NY Times Considers Ethical Issues With Tech Writer David Pogue
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Pogue, however, is a reviewer and a columnist, not someone who reports news. He is part of the whole editorial-"news analysis"-"this is what I think"-"reviews" staff of the newspaper. It's all biased by definition.
It's not that I wouldn't like to see this, but it seems very unlikely to me that it exists.
"A house in the XYZ section of Some Town burned down at 11 o'clock last night. Firemen investigated the smoldering ruins and found the remains of an antique gas boiler. Fire Department records show that the boiler has not been inspected since 1923, and a spokesman believes that the boiler exploded. However, Miss Crazy Lady, a homeless person found napping several blocks away, claimed that the alleged explosion is a fabrication. She told this reporter that she clearly saw with her own eyes a demon ascending from the ground and setting the house on fire. 'It was Asmodeus himself,' she said. 'Or maybe Beelzebub.'"
Unbiased to me seems both unreasonable and unnecessary. Most newspapers have some sort of political or philosophical leaning, and I'm quite with that. Nobody is ever truly unbiased and trying to force them to write in such a way will generally produce dull article. What we should expect though is that all biases be clearly declared up front and that the distinction between "this is what has happened" and "this is what I think about it" is always made clear.
The fact there are dozens of elements that may effect the way a reporter covers a certain issue doesn't give him free license to just be as subjective as he likes.
Having David place all (all!) his personal investments into a blind trust seems like an excellent idea which many other media personalities' credibility might benefit from. The same goes double for anyone talking about the stock market directly, especially "analysts" - in fact it arguably should be a condition of the job.
1) the "normal disclosure rules" weren't in effect, up until now-- there was no requirement (or expectation) for Pogue to mention that he was also writing books related to the review subjects;
2) the "Sibelius" example isn't quite analogous; in this case, you have someone recommending that people upgrade to Snow Leopard, when he has (through book sales) a vested interest in seeing that people upgrade to Snow Leopard (and not skip this release.)
That being said, I think the NYT handled the case admirably.
Conversely, one might say that he'd decided to create such a manual for Snow Leopard because he genuinely believed what he'd written in his review, and felt the product worthy enough to warrant such an act. But then again, I suppose anyone who reads Pogue's columns/blog regularly would know he's a MASSIVE Apple fan-boy (neutral observation - I'm not judging him..)