Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
It's been an interesting week. As if to prove the point of last week's column, Steve Jobs used his impressive skills to trick a New York Times reporter he didn't like into giving him a clean bill of health. This was brilliantly done, and there are some real lessons here that dovetail with last week's piece. The Wall Street Journal got wind of a secret project at Dell to possibly take the music lead away from Apple, but not necessarily the device lead, making it kind of interesting. Finally, Microsoft made public its secret Mojave experiment.
"Actually you may want to look up Ethics. I'm not convinced disclosure rules apply when you aren't selling a security or advocating a product."
Actually you might want to take a class on ethics. Disclosure rules? Are you serious? How about morals? A sense of right and wrong? If you check your dictionary you might find under ethics:
the moral correctness of specified conduct
-------
"However, had you clicked on the second link in the piece you would have had the disclosure you've asked for, given it provided the background for the entire section I thought everyone would want to click on that link."
I suppose if this had been in a newspaper you might have a disclosure that says:
"See page C48, Column 6 for a treasure map where I've hidden a document of any company I have a relationship with."
I've been a tech writer for over 8 years and I've worked in technology for 16...and I've always disclosed any relationship I had in anything I had written...not simply buried it in a link. Even blogging at ZDNet it was made very clear that we could cover anything we liked as long as we disclosed any relationships we had with said company.
My job as a reader isn't to research you...but it is the job of the writer and the publication to clarify any relationships they may have with a company or organization. You know that...so stop deflecting your blame onto us. I find it hilarious that you blame the reader for your own mistake.
Actually you might want to take a class on ethics. Disclosure rules? Are you serious? How about morals? A sense of right and wrong? If you check your dictionary you might find under ethics:
the moral correctness of specified conduct
-------
"However, had you clicked on the second link in the piece you would have had the disclosure you've asked for, given it provided the background for the entire section I thought everyone would want to click on that link."
I suppose if this had been in a newspaper you might have a disclosure that says:
"See page C48, Column 6 for a treasure map where I've hidden a document of any company I have a relationship with."
I've been a tech writer for over 8 years and I've worked in technology for 16...and I've always disclosed any relationship I had in anything I had written...not simply buried it in a link. Even blogging at ZDNet it was made very clear that we could cover anything we liked as long as we disclosed any relationships we had with said company.
My job as a reader isn't to research you...but it is the job of the writer and the publication to clarify any relationships they may have with a company or organization. You know that...so stop deflecting your blame onto us. I find it hilarious that you blame the reader for your own mistake.
"Enderle’s presence is a warning sign. I see a quote from him I get the message. The reporter is out of ideas and has decided to cut corners. "
This was written in 2002, and still applies today.
This was written in 2002, and still applies today.
It seems that you can't refrain from these kinds of articles where you push your latest monetary endeavor without letting everyone know that that is what you are doing.
I see some of your responses, and they are clearly inadequate.
Proper policy is to reveal your ties, paid or not, at the beginning of your article. The fact that this isn't being required shows why blogs aren't really journalistic in value.
Even apart from that, you attempt to stir up matters that are way beyond your understanding.
It's too bad, really, if you stuck to what you knew, you might have something of value to say.
I see some of your responses, and they are clearly inadequate.
Proper policy is to reveal your ties, paid or not, at the beginning of your article. The fact that this isn't being required shows why blogs aren't really journalistic in value.
Even apart from that, you attempt to stir up matters that are way beyond your understanding.
It's too bad, really, if you stuck to what you knew, you might have something of value to say.
This is classic. He's killing two hack birds with one stone. First, he's explaining how yet another company will defeat Apple despite there being absolutely no track record of said company's competence in the area.
Plus we have the bonus treat of verifiable proof that Enderle is on the payroll of said company AND he's not disclosing it. WOW. It just confirms what all of us with a brain have known for years. This guy is a pay-for-press quote-spewing shill and a liar that dishonestly passes off company PR as independent "analysis".
And since when does Michael Dell have an experience of note in user experience, software or consumer services? He doesn't. His company's claim to fame is a walmart-style cost cutting supply chain story in which they have touted how LITTLE they spend on R&D and ultimately how little they bring to the table beyond low prices. I wouldn't bet on this effort being anything other than another also-ran. If Microsoft can't crack the iTunes nut, Dell has no chance in hell.
But, if Dell is paying Mr. Enderle to go around spreading their PR FUD under false pretenses... mission accomplished. If they're expecting him to have a clue how to compete with Apple... they're screwed. This hack fundamentally doesn't understand the nature or competence of Apple Inc. Never had. Never will.
Plus we have the bonus treat of verifiable proof that Enderle is on the payroll of said company AND he's not disclosing it. WOW. It just confirms what all of us with a brain have known for years. This guy is a pay-for-press quote-spewing shill and a liar that dishonestly passes off company PR as independent "analysis".
And since when does Michael Dell have an experience of note in user experience, software or consumer services? He doesn't. His company's claim to fame is a walmart-style cost cutting supply chain story in which they have touted how LITTLE they spend on R&D and ultimately how little they bring to the table beyond low prices. I wouldn't bet on this effort being anything other than another also-ran. If Microsoft can't crack the iTunes nut, Dell has no chance in hell.
But, if Dell is paying Mr. Enderle to go around spreading their PR FUD under false pretenses... mission accomplished. If they're expecting him to have a clue how to compete with Apple... they're screwed. This hack fundamentally doesn't understand the nature or competence of Apple Inc. Never had. Never will.
Rob - I looked at that Wikipedia Ethics article you pointed us at. I think that the Journalistic Ethics page is more appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics
Enderle wrote: "No one that has read any of the Steve Jobs unauthorized biographies -- or, particularly, the Inside Steve's Brain book -- should doubt the guy is brilliant at manipulation."
"brilliant at manipulation" HAHAHAHA!!!!!
He's an innocent tweety-bird compared to you Enderle.
C'mon now!...you didn't get to be #1 in the Microsoft shillosphere for nothing!
"brilliant at manipulation" HAHAHAHA!!!!!
He's an innocent tweety-bird compared to you Enderle.
C'mon now!...you didn't get to be #1 in the Microsoft shillosphere for nothing!
As per the other comments. Rob if you serve as a consultant or advisor or whatever you cannot as a journalist write an opinion piece. This is really inappropriate and obviously not at all worthy of consideration. Michael Dell said for Apple to shut down and give the money to its shareholders, said coloured computers were silly, before introducing them himself, and has seen his company lose ground attaining only crappy profit margins. Don't bet against him? Why would you bet on him? He has sacrificed profit and innovation for marketshare. Back to you. A reporter/journalist should be unbiased or give full disclosure. You do neither. Shame on you, again.
Suggest you read "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post Fact Society
Posted by: RobEnderle 2008-08-04 19:21:09 In reply to: Rob Enderle
If you wondered down here and wondered, what the heck, and are interested in some background. Suggest you read "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post Fact Society".
Excerpt here: http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/03/18/true_enough_excerpt_2/
You'll note that my piece isn't on Dell's project which isn't done yet but on how you might create a successful offering. Even I don't yet know what Dell is going to bring to market.
My involvement had been reported by both the WSJ, see link above, and here (see link below).
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64000.html
But the point is that the Apple publications moved aggressively to discredit my even implying Dell might be successful. Look below:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/18073/ (look at the sidebar and the bottom, who do you think pays for this site?)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13509_3-10006096-20.html (they are actually part of CBS)
Recall that Apple has folks they hand pick to do reviews.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38318/128/
I really don't think people fully grasp how long Apple's arm is, no other company has this level of market manipulation available to it.
Excerpt here: http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/03/18/true_enough_excerpt_2/
You'll note that my piece isn't on Dell's project which isn't done yet but on how you might create a successful offering. Even I don't yet know what Dell is going to bring to market.
My involvement had been reported by both the WSJ, see link above, and here (see link below).
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64000.html
But the point is that the Apple publications moved aggressively to discredit my even implying Dell might be successful. Look below:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/18073/ (look at the sidebar and the bottom, who do you think pays for this site?)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13509_3-10006096-20.html (they are actually part of CBS)
Recall that Apple has folks they hand pick to do reviews.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38318/128/
I really don't think people fully grasp how long Apple's arm is, no other company has this level of market manipulation available to it.
What can you expect from a known shill
Posted by: jlawlerjr 2008-08-04 17:19:23 In reply to: Rob Enderle
>> sorry this looked to you like it was improper.
Your article did not "look" improper, it WAS improper. Your argument that the WSJ had already publicized your linkage to Dell is self-serving.
The kind of people who would be aware of the WSJ article would also be aware of your well-earned reputation as a shill and thus take what you wrote with an enormous grain of salt. The less-informed, on the other hand, might read your article and think there might be some validity to your statements, unaware that you and Dell agree because you are consulting with them on this very product. This article should have been marked as an advertorial.
That said, I can't decide is which is the bigger mystery: 1) what happened to the editorial judgement of TechNewsWorld (who must have been aware of your relationship with Dell, seeing how it was "fully disclosed"), or 2) what was Dell thinking when they hired you as an expert.
Your article did not "look" improper, it WAS improper. Your argument that the WSJ had already publicized your linkage to Dell is self-serving.
The kind of people who would be aware of the WSJ article would also be aware of your well-earned reputation as a shill and thus take what you wrote with an enormous grain of salt. The less-informed, on the other hand, might read your article and think there might be some validity to your statements, unaware that you and Dell agree because you are consulting with them on this very product. This article should have been marked as an advertorial.
That said, I can't decide is which is the bigger mystery: 1) what happened to the editorial judgement of TechNewsWorld (who must have been aware of your relationship with Dell, seeing how it was "fully disclosed"), or 2) what was Dell thinking when they hired you as an expert.
Your logic behind the fact that neither you, nor Tech News World, disclosed the fact you are consulting with Dell is that another paper did it, so you guys don't have to?
It's irrelevant that other outlets mentioned it. To not disclose your connection with Dell's music player and then talk up that project in optimistic terms doesn't sound all that ethical.
Quite frankly, how could one trust this website or your analysis to report things accurately if facts like these are being left out of the reporting?
It's irrelevant that other outlets mentioned it. To not disclose your connection with Dell's music player and then talk up that project in optimistic terms doesn't sound all that ethical.
Quite frankly, how could one trust this website or your analysis to report things accurately if facts like these are being left out of the reporting?
You are nothing but a paid shill Mr. Enderle
Posted by: brian_d_w 2008-08-04 12:06:55 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Disclosure doesn't mean that the information was out there some where. It would be like saying that because the IRS or SEC was informed about the project that it was disclosed. People reading this can't be expected to have read the all articles that show your directly paid and indirectly paid biases.
You are not a journalist you are a lobbyist. How about you change your profession officially? Or you could clean up your act.
You are not a journalist you are a lobbyist. How about you change your profession officially? Or you could clean up your act.
It isn't our job to track down which projects or companies you consult with. If you write something about a project or company you are involved in you must disclose it...even if you aren't a "journalist" but pretending to be one. It is called ethics. And...you know that.
Actually you may want to look up Ethics. I'm not convinced disclosure rules apply when you aren't selling a security or advocating a product.
However, had you clicked on the second link in the piece you would have had the disclosure you've asked for, given it provided the background for the entire section I thought everyone would want to click on that link.
Definition of Ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
It would be interesting to know, given you didn't click on the link, where you think the bias now resides.
However, had you clicked on the second link in the piece you would have had the disclosure you've asked for, given it provided the background for the entire section I thought everyone would want to click on that link.
Definition of Ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
It would be interesting to know, given you didn't click on the link, where you think the bias now resides.
Agree with agraham999 100%. It is not that the report looked improper to me, it is indeed improper and not ethical. Your report gives a positive review of an upcoming product and/or a service ("It can be done; we'll know in a few months whether Dell can do it. I'm not sure I'd bet against Michael Dell."), but fails to disclose your involvement in the project or any compensation as a footnote to the article. You even failed to link to the WSJ article in your reply. I am sorry to see you left it as an exercise for the reader. And your editors failed to point that out, if they were aware of your participation.
The WSJ itself reported my involvement before I wrote this piece. Hard to argue that involvement was concealed and I didn't want to make it look like I was taking credit for the effort.
Here is the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121738346889295815.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The advisory boards I sit on are listed here: http://www.enderlegroup.com/profile_rob.htm
Hope that helps, sorry this looked to you like it was improper.
Here is the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121738346889295815.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The advisory boards I sit on are listed here: http://www.enderlegroup.com/profile_rob.htm
Hope that helps, sorry this looked to you like it was improper.
It was unethical - just not necessarily also legally a crime
Posted by: -hh 2008-08-05 06:38:27 In reply to: RobEnderle
Professional codes of ethics forbid conflicts of interest.
When one cannot eliminate the conflict of interest by recusing one's self, then the conflict of interest can be mitigated ... but note that "mitigation" is not "elimination" ... through disclosure.
The key here is that disclosure is not a simple binary "yes-no" (concealed). It is a question of adequacy for the reader to immediately recognize the situation and its implications.
This means that the golden standard is proactive and consistent disclosure. In simple terms, this means an explicit disclosure statement is literally included within *EVERY* article, story or piece.
Anything less than this invokes a 'slippery slope' that then increasingly questions the adequacy for the failure to adequately disclose.
What this means is that a URL link alone generally fails this test for adequacy, because it is not sufficiently obvious (unless explictly highlighted as a relevant disclosure *issue*)
This also means that something "not concealed" elsewhere is grossly insufficient, because it is not the reader's responsibility to go track down every possible affiliation of the writer. The ethical standard is adequacy, which pragmatically means "sufficiently overt".
There is some room for compromise in terms of disclosure predicated on no relevency. However, this is a hypothetical observation that does not apply to this specific case because the affiliation was highly relevant to the topic.
What is absolutely clear is that a failure to proactively disclose when there is a clear conflict of interest and clear relevancy is absolutely and unequivocally unethical.
The only question then remaining is if it was also criminal, and/or sufficiently serious enough for a Board of Professional Practice and Ethics (BPPE) to strip that individual of his professional licence or credentials.
Of course, in other areas, there are no formal statutes, regulations, laws or professional guidelines. As such the motivation to act ethically is based on the damage failure will cause to one's professional and personal reputations.
Personally, I've suspected for some time that Mr. Enderle was a dishonest individual, and his failure to disclose ... and subsequent attempt to deflect and tap-dance ... merely proves it.
Since Rob is also probably just whoring for website hits, the recourse lies elsewhere.
When one cannot eliminate the conflict of interest by recusing one's self, then the conflict of interest can be mitigated ... but note that "mitigation" is not "elimination" ... through disclosure.
The key here is that disclosure is not a simple binary "yes-no" (concealed). It is a question of adequacy for the reader to immediately recognize the situation and its implications.
This means that the golden standard is proactive and consistent disclosure. In simple terms, this means an explicit disclosure statement is literally included within *EVERY* article, story or piece.
Anything less than this invokes a 'slippery slope' that then increasingly questions the adequacy for the failure to adequately disclose.
What this means is that a URL link alone generally fails this test for adequacy, because it is not sufficiently obvious (unless explictly highlighted as a relevant disclosure *issue*)
This also means that something "not concealed" elsewhere is grossly insufficient, because it is not the reader's responsibility to go track down every possible affiliation of the writer. The ethical standard is adequacy, which pragmatically means "sufficiently overt".
There is some room for compromise in terms of disclosure predicated on no relevency. However, this is a hypothetical observation that does not apply to this specific case because the affiliation was highly relevant to the topic.
What is absolutely clear is that a failure to proactively disclose when there is a clear conflict of interest and clear relevancy is absolutely and unequivocally unethical.
The only question then remaining is if it was also criminal, and/or sufficiently serious enough for a Board of Professional Practice and Ethics (BPPE) to strip that individual of his professional licence or credentials.
Of course, in other areas, there are no formal statutes, regulations, laws or professional guidelines. As such the motivation to act ethically is based on the damage failure will cause to one's professional and personal reputations.
Personally, I've suspected for some time that Mr. Enderle was a dishonest individual, and his failure to disclose ... and subsequent attempt to deflect and tap-dance ... merely proves it.
Since Rob is also probably just whoring for website hits, the recourse lies elsewhere.
After reading the section on your take on Dell potentially re-entering music player market, I recalled reading the following article in an online investment newsletter
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=69416&pt=msg&mid=5302104
I would like to know why you and/or your editors at TechNewsWorld did not mention this in your report. Isn't there a conflict of interest?
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=69416&pt=msg&mid=5302104
I would like to know why you and/or your editors at TechNewsWorld did not mention this in your report. Isn't there a conflict of interest?
