There’s an interesting kerfuffle going on in Mac-land:
- David Pogue, the New York Times technology columnist, writes a review of Apple’s new Snow Leopard operating system. He gives it a glowing endorsement, saying that “paying the $30 for Snow Leopard is a no-brainer.” In passing that he mentions that he experienced a few “frustrating glitches” in various non-Apple programs. No big deal.
- Pogue expands on the “frustrating glitches” to Venture Beat. It turns out they are serious, of the you-can’t-do-your-work variety.
- People wonder why Pogue would write such a glowing review for a product that doesn’t work right.
- It turns out that Pogue has a book deal to write a how-to for Snow Leopard, so he has a financial incentive to encourage people to get it.
At this point Clark Hoyt, the NYT “public editor”, enters the story. As usual, Hoyt defends the column. But here’s the interesting part: he doesn’t let on what the controversy is about. He mentions that Pogue has a conflict-of-interest between his column for the NYT and the book deal, but frames it as a hypothetical issue rather than a real one. He does not mention that the controversy arose because Pogue found serious issues with the product and failed to mention them in his column. If one only read the NYT, one would never know that there’s a real issue here.
Via Colby Cosh, who remarks:
Once again, Cosh’s Law of Newspaper Ombudsmen holds true: we are supposed to believe they exist to defend the interests of the reader against those of the newspaper, but their actual job is precisely the opposite.
(Via Instapundit.)
