A. Because it has unearned authority in the American press. If in doing the serious work of journalism–digging, reporting, verification, mastering a beat–you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority. It may even add to it. The View from Nowhere doesn’t know from this. It also encourages journalists to develop bad habits. Like: criticism from both sides is a sign that you’re doing something right, when you could be doing everything wrong.
When MSNBC suspends Keith Olbermann for donating without company permission to candidates he supports– that’s dumb. When NPR forbids its “news analysts” from expressing a view on matters they are empowered to analyze– that’s dumb. When reporters have to “launder” their views by putting them in the mouths of think tank experts: dumb. When editors at the Washington Post decline even to investigate whether the size of rallies on the Mall can be reliably estimated because they want to avoid charges of “leaning one way or the other,” as one of them recently put it, that is dumb. When CNN thinks that, because it’s not MSNBC and it’s not Fox, it’s the only the “real news network” on cable, CNN is being dumb about itself.
In fact, American journalism is dumber than most journalists, who often share my sense of absurdity about these practices. A major reason we have a practice less intelligent than its practitioners is the prestige that the View from Nowhere still claims in American newsrooms. You asked me why I am derisive toward it. That’s why.
The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers » Pressthink
Found via John Gruber and I think Rosen’s entire self-interview is worth a read.
My gut tells me that Gruber linked to this because of this whole meme that MG, Marco, Ben Brooks and others are harping on — which is that technology publications aren’t strong enough in their opinion on gadgets or reviews — it’s too murky. Ostensibly this murkiness is because of this greater American penchant for the view from nowhere.
If that’s the case — then actually, I kind of have to disagree. I think that the tendency for major tech publications (and I’ll be woman enough to admit my own coverage has been clouded by this at times — much as that pains me to write) to be more wishy-washy in coming up with a solid “yes you MUST buy this” or “DO NOT BUY THIS IT SUCKS” doesn’t come directly from an attempt to be impartial or unbiased. Instead, it’s usually about three things:
- Being too hard on a company’s product or too nasty in a review may lead to restricted access or early access to future products from that company or provider. It’s easy to say that anyone who tempers their opinion or tones down the criticism because of future coverage is a shill or a hack, but the truth is, it’s a valid concern.
Apple, for instance, only deals with certain publications (and is just now starting to reach out to more online-only personalities) for advance units. Apple isn’t going to require you write a positive review, but if you write something that just tears them apart, prepare to not get advance review units in the future.
If your respective influence outweighs whatever negative mentions you might have, you get away with more. For most tech publications, however, you’re not just fighting against one another, you’re also fighting against the established technology press that still often gets early access to the big name devices.
That doesn’t mean you can’t call a turd a turd — you can — it’s just that it helps EVERYONE if the criticism is more tempered.
- Product recommendations are inherently subjective. As such, there is a tendency to want to hedge and say, “hey, it’s not for me but it might be for someone.” When I review Android devices, I don’t do it from my own perspective, I try to do it from the perspective of a first-time users, a seasoned tech fan and also in comparison to the competition. That makes my advice less easy to sum up with a X/10 or X/5 rating.
I’ve reviewed about 5 different LTE handsets this year. I haven’t had a strong recommendation on any of them, specifically because of the battery life. However, I do point out that for the rare person that is willing to sacrifice battery for raw speed, what models may be worth their dollar.
- When writing for a personal site, it’s easy to have your own direct opinion. When you have a broader readership, it’s important to clarify who you are targeting and why.
You’re speaking to a broader audience and there are different expectations. If you achieve a status as a reviewer, like Walt, David or Andy, then yeah, you can carry on your own style and unqualified recommendations. Otherwise, it’s really more fair to do that on a personal blog.
I love Josh Topolsky, but he’s not a Walt, Andy or David — at least, not yet (give him a year, I think he will be). Since Peter basically retired from traditional reviews, Josh is likely the closest we have of the new guard of bloggers/digital-first reviewers who will receive name recognition and enough credibility so that his reviews can stand up apart from a publication as a whole. But he’s not there, not yet. That means he has to be more tempered and less “yes, this is the best.”
—
I will say that trying to deflect criticism does come into play — but the bigger aspects are what I outline above.
Still, Rosen’s post is totally worth a read.
Source: pressthink.org
Christina Warren's rarely updated Tumblr blog.
