Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

Since the beginning of my career, I’ve been a creature of the net. That is, my “real life” exists on the Internet. It may be a generational thing or a just a niche geek thing. Probably the latter.    

Many years ago, I created the blog, Joeuser.com explicitly so that I and anyone else could freely post our thoughts.  It didn’t matter what my day job was because, there was a clear separation in people’s minds between a person’s personal opinions and what they produced as part of their job.

In the past few years, one of the worst kept secrets of the tech media has been the discovery that stories about people instead of tech drive more page views.  Thus, if you use archive.org and go and look at some of your favorite tech (or game) sites home pages you’ll find a very slow but consistent trend away from reporting on products/techs to the people behind products/techs.

As “The Social Network” has shown, the trend has become mainstream. People are hungry to know about the people behind these things. The rules have changed and many of us, who operated for years as “creatures of the net” find ourselves getting a level of scrutiny that has put a real damper on participating online.

I got my first real taste of this about a year ago when I snarked on Facebook that I’d have Stardock ship via Fed Ex instead of UPS because UPS had started boycotting networks based on their political leanings.  Since the network in question was Fox, the not impartial media quickly took my non-public FB comment as a rally to Glenn Beck (who, I’ve never watched nor care about). It was not newsworthy but it did drive page views to those who decided to sensationalize it.

Once that happened, suddenly all my blog posts got a level of scrutiny usually reserved for political figures which has continued to this day.  It’s really sucked the fun out participating online. But there’s nothing that can be done.  This is how things are now.  People snicker about “Well, if you write it online it’s public for all to see” thinking that this has always been the case. It hasn’t. It’s hard to believe that Usenet flame wars used to be considered something of an art form.  There used to be understood gradations.

As on UK editor told me after his magazine trashed our latest game, “My job is to maximize page views to our site, so don’t give us ammunition.”  While I don’t agree that that is what an editor’s job is to do, I do concur that tabloid stories get a lot more hits than hard news stories.  People are drawn to stories with a narrative.  And make no mistake, tech sites are there to make money.

Many of the best tech journalists have abruptly disappeared in the past 2 years. The ones who were experts at covering tech and products aren’t necessarily the ones best suited for reporting on the latest scandal or gossip or statement by a person.  I don’t say this lightly, take a look for yourself using archive.org. Pick your favorite gaming or tech site and look for yourself. You’ll see the same top talent people at these sites year after year and then suddenly, about two years ago, pow, they started disappearing abruptly.  You want to talk about a scandal, there’s one: the systematic termination of the high quality journalists in the tech media.  The ones who are left have had to become freelancers or independents or have been hired by the companies that produce tech.

One only has to look at the amount of nonsense written about Activision’s CEO or some of the vile crap written about Valve’s CEO  or that Steve Jobs personally designed the antenna on the iPhone 4 (if ever an issue was overblown it was that) and so on to see that it’s increasingly about the people making the things we use rather than the things themselves.

It’s a shame because in the long run, it separates the producers of things from the consumer of things. 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 10, 2010

DrJBHL
I really don't care what 'the crowd' thinks... it's time to go back to reporting the way it once was and junk the CNN's/MSNBC's?Fox's of the world which really aren't news anyway.

I'm really sick of the 'happy talk' cutesy 'Anchor' crap.

Doesn't anyone else think all we're being fed is a load of hogwash and diversion?

Oh yeah, I am Fed up!  There is much I could say about crowd think and the mechanism driving it.  In an age of information, we do poorly as a people.  Currently, information divides, distracts, and polarizes us.  It could be inspiring, uniting, and empowering.  Oy.  Back in the mid-1980's when I got my first experience with a personal computer, I saw that the day was dawning where everyday joe-public would have the world at his/her fingertips. One usage I foresaw of the PC, was as the worlds greatest Encyclopedia.  An interactive, instantly updating reference to the world and all its learning.  And I saw the eventual networking of PCs world wide, as providing the infrastructure for an unprecedented meeting of minds.  Collaborations to break borders and status quo. I thought by now we'd be doing something amazing with humanitiess most powerful tool to date.   

The dissemination of information is being filtered by private profit interests.  And free speech is hampered by minority morality.  So where are the alternatives?   Where are the places we can go that are free from private influence?  T-Mobile and Facebook can block communication relating to marijuana initiatives.  Yahoo and YouTube can ban this and that, and do.  etc etc They can do this, and I think it somewhat reasonable that they do, because they are private networks.  We don't have the right of public free speech on virtual private property.  So where are the virtual public properties?  Where are the places of democracy on the internets?  Where are the alternates?

on Oct 10, 2010

People are "hungry to know about the people behind these things" they buy because when they purchase their goods, they're helping the people behind their goods to prosper.

That's a dangerous attitude to take.  The relationship between producer and consumer is equal. You are no more helping the producer than they are helping you.   You're not doing them a favor by purchasing something. You're trading value for value.

on Oct 10, 2010

You, yourself, decided you would rather NOT use UPS if they're going to boycott a network, Fox, that you apparently believe should be prospering from UPS cash.  This seems a bit hypocritical to me.  Where did you find out about the UPS boycott?  From the internet, I presume?  Aren't you acting in the exact same way you're judging the UK editor and others who judged you for posting YOUR politics online?

There is a big difference between making purchasing decisions based on the political views of the producer and making purchasing decisions based on the specific actions of a producer. 

I don't care about the political views of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or anyone else whose products or services I make use of.  I only start to care when they start using their power to try to force others to change their beliefs.

on Oct 10, 2010

Frogboy
People are "hungry to know about the people behind these things" they buy because when they purchase their goods, they're helping the people behind their goods to prosper.

That's a dangerous attitude to take.  The relationship between producer and consumer is equal. You are no more helping the producer than they are helping you.   You're not doing them a favor by purchasing something. You're trading value for value.

Finally! If only people understood that. You made my weekend. Thanks!

on Oct 10, 2010

I think what you are describing is a byproduct of hyperpartisanship and the decline of moderates in this country since the mid-90's.

 

The real problem is that, just like the Romans, we've turned pandering to the lowest common denominator into an artform.

 

on Oct 11, 2010


Sic transit gloria mundii.
Don't know what it means but I get the gist of it. Reality bites ... really hard.

It roughly translates to fame is fleeting.

As for the trend, could it be the 24 hour news media now?  After all, there is not that much more news today than there was 40 years ago (when you settled for an hour of news at 6pm).  So they have to fill it.  And they fill it with talking heads talking about what?  People.

That does not make it right.  But perhaps explains the ghoulish fascination people have with the lives of others.

on Oct 11, 2010

Question:

 

WhiteElk

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 13I really don't care what 'the crowd' thinks... it's time to go back to reporting the way it once was and junk the CNN's/MSNBC's?Fox's of the world which really aren't news anyway.

I'm really sick of the 'happy talk' cutesy 'Anchor' crap.

Doesn't anyone else think all we're being fed is a load of hogwash and diversion?

Oh yeah, I am Fed up!  There is much I could say about crowd think and the mechanism driving it.  In an age of information, we do poorly as a people.  Currently, information divides, distracts, and polarizes us.  It could be inspiring, uniting, and empowering.  Oy.  Back in the mid-1980's when I got my first experience with a personal computer, I saw that the day was dawning where everyday joe-public would have the world at his/her fingertips. One usage I foresaw of the PC, was as the worlds greatest Encyclopedia.  An interactive, instantly updating reference to the world and all its learning.  And I saw the eventual networking of PCs world wide, as providing the infrastructure for an unprecedented meeting of minds.  Collaborations to break borders and status quo. I thought by now we'd be doing something amazing with humanitiess most powerful tool to date.   

The dissemination of information is being filtered by private profit interests.  And free speech is hampered by minority morality.  So where are the alternatives?   Where are the places we can go that are free from private influence?  T-Mobile and Facebook can block communication relating to marijuana initiatives.  Yahoo and YouTube can ban this and that, and do.  etc etc They can do this, and I think it somewhat reasonable that they do, because they are private networks.  We don't have the right of public free speech on virtual private property.  So where are the virtual public properties?  Where are the places of democracy on the internets?  Where are the alternates?

 

Answer: 4chan.

 

 

on Oct 11, 2010

"The real problem is that, just like the Romans, we've turned pandering to the lowest common denominator into an artform."

Hopefully Brad won't do so.

on Oct 11, 2010

YuhongBao
"The real problem is that, just like the Romans, we've turned pandering to the lowest common denominator into an artform."

Hopefully Brad won't do so.

He's a riddle wrapped in an enigma so far as that goes--very interested in all manner of mass-market stuff, yet clearly a very picky and thoughtfully opinionated man. The cognitive dissonance talk makes me wonder of Mr. Wardell likes any 'difficult music' like Bela Bartok or Lori Anderson...

on Oct 11, 2010

"The real problem is that, just like the Romans, we've turned pandering to the lowest common denominator into an artform."

Hopefully Brad won't do so.
In his products or in his behavior?

I'm hoping for both, of course.

 

Answer: 4chan.
You bring up an interesting point, namely that while some of this media degradation is caused by corporate bigwigs mandating "news" forcibly selected to bring in ratings while cutting off honest-to-goodness reporting, some of it no doubt is also a result of the new accessibility of the news media and its ability to not only reach but be reached by the  lowest common denominators of the public- those hordes of people who like nothing but trash.

on Oct 11, 2010

"People are "hungry to know about the people behind these things" they buy because when they purchase their goods, they're helping the people behind their goods to prosper. "

Which is OK, but this don't excuse things like taking quotes out of context to sensationalize reporting, like what happened in the PCGamer fiasco, for example.

on Oct 11, 2010

Two things.

 

1. Common sense is no longer common. Hence we have Snooki now.

2. It is a sad day when The Daily Show is one of the most respected news outlets for people that are not LCDs.

 

 

 

on Oct 11, 2010

YuhongBao
"People are "hungry to know about the people behind these things" they buy because when they purchase their goods, they're helping the people behind their goods to prosper. "

Which is OK, but this don't excuse things like taking quotes out of context to sensationalize reporting, like what happened in the PCGamer fiasco, for example.

To them, it's a business. News reporting is a businesss, it's their business. What they sell to make money. More they sell, more $$ goes to the profits. That's all. 

All the comments on Activision's CEO is for most precise nonetheless.

on Oct 12, 2010

coreimpulse
To them, it's a business. News reporting is a businesss, it's their business. What they sell to make money. More they sell, more $$ goes to the profits. That's all. 

All the comments on Activision's CEO is for most precise nonetheless.

Entrepreneurs are not the CEOs of most companies.  Entrepreneurs build a business, CEOs (of the non-entrepreneur type) run them, and often not successfully.

Yes, you are correct, news is business.  But it is clear from the trends that the people running the news business are grossly incompetent.  Why else would their revenues and market share be tanking faster than a lead weight?

on Oct 12, 2010

I got a little broad in my first posting.  So I rephrase a bit more concisely...

What alternatives do we have to sensationalist journalism as relates to technology? 

I used to watch TechTV before comcast replaced the network with g4.  Some of the old gang has moved to Rev3.   Patrick Norton, Roger Chan, Robert Heron... Good stuff.  I frequently watch Tekzilla to keep abrest of tech news.  Less drama more substance.  Humble.  Smart. Informative.  Yet still entertaining.

Anyone else have recommendations for non-dramafried tech news? 

 

3 Pages1 2 3