I've grown quite tired of technology and business writers making hay and headlines with reports on the health of Apple's co-founder Steve jobs.
Reports in Gawker Media's ValleyWag here stating that Mr. jobs had been admitted to Stanford hospital over the weekend, speculating he was being operated on for Liver Cancer drove me over the edge.
The post carried information from a source identified only as being an employee of Stanford Hospital.That an employee of any hospital would publicly disclose whether or not anyone is a patient at the hospital and provides the media any information on a patient's condition goes beyond despicable. Furthermore, that bottom feeding reporters who never leave their offices or homes to conduct basic "fact" gathering would base their information on such sources goes beyond the pale. In addition, what sets my teeth futrher on edge about ValleyWag and other media outlets coverage of Steve jobs is that reporters don't seem not to be asking a fundamental question: "Does the source have reason to know the information they've provided me."
I've reached the point in life where I've grown exceedingly tired of reading about Steve Jobs. That's not the same as saying I don't care about Apple, or Mr.Jobs' future or impact on the company and personal computing.
Truthfully, i care about both Apple and the cautionary tale that I think will be Steve Jobs' heritage when the day comes he leaves Apple at the end of a very noteworthy career.
There are Several things I'd like to see in this regard: Foremost, I want to see a reporter or book author get off their asses, out of their offices and try to make face to face contact with Jobs after having first prepared appropriate questions. Part and parcel with this, I'd also like to see named sources in articles and forthcoming books. I'm tired of the same rehash of the story told initially by ex-Infoworld reporters Paul Freiberger and Mike Swain in the seminal book, "Fire in the Valley." Editorial managers and literary agents have played a huge role in my changing view of how poorly Mr. Jobs and Apple has been covered. No one seems to be demanding basic reporting, resulting in books that under serve Apple's on-going story.
Also, why have so few reporters tried to turn Apple board members, or informed third parties into sources? If there was ever a time for enterprise reporting techniques to be used on Apple, it's now.
It's unfortunate that the working press has gotten lazy in its Apple coverage. It's a sad day when hacks turn to second rate sources, or do their reporting while leeching free drinks at parties hosted by Web 2.0 sometime luminaries blowing chunks of their first-round funding on parties for technological strap hangers.
Covering Apple and Steve jobs has always been a challenging editorial assignment for most reporters. Sadly, few reporters ever drilled down beyond this company's veneer and the culture of it founders. I hope that someday, an author will take the time to do a worthwhile book on the culture Steve jobs created and drove. What I've read for the last decade, however, convinces me that stories about Apple are under reported and overblown.
Steve jobs faces serious health issues. In addition to being Apple's on-leave chairman and CEO, he is also a husband and a father. It's time he was allowed to have some semblance of privacy--Jim Forbes 01/25/2009.
(Disclosure: I covered Apple as a reporter at InfoWorld and PC Week and admit to having used unnamed sources at times when the source declined to be named but satisfied me that they had reason to know about the subject matter I was reporting on. I was known to rummage through trash, call people in the evenings and conduct amicable "ambush" interviews away from controlling corporate spokespeople. )
Comments