reception algorithm was inaccurate (fixed in 4.0.1).
With that said their PR response, though required, was very personable, honest, correct though a little too defensive. Also, who gives a shit about reception and calls when you can stare at the beautiful retina display all day.
I don't know about the desire for eyeballs, but -- and this was pointed out long ago -- there's a lot of lobbing grenades from behind walls on the internet.
Power without responsibility.
I don't think the internet is any different from the normal media (other than the required racial slur in the comment section and 99% porn). The New York Times, Pittsburgh Post and Trib etc. is riddle with terrible articles based on anecdotal evidence, e.g. the latest dangerous trends teens are doing, vodka eyeballing.
The responsibility should be and has always been left to the reader/viewer (though we should definitely reward journalistic integrity). Reporting is mainly about profit motivated news. Internet is no different except you can cut through bull with snopes.com.
Also, the argument that original news outlets had a reputation to consider when posting news does not hold up well when watching Fox or NBC, kidding. Though the websites/blogs with the largest viewership are reputable and well-written. No blog written by 9/11 truthers made it in the top 100.
I also think lobbing grenades is sometimes more important than accurate news. Freedom of speech is far better than a regulated internet. Fire argument can be made but that can be made about any news organization not just the internet, e.g. Fox news anchors misinformation on the H1N1 vaccine.
Jobs just can't take criticism, thank goodness the internet has allowed a voice to the .55% (apple's number) (22,000 people) iphone users affected. Which apple is now aware, helping those affected and will continue to fix the flaw. Making an awesome phone insanely awesome.
Post a Comment