David Pogue Responds To ScottsBigMouth
New York Times Technology Columnist David Pogue dropped some text on me earlier tonight, responding to today’s post NYTimes’ David Pogue Launches WOMM War. First, let me say that I’m very pleased and honored that he chose to respond directly to ScottsBigMouth here on the site. That’s what blogging is all about—discussion, direct communication, and unfiltered dialogue (in this case debate) between human beings.
I’ve re-posted his comments here for you to see (or you can read them under the original). I will respond to his specific comments in my next post tomorrow, and will visit David's blog site to post them as well. I have to practice what I preach, after all.
To Mr. Pogue: Thanks for responding directly, and for addressing my points. Although I feel you didn't really consider the "whole" of what I wrote, I look forward to continuing the dialogue with you. The fact that you took the time to respond directly proves that you're not living in a journalistic ivory tower.
Oh, and just for the record...I don't own a paintball gun.
G'Nite!
SF
>>>>>>>>
pogueman said...
You wrote: “He belittles the journalistic integrity of bloggers”
No. I belittle only the ones who kept the bribe laptops from Microsoft and don’t disclose the gift in their reviews. That’s unethical, and a clear conflict of interest.
“Blogger ethics is an evolving issue, and the WOMMA Ethics Committee has been working on it for a year. They even have posted an ethics toolkit to help enlighten the debate.”
You make it sound as though the bloggers in question do have some kind of ethics policies. I’d be willing to bet that the 90 bloggers in question do not, however. I’d even be willing to bet that they’ve never even heard of WOMM. (Yes, I know—now I’m in the sights of YOUR paintball gun!)
“Pogue... seems to be ranting about the fact that he didn’t get the Acer Ferrari laptop pre-loaded with MS Vista to evaluate.”
That’s absurd. You’re putting brand-new words into my mouth.
And I can prove it. As it turns out, Microsoft DID send me a brand-new laptop for my Windows Vista review!
I sent it back when I was done. There was never a suggestion that it was mine to keep, by either Microsoft or me.
“he assumes up front that none of these people are qualified to review Vista”
Again, I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I would argue just the opposite! Microsoft obviously targeted the MOST influential, knowledgeable bloggers.
“He assumes that almost none of them have the ability to be impartial reviewers of the product, simply because they don’t have to return the units. How exactly can he judge the professionalism of these people without knowing them personally, reading all of their work, absorbing all of their reviews, and knowing each of their personal and professional ethics?”
Easy one: Because it’s not possible. NO person can.
When you’ve been given a $2,200 gift, you may, if you’re good, be able to make the same points in a review. But you’ll never convince me that you’ll be UTTERLY unaffected. Maybe you’ll be a little less snarky. Maybe you’ll soften the “cons.” Maybe you’ll write, “Vista even comes with a simple backup program” instead of “Vista even comes with a very limited backup program.”
But you WILL be affected.
“I would argue that you are revealing to the PR and WOMM community of professionals that you don’t get modern PR and marketing techniques at all.”
Again, you and I totally agree. If “WOMM” means it’s OK to secretly bribe reviewers in an effort to manipulate public opinion, I don’t get it AT ALL.
Fortunately, it’s not part of my job to understand it. Only to comment on it.
--David Pogue
2 MouthOffs:
Hi Scott,
When I read your post (wise of you to anticipate backlash), then David's column (btw, I'm a big fan of his and a regular reader), it struck me that David's vehement frustrations seemed out of character for him.
One column, 89 comments within 43-ish hours later, there's a bigger lesson, I think, to be learned here.
The lesson: we all need help each other channel energies into making great products and doing the right thing because, in the long run, that's just better all around.
As a former journalist, former PR executive and current word of mouth practitioner, I appreciate the frustrations David expressed, though not necessarily directed at any specific class (i.e. bloggers, PR people, etc.) of people. Too many to address here, I would call attention, instead, to the fundamental common ground shared by the majority of WOMM practitioners I respect and admire most, which was David's last point: "If Microsoft really wants to earn high marks from the public, it might want to consider earning them the old-fashioned way: By creating products people love."
For decades before the blogging phenom, the PR business has been about shaping public opinion in simple to sophisticated ways, usually unbeknownst to the general public.
After transitioning from journalism to PR in my early and naive 20's, I was shocked -- then saddened -- to learn that the first phase in the PR launch of many new, major pharma products is a months-long awareness campaign designed to fuel fears about a particular condition the product will treat. Classic problem-solution strategy. Outcomes proved good for the business of the pharma company. But, over time and over many perpetrators, spanning industry to politics, this is coming at a cost to public trust. Hidden agenda and sketchy tactics revealed in Pogue's column and the onslaught of 89 comments, are taking a toll: on trust, journalism and public opinion at large.
It's time for a fundamental change.
Hi Scott,
When I read your post (wise of you to anticipate backlash), then David's column (btw, I'm a big fan of his and a regular reader), it struck me that David's vehement frustrations seemed out of character for him. Understandably.
One column, 89 comments within 43-ish hours later, there's a bigger lesson, I think, to be learned here.
The lesson: we all need to help each other channel energies into making great products and doing the right thing because, in the long run, that's just better all around.
As a former journalist, former PR executive and current word of mouth practitioner, I appreciate the frustrations David expressed, though not directed at a specific class of bloggers, PR people, etc.
I would call attention, instead, to the fundamental common ground shared by the majority of WOMM practitioners I respect and admire most, which was David's last point: "If Microsoft really wants to earn high marks from the public, it might want to consider earning them the old-fashioned way: By creating products people love." This is spot on.
For decades before the blogging phenom, the PR business has been about shaping public opinion in simple to sophisticated ways, usually unbeknownst to the general public.
After transitioning from journalism to PR in my early and naive 20's, I was shocked -- then saddened -- to learn that the first phase in the PR launch of many new, major pharma products is a months-long awareness campaign designed to fuel fears about a particular condition the product will treat.
Classic problem-solution strategy. Outcomes proved good for the business of the pharma company. But, over time and over many perpetrators spanning industry to politics, this is coming at a cost to public trust.
Hidden agenda and sketchy tactics revealed in Pogue's column and the onslaught of 89 comments, are taking a toll on all of us: on trust, journalism, marketing and public opinion at large.
There is a better way. We all need to help each other find it and support fundamental, positive change.
Post a Comment