In Defense of the Punditocracy
August 31, 2009
Michael Arrington. Dave Winer. Tim O'Reilly. Jason Calacanis. Add a few names of your own.
Within the navel-gazing little corner of the tech world that I inhabit, the mere mention of these names are among the most evocative things you can say. As much as any of the companies or tech executives they write about, the pundits who opine each day on the profound and mundane developments in the world of gadgets and the web are a surprisingly polarizing bunch. But it's hard to figure out exactly why that's the case.
Opinions are like...
Interestingly, the consensus on lots of these people (at least when they're not in the room) is pretty negative. For almost all of them, I've had someone say to me flat out "That guy's an asshole" when referring to them. Hearing it for years myself (especially when I didn't really know any of them except by reputation), I was inclined to agree. "Who does that guy think he is? What a hack." Prone to bluster, at times self-important, reflecting our entire industry's frequent lack of real-world perspective, I figured the conventional wisdom about these guys was actually correct. Even if I share all of those traits myself.
Recently, I took a look at my personal experience with most of these men, and the few other high-profile tech pundits with whom I have at least a casual acquaintance. And in nearly every case, they'd been pretty much positive. Sure, I've cringed when the work I've done (either personally or as part of Six Apart) has been criticized or, worse, ignored. But it's hard to find a time when a response to something I did was wildly unfair, or when any factual errors weren't quickly corrected. More importantly, they've consistently been generous and welcoming in encouraging me to speak up not just about the opinions I have about technology or tech companies, but about the way that our industry as a whole needs to evolve.
I've had a bit of time to reflect on it because lately, obviously, I've been engaging in a bit of armchair punditry myself lately. Hopefully I'm not quite so hyperbolic as the worst excesses of contemporary tech punditry, but I've unabashedly been trying to be provocative and ambitious in what I'm writing. And I realize the key difference between me and those who have been the harshest critics of the current reigning powers in tech punditry is that the critics have often put the pundits on a pedestal, and then attack them for being in a position of power, not for any particularly egregious problems with the content of what they're saying. I've said it before: We hate most in others that which we fail to see in ourselves.
Call it arrogance on my part, or naivete, but I have never seen any tech pundit on the web as more qualified to opine than I am, and have never ascribed more power to any blogger just because they have a bigger audience than my site, or because they happen to run a conference that people pay to attend. As a result, their shortcomings don't bother me, and it certainly helped me get over the feeling that I should have strong feelings (positive or negative) about a bunch of guys I barely know. When they're doing good, the tech pundits are just another bunch of good bloggers that I read, and when they're screwing up, that just means more room for me to do what I do.
A Little Perspective
Perhaps the biggest lesson has been from my conversations with those outside of the tech industry. I always ask who they get their tech news from, and what their opinion is of those pundits. Nearly every outsider has said they're very pleased with how the prominent tech pundits represent our industry. Those with a little bit of distance from the petty politics of the tech world are uniformly astonished at how much negativity and even contempt those within the tech industry have for our most prominent voices.
Now, I'm not saying there is nothing to criticize about the work of the major influencers in the world of web technology. You may have noticed that the example names above, along with a dozen others I could have added, will mostly fall into the category of American white male millionaires. That's a demographic with whom I have no quibble ("Some of my best friends are...!"), but that I feel we can safely acknowledge our outreach to this group can be considered a Mission Accomplished, and we can now move on to accommodating the voices of additional groups. But most of my criticisms of their work are, I have found, more criticisms of our industry in general. An emphasis on the novel instead of the meaningful, a tendency to overemphasize minor news and downplay bigger stories, a focus on the technical details of a new technology instead of its social impact — I think the blog posts and conferences that we all participate on demonstrate these flaws as a reflection of the faults of our culture overall. I can't judge any individual too harshly for failing to consistently rise above the culture that surrounds them.
I'll gladly call any of these pundits on the carpet for mistakes they make, or for shortcomings in the work they produce. Hopefully, my track record of arguing for inclusiveness will be a positive nuisance to encourage them to follow the better angels of their nature. And of course, I'll be accused of sucking up to them, even though I have no agenda in defending them except to note that the tactic of quietly insulting the tech pundits has not been particularly effective in diminishing their influence.
But as I've begun to (re-)dabble in punditry, I think it's telling that private conversations (and the occasional ranting blogger) direct so much vitriol at the people who lead much of the conversation in the world of technology. it would seem the more effective form of criticism is obvious, effective and relatively easy: Just do better yourself.
1 TrackBack
There have been another spate of interesting conversations around the tech industry about what goals a tech company should have, and how they should achieve... Read More
15 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: Healthy Skepticism
- Next: Blog Advertising, Prescience and Seven Years
If I understand your thesis correctly, it's that people in tech hate most tech pundits, probably because most people in tech feel like they could do a better job, and that we should stop hating them because that feeling is illegitimate. Right?
I have a lot of loathing for a lot of tech pundits, but it's not because I think I could do a better job. (I gave up writing for pay many years ago.) For example, I understand fully that David Pogue is aiming at an audience that's, you know, not me, and his writing style is going to reflect that. But when he focuses on cutesy instead of facts and dumbs down his reviews so much that they lapse into inaccuracies, that just sucks. It doesn't help his audience, and it's not something that we'd accept from our movie or restaurant reviewers. Why is it OK with our technology reviewers? (By the way, people in the entertainment industry also hate entertainment reviewers, they're just far less likely to post about it on their blogs.)
From having done this kind of thing professionally, I can say with confidence that the discipline of the tech review is so new that it hasn't matured yet. First-class publications like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal haven't yet gotten first-class tech reviewers because the concept of tech reviews hasn't been around for generations. And the implications for this go beyond the reviewer -- it is very clear to me that Walt Mossberg and David Pogue do not get good editorial support because there is not a generation of technical-minded editors who understand how to support and guide writers like them.
That said, there are plenty of tech reviewers out there that I love to listen to and read. Tom Merritt of CBS/CNET is terrific.
Anil,
I think the reason people hate these pundits (I'd exclude Tim O'Reilly from the list of hated, but that's me) is that they *are* jerks, a lot of the time. Look at Arrington's (frankly racist) comments about Loic, the French, Europe etc. -- and that's just *one* issue, of *thousands* of wars Arrington has started in the last few years. TechCrunch has moved, in the last few months, dramatically *away* from letting Arrington write most of the pieces, and I feel like that's because they decided that letting someone flame in every single article was counterproductive.
It's all well and good to say "so do it better yourself," but there's more to running a site like that than just the meritocracy-- there's a whole world of marketing to get eyeballs on pages that even great bloggers who don't make that their only job simply can't do. Those who *can* make it their fulltime job, often demonstrate why they shouldn't.
Much like politics, those who want to do it are often those who we should be least happy to have run things.
The concept of tech reviews hasn't been around for generations
Jeffrey, I would count Popular Electronics, started in 1954, as a magazine featuring tech reviews. That is the first one to come to mind but there have been other such magazines dating back decades that included a variety of types of reviews of hobby kits for electronics, airplanes, rockets, as well as some that included reviews of things like shortwave radios, CB radios, and especially ham radio gear. They also featured commentary on related industry changes, related politics and legislative actions, as well as the odd warfare between proponents of this system or that device. I think this kind of writing has a long history.
Heck, even some of the Mac magazines were started decades ago, were they not? Same stuff. (Macworld: founded 1984. MacWEEK: founded 1987.) That ignores, of course, your arbitrary choosing of "generations" as a marker of maturity for a kind of writing.
I think Arrington's been a bit ridiculous about the French, sure, but my impression was that he was doing it largely for effect — there is, for better or worse, a longstanding American tradition of trolling the French in exactly that way. I don't know that I'd describe it as racist, exactly, but tacky, sure.
As to the assertion of "thousands of wars", that seem a bit hyperbolic. He's been provocative and poked people, but from what I've seen the harshest he's been has generally been towards multi-billion-dollar companies with thousands of employees; That hardly seems like picking on the little guy.
I do agree that attention in the tech world is not a pure meritocracy, by any means. But blogging isn't my full-time job, and I've been able to get a quite satisfying amount of attention for my ideas; I just want to encourage others to do the same.
Personally, I find the trouble with pundits is their tendency to state that they are "right" and that all other options are "wrong".
This black or white viewpoint with no room for grayscale is my biggest issue.
Rather than acknowledging the points of an opposing view but disagreeing respectfully based on facts or trends, they often attempt to skew ideas or individuals fully and completely as if nothing good could possible come from them.
Perhaps it is too close to pundits acting like the schoolkid who needs to bring others down with harsh words to feel good about themselves that gets on my nerves.
I don't think all pundits do this. Tim O'Reilly doesn't seem to go after others with the vengeance of some.
The "internet tech industry" needs a better sense of group accomplishment that it has. People in it seem to relish in the failure of others.
My role straddles several types of technology and things are not the same everywhere.
In my experience in broadcast technology, a very different theme exists, camaraderie. Professionals, facing similar issues working together to get the job done. It's not unusual for broadcasters to share equipment in crisis. Can you imagine Facebook loaning servers to MySpace if there was fire? When a radio or TV tower goes down in a hurricane, it's a sad day for all broadcasters, regardless of competition. When the US completed it's transition to digital television, it was a victory for the entire industry.
Why technologists that work on the internet continue to read pundits that degrade their profession or visit Valleywag is beyond me.
�Racist� isn't the epithet I�d choose, neither would be �tacky�: even though Arrington was the main victim of his own prejudice, that kind on non-sense costs us a lot, millions litterally in diverged investment. (In case the nick wasn't enough: I'm French, and most likely the guy who helped you out with your map when you were lost in Paris.)
I'm a bit surprised at Anil's characterisation: millionaire is a consequence of their punditry, and white isn't so true in his case, and shouldn't remain so much longer; while gender discrimination is still concerning, but things are changing: anyone can now name a dozen respected female pundits. One common point that they all share is their address: and nothign seems to aim at resolving that soon, H1B's. People who don't live in the Silicon Valley have a harder time being taken seriously, including the guys being Zemanta, Doodle, Jaiku or originally Zoho.
This makes the playing field uneven, but it also has very damaging effects. While I'd agree many pundits have a hard time getting out of their social sphere, I don't think the main barrier is tech, but West Coast: they do not have a hard time understanding Hollywood, but are very clueless about culture-clashed Indian tele-operators, less formalized European social ties or to a lesser extend NY-based traditional media and advertisers.
To me this sounds a lot like the desperation of newspapers in complete disbelief that they are being mediated and equalized just like the rest of us by unfettered communication. It is not only a meritocracy, but also appreciated will be a muted tone that whatever you posit is just as important as anything else your reader read that day. The single most disgusting thing to feel is an opinion what they said has come down from on high, through them exclusively, to the humbled masses.
I don't mind being thought of as an asshole as long as it gets people to think and act.
For example, in 1998 when a few people in my discussion group got angry with me, they got motivated to start "news sites" that competed with mine -- and they because the next generation of people who would eventually be known as bloggers.
Sometimes anger is a great motivator, it gets people off their ass and in motion.
Too often they blame someone else for their emotion, which they consider negative. It call came from within themselves. Most of the people who hate me have never met me, or even heard my voice to see how often I'm laughing as I say something. They impose their own internal conversation to give me a voice. So their anger or fear is about something usually that has nothing to do with me.
It'll be interesting to see what Tim O'Reilly has to say. I bet he's the only one who objects to being on your list. :-)
@pusateri I think you are onto something. As technologists, we are taught to approach problems with intellectual modesty, being fully cognizant of the limitations of our own crania. Yet a lot of tech pundits approach technology in the opposite way.
@dave I am positive that assholery turns off more people than it motivates.
This is a great article, and I broadly agree with it. I have two additional complaints about tech journalists, though, that I think tie into it - certainly when I find myself getting riled up.
First is the gossip side of it - and I notice you left Owen Thomas out and Valleywag. It's a different beast in a lot of ways, but given the paucity of comprehensive coverage of our industry, many of us had to read it nonetheless, and the bitterness, and gossip, and vendettas were truly dispiriting in a major way. There's an element of that at the other publications, though nothing as extreme. Still, I can't help but think it colors a lot of people's opinions about tech blogs as a whole.
Second are the ridiculous sensational headlines. You see this all the time. AlleyInsider's probably the worst, but I think they all have a habit of this. I think it's sort of related to the journey of these blogs from one-man-shows to multiple writers. When it was a one-man-show, an incendiary headline was annoying. When ten different journalists can write incendiary headlines offering different opinions, it is a constellation of opinions. But the thing is, most of these are still associated with one man (Arrington/Tech Crunch, Blodget/AlleyInsider), so blood still gets boiled about incendiary headlines, even though, now, practically speaking, someone is likely to write a counterpoint on the same blog later in the day. But even so, the headlines are often ridiculous.
I do think there's a minor point with many of these people also being entrepreneurs and investors - certainly this is true with O'Reilly, Calicanis, Arrington and Blodget. There is a much greater likelihood of an editorial agenda, and the motives are often clearly opaque. This is WAY more prevalent in tech journalism than it is in, say, food journalism.
Well, that's that. Unsubscribing. Good knowing you, Anil.
I think these guys have a public persona, and a private persona.
I thought Jason was an a-hole, but my opinion of Jason changed when I heard him discuss freedom of speech and internet communities. I'd have a beer with the bloke.
Anil,
This is off-topic, but I was introduced to your blog by a post on Brian Oberkirch's blog (which, in turn, I heard of via Tim Ferriss's blog). I've since seen your name mentioned on Fred Wilson's blog as well. My question to you is partly prompted by the paucity of posts on Brian's blog: Is social media (and blogging, in particular) analogous to public access TV, in that it's essentially a dead-end for most participants, who lose their zeal once they realize that no one's listening to them?
I elaborated on that thought in a post on my site today, but I'm curious to hear your view on this, given that you are apparently one of the longest-tenured bloggers out there.
Hi Anil,
That the tech hoi polloi would be haters of the tech influencers doesn't surprise me; I think you'll see the same dynamics in any industry, between those who are part of the industry vs. those on the outside. The tech industry masses have a greater knowledge of the issues, people and politics of the tech influencers which I think breeds a higher level of (non-constructive) criticism. [I'm not necessarily suggesting the criticisms are warranted.] In addition, tech folks are in general more apt to engage in highly polarizing religious debates, furthering the notion of negativity.
Sounds to me it's just a case of juvenile jealousy.
Why do they take themselves so seriously ?