Every publication has some level of bullshit chatter. This is why the occasional "fluff" piece is bearable. The reasons behind the "fluff" could be a weak reporter funneling a story or a weak reporter confusing commentary for fact. But when there is consecutive fluff, the publication no longer matters.
Over the last few months the Wall Street Journal has allowed far too much fluff to get pasts its editors. So much so, that I no longer take the publication seriously.
I question their facts. I question their sources. And I question their practices.
The straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back is an apparent interview with Phil Schiller. I find myself asking,
how did the interview take place? And what were the questions asks to him?
The "rare interview" provided zero new information, and a restatement of obvious and readily available facts. It seemed as if Phil was responding to a question via email to a general person about the fragmented Android OS, and an article was formulated around a two line response. (Similar short responses Steve Jobs would give to random emails all the time.) Then the article was sensationalized by adding "Samsung" in the article and headline.
Either way, I now find the WSJ to be useless in viable chatter.
Post a Comment