I mean that big ideas rarely pay off in the short term. Many of us need to dirty our hands with mundane human concerns in order to survive, even if we are focused on ideas rather than events or people. I'm sure Swisher is not planning on switching to research.
I wonder how this concept will play into the oncoming singularity freight train. Will there be those of us that simply watch others discuss events and ideas? Oh wait...
Swisher may be a powerful snoop. She may even be the "best" tech journalist out there. I still think that tech journalism by and large is either a PR machine or an Entertainment Tonight for Silicon Valley.
Serious tech journalism is lacking - both in the mainstream media and from traditional tech sources.
IMO the topics that are huge issues that have largely gone uncovered (though some have now gained steam):
- Energy Use/Efficiency of tech
- Governance of the Internet
- Privacy (until recently - sort of [and it still gets buried])
- Software copyright issues
- Market/monetary prospects for new tech
(I think the article sort of talks about the fear of
"crushing innovation")
- Energy tech itself (new forms of power generation, batteries)
- Tech in our lives (and I'm not talking about the fear card)
- autonomous vehicles, medical devices, etc.
Simply put, there are huge policy questions and tech issues that the public needs to be educated about and need to be discussed - and very few journalists are doing it.
Part of the issue is people are used to free. Journalism costs money, and if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it.
Some of the problem is its hard to have a business supported by advertising that reviews products from the same companies that are advertising.
My cousin found this out many many years ago when his news station produced a segment "should you buy or lease a car". There was reaction from the car dealers who were advertisers.
A lot of this is sad and true. There are a lot of problems at play, and one of the biggest is the brutal reality of the economics of journalism. It's a TAM issue, or at least most publications perceive it to be one. There are millions of people who will read free, throw-away posts about gossip, snarky commentary, quick gadget reviews, and rumors. There are maybe tens of thousands of people who will read in-depth, highly detailed, highly technical, highly sophisticated discussions of deeper issues. "Tl;dr" is a reality most outlets have to contend with. So is the general popularity of "snackable" content, as well as the relatively low economic cost of producing it. The ROI is much higher for any advertising-supported business.
Some people are exploring alternatives. Jessica Lessin, Ben Thompson, and others are trying to make a living selling subscriptions to nominally smaller audiences who will pay for more in-depth coverage and analysis. I couldn't tell you how well they are actually doing, however, and I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic about the ability of that model to do much more than break even. Others, especially those who sell ebooks and online courses, tend to do pretty well for themselves -- but they're not really in the journalism business so much as the ebook-selling business. While I support and celebrate their success, their success does not necessarily solve the dilemma of what's to be done about the economics of journalism.
What I like about the tech press is that a lot of the players involved are pretty smart. You generally find intelligent, analytical bloggers and writers covering this industry. What I don't like about the tech press is that so much of it is PR-driven puffery. That's where the money is, and that's how journalists negotiate access to the up-to-the-minute information that every outlet is always fighting to get.
The alternative to PR-driven, late-breaking news sites is in-depth, analytical sites. But again, the TAM there is probably small, and the willingness to pay is uncertain.
"if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it."
Generally true. I can tell you from personal experience that it's damned hard to make a living as a journalist, especially if you have the skill set to make a viable alternative of working on the industry side. Journalism has one of the lowest payoff-to-effort ratios in the professional world. (Unless you're one of the lucky few who can make a killing on bestselling books.) I've spent the last 10 years on the industry side, making a very respectable living doing so. I switched over to journalism early last year. My income dropped by about 75%, and I'm working much harder than I ever have. And I'm one of the lucky few who landed a great agent and great editorial connections right out of the gate. It's a tough racket. Now, I've got two choices in front of me as I look toward 2015: try to become a "rockstar" and sell a book proposal or two; or pack it in and go back to an industry job. For now I'm still foolish enough to be having a go at the journalism route. But industry employment is looking better and better with every passing month.
A friend of mine, who is a reasonably successful musician, put it to me this way: some lines of work are very rewarding to the average worker. Other lines of work punish all but the top decile, if not the 99th percentile. Journalism, like rock music, is one of those professions. I wouldn't advise anyone go into it unless they truly believe they can be among the best in the world at it. And being the best in the world at it involves a lot more than merely being a good writer.
I have seen you guys before on here, and I am generally rooting for your model to work. :) Selfishly speaking, but also unselfishly speaking, I really want there to be a model that both incentivizes great content and encourages people to support writers for their work. I'm also very happy to see that you guys allow writers to keep their IP rights. That's a big issue for writers, obviously, and not all platform-publishers understand as much.
I also think there's a vast contingent of people out there who are great writers, but not necessarily great at self-hosting blogs and CMSes. So your solution makes a lot of sense for that segment.
There are some exceptions in tech journalism. Jon Evans/Rezendi is actually a programmer (and quite competent), but writes a weekly thing for Tech Crunch, and various other articles (as well as fiction novels).
>'Simply put, there are huge policy questions and tech issues that the public needs to be educated about and need to be discussed - and very few journalists are doing it.'
I think part of the problem is summed up right in that sentence.
Writing at a level that makes sense for the general public - those who would benefit most from that education will see the piece deemed 'uninformed garbage' or worse by those in the know.
It might be a great article for the layman and reasonable introduction for an unfamiliar technical person, but it's going to be dismissed for being less than authoritative, stomped for every detail glossed over and kicked for each missed nuance.
You'd think a bunch of angry techies would be so localized as not to matter. I think it's quite the opposite - everybody has a friend or relative who acts as the arbiter of tech for the circle.
The result is a cousin to what I'd call the "What computer should I buy?" Effect. When a non-technical person asks that question of their friend in tech all they really want is a laptop that works and fits in their bag.
Instead, they're all too often going to get flooded details, a list of trade-offs and so many admonishments about their preferences that they quickly learn to simply stop asking.
Mainstream tech articles play out the same way. When someone speaking with authority drops a "Stop reading at..." over some trifle or a legion of angry geeks invade the comments to decry an imperfect analogy the layman is going to see that as an outright dismissal of the entire subject or assassination of the article quality and the journalist is probably going to wonder why they bother.
I don't think this has too much to do with it. The reality is much simpler. Blogs like TC go for mass-appeal.
People like reading MG Siegler's fanboy columns on Apple/Facebook products even if they despise Siegler and his opinions. It may fly in the face of logic, but people have shown they like reading dumbed-down articles that are poorly researched with eyeball-grabbing headlines. We may pound our fists in frustration, knowing that the author probably didn't spend five minutes researching the topic they are acting as an authority on, but the reality is that people have voted with their clicks and sharing behavior that this is what they want.
They don't want well-researched topics on political issues. For those that do, there are a bevy of niche blogs that will serve their purposes, but make no mistake about it, they are niche because millions of people frankly don't care enough to read about it. Think New York Times vs. Buzzfeed.
"Swisher talked over him and made her way around the table, hugging Rose and insulting blogger turned venture capitalist MG Siegler to his girlfriend..."
Did anybody else actually read stuff like this and get angry? Is this what passes for "journalism"? Being a bully at social occasions you weren't invited to?
I'm reminded of the old saw about why animal rights activists protest old ladies wearing fur and not Hell's Angels wearing leather ...
There's no quicker way of making yourself appear high-status than acting like you're better than the other big players at the table. Being a bully is the name of the game.
The catch is that there's no better way to appear low-status than pretending to be high status. When someone acts like a bully, it's a key clue that they don't have anything to offer and are using misdirection to try and pretend that they do. Most people who do have something to offer won't fall for it.
A journalist often upsets her subject by reporting the truth.
However, I don't know of many journalists that actually hurl personal insults. Normally, journalists are excessively polite and accommodating since they are trying to get people to cooperate with them and tell them stuff that they might not actually want to.
Journalists (and media people in general) are so low down the totem pole in the tech industry that those who want to project any sort of power have to be total assholes. Indeed, the final quote in the piece says as much :-)
I never actually read anything she wrote, but I can't really stand her after watching her in the Steve Jobs & Bill Gates D5 Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LUGU0xprUo
Kara Swisher is genuinely great, and less of a PR agency / water carrier than Techcrunch. Good on her, and its good to see good journalism flourishing.
"then, for good measure, threw in: “He also dresses like a
lesbian, but it’s okay.” (This is a go-to Swisher barb;
she told Twitter CEO Dick Costolo he dresses “like
Ellen.”)"
I don't know about anyone else, but this strikes me as remarkably unprofessional. Would such comments be acceptable in a workplace if they were about a co-worker? If not, than why is it acceptable to speak similarly about people you cover. How Tony Conrad and Dick Costolo dress is orthogonal to what she focuses on as a journalist.
34 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.1 ms ] thread-- Unknown
How exactly does that help you survive?
Serious tech journalism is lacking - both in the mainstream media and from traditional tech sources.
IMO the topics that are huge issues that have largely gone uncovered (though some have now gained steam):
Simply put, there are huge policy questions and tech issues that the public needs to be educated about and need to be discussed - and very few journalists are doing it.Some of the problem is its hard to have a business supported by advertising that reviews products from the same companies that are advertising.
My cousin found this out many many years ago when his news station produced a segment "should you buy or lease a car". There was reaction from the car dealers who were advertisers.
Same problem as game reviews have.
I miss AllThingsD which Kara was a writer for.
I'd guess this problem also applies to other industries.
Some people are exploring alternatives. Jessica Lessin, Ben Thompson, and others are trying to make a living selling subscriptions to nominally smaller audiences who will pay for more in-depth coverage and analysis. I couldn't tell you how well they are actually doing, however, and I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic about the ability of that model to do much more than break even. Others, especially those who sell ebooks and online courses, tend to do pretty well for themselves -- but they're not really in the journalism business so much as the ebook-selling business. While I support and celebrate their success, their success does not necessarily solve the dilemma of what's to be done about the economics of journalism.
What I like about the tech press is that a lot of the players involved are pretty smart. You generally find intelligent, analytical bloggers and writers covering this industry. What I don't like about the tech press is that so much of it is PR-driven puffery. That's where the money is, and that's how journalists negotiate access to the up-to-the-minute information that every outlet is always fighting to get.
The alternative to PR-driven, late-breaking news sites is in-depth, analytical sites. But again, the TAM there is probably small, and the willingness to pay is uncertain.
"if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it."
Generally true. I can tell you from personal experience that it's damned hard to make a living as a journalist, especially if you have the skill set to make a viable alternative of working on the industry side. Journalism has one of the lowest payoff-to-effort ratios in the professional world. (Unless you're one of the lucky few who can make a killing on bestselling books.) I've spent the last 10 years on the industry side, making a very respectable living doing so. I switched over to journalism early last year. My income dropped by about 75%, and I'm working much harder than I ever have. And I'm one of the lucky few who landed a great agent and great editorial connections right out of the gate. It's a tough racket. Now, I've got two choices in front of me as I look toward 2015: try to become a "rockstar" and sell a book proposal or two; or pack it in and go back to an industry job. For now I'm still foolish enough to be having a go at the journalism route. But industry employment is looking better and better with every passing month.
A friend of mine, who is a reasonably successful musician, put it to me this way: some lines of work are very rewarding to the average worker. Other lines of work punish all but the top decile, if not the 99th percentile. Journalism, like rock music, is one of those professions. I wouldn't advise anyone go into it unless they truly believe they can be among the best in the world at it. And being the best in the world at it involves a lot more than merely being a good writer.
I also think there's a vast contingent of people out there who are great writers, but not necessarily great at self-hosting blogs and CMSes. So your solution makes a lot of sense for that segment.
I'll definitely check it out in greater depth.
I think part of the problem is summed up right in that sentence.
Writing at a level that makes sense for the general public - those who would benefit most from that education will see the piece deemed 'uninformed garbage' or worse by those in the know.
It might be a great article for the layman and reasonable introduction for an unfamiliar technical person, but it's going to be dismissed for being less than authoritative, stomped for every detail glossed over and kicked for each missed nuance.
You'd think a bunch of angry techies would be so localized as not to matter. I think it's quite the opposite - everybody has a friend or relative who acts as the arbiter of tech for the circle.
The result is a cousin to what I'd call the "What computer should I buy?" Effect. When a non-technical person asks that question of their friend in tech all they really want is a laptop that works and fits in their bag.
Instead, they're all too often going to get flooded details, a list of trade-offs and so many admonishments about their preferences that they quickly learn to simply stop asking.
Mainstream tech articles play out the same way. When someone speaking with authority drops a "Stop reading at..." over some trifle or a legion of angry geeks invade the comments to decry an imperfect analogy the layman is going to see that as an outright dismissal of the entire subject or assassination of the article quality and the journalist is probably going to wonder why they bother.
People like reading MG Siegler's fanboy columns on Apple/Facebook products even if they despise Siegler and his opinions. It may fly in the face of logic, but people have shown they like reading dumbed-down articles that are poorly researched with eyeball-grabbing headlines. We may pound our fists in frustration, knowing that the author probably didn't spend five minutes researching the topic they are acting as an authority on, but the reality is that people have voted with their clicks and sharing behavior that this is what they want.
They don't want well-researched topics on political issues. For those that do, there are a bevy of niche blogs that will serve their purposes, but make no mistake about it, they are niche because millions of people frankly don't care enough to read about it. Think New York Times vs. Buzzfeed.
I typically dislike the look of boosting shadows, and wouldn't here if it weren't for the interesting composition/pattern of people.
Did anybody else actually read stuff like this and get angry? Is this what passes for "journalism"? Being a bully at social occasions you weren't invited to?
I'm reminded of the old saw about why animal rights activists protest old ladies wearing fur and not Hell's Angels wearing leather ...
However, I don't know of many journalists that actually hurl personal insults. Normally, journalists are excessively polite and accommodating since they are trying to get people to cooperate with them and tell them stuff that they might not actually want to.