This is what I thought of when I heard David talk....
by drivechevysordie - 3/21/06 10:53 AM
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."
by: drivechevysordie March 21, 2006 10:53 AM PST
0 people like this thread
Total posts: 21 (Showing page 1 of 1)
Pogue was Rude and Evasive
by mwrisner - 3/21/06 11:28 AM
After Molly and Tom were gracious enough to let David Pogue take up podcast time to defend himself and air his side of the story, he just came off as rude.
You could tell Pogue had an agenda to put Molly and Tom "in thier places." Even after professional apologies from the BOL hosts, Pogue continued to press his individual points against comments made last Friday. His behavior came off as petty.
Meanwhile, Molly and Tom had a lingering valid point on the perception of objectivity: Pogue DID receive a substantial service for free. That alone erases the perception of objectivity, and this issue still applies to Pogue. Tom and Molly purposely (and politely) deflected the accusation from Pogue and onto themselves, collectively. However, with the flair of a seasoned politician, Pogue would not address it as it applied to his situation.
My respect for David Pogue has diminished substantially ... for a second time.
Colorado Springs, CO
Funny how we seem to care more about delivery than the clear revelation of the facts at hand, these days. To use your example of politicians, it's the same way in political debates anymore. Who looked good? Who seemed more gracious? Who was more likable.
I too found myself wanting him to be friendlier in his own self-defense but I couldn't deny the absolute effectiveness of playing Molly and Tom's own words back to them. Have you ever tried arguing a point with Molly? I have and I usually lose It's quite hard to deny something when it's just been played back for you seconds before.
Tell Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes that his behavior is rude. He won't give a crap, so long as he ultimately reveals the truth as a journalist. My respect for Pogue as a journalist as definitely increased after the interview. I would have liked him better with more humility but I certainly don't respect him less.
My gosh, how long are people gonna gripe about how "rude" or "harsh' David was. His intergrity as a journalist was on the line, give the guy a break! His credibility as a journalist was slightly marred, and he needed to clear that up. Get over it people, and kudos Kevin for just pointing out the fact how we make a bigger deal on delievery than facts these days!
Kevin is right. Facts are what is important. It disturbs me when people are confronted with their own truths and they keep talking as though they absolutely refuse to take responsibility for their lies or general ignorance or insanity. That attitude of not owning their words and actions is the very reason America is NOT a great place to live anymore. 99% of Americans seem to be in denial about how $&^)(?! living in America has become. All the people who are supposed to be helping are instead committing crimes, and then refusing to take responsibility for it.
Here is another one...
"You can be a journalist or a celebrity but not both."
If you've nerver heard that one before, then that's because I just made it up.
Pogue was calm and reasonable
I don't know--if you listen to the original 'cast, Tom and Molly were wailing on Pogue based on bogus facts. I think they deserved having the record straightened.
Pogue was direct, but rude? No. He was perfectly nice to them, although they might not have liked to hear their mistakes brought to light on the air.
Kudos to both of them for owning up to their mistakes. Molly said it best: Looks like BOTH sides have learned a lesson about being more careful.
He came across as a boob!
by Shagged - 3/21/06 3:34 PM
I've enjoyed his articles and have heard him interviewed in the past and thought he was very intelligent and interesting but come on....repeatedly making Molly read the article to highlight the errors was moronic. The bottom line is he was wrong for taking the free data recovery. Not by the Times standards but by journalistic ethical standards. I know Tom and Molly will never say it so I will.....BUZZ OFF David Pogue!
LOL, as if the New York Times isn't the news organization that pretty much DEFINES journalistic ethical standards. Anytime the NYT finds that its reputation is at stake, it takes measures to correct it, even if it is just for public perception.
Do people actually listen to what is said these days or do we now just live in a society where somebody is tried and convicted in the media and then their mind is set for good? I know how I felt before the interview, made a fair judgement of the evidence at hand after having heard it and changed my mind, regardless of how unpleasant he might have seemed (at first) in defending his reputation. A reporter survives by his reputation and an attack on his rep was an attack on his person.
Pogue certainly doesn't deserve a buzz off.
Guilty, Guitly, Guilty!
Pogue's original transgression was bad enough, but his defense of himself on CNET is worse.
Like the proverbial kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Pogue utilizes the typical adolescent system of defense:
He blames his accusers, the SF Weekly, of being ''anonymous...muckraking...bloggers'' (so much for free speech).
He blames his coworkers, mentioning several times that his editors ''approved'' his actions (''thanks for dragging us down with you Dave'').
His treatment of Molly alone, ordering her to read aloud quotes from the article, crossed the borders of professionalism.
The bottom line-he took $2000 worth of services under the guise of ''journalism,'' and pocketed them. His ''disclosure'' doesn't change this fact, it just pointing out his ethical lapse. If he needs his editors to be his moral compass, he needs to grow up.
To those who defend him, you're part of the problem. The same litany of excuses for this type of unethical, but not illegal, behavior is always used by those who abuse their position. CBS was right to apologize for Pogue's actions, and hopefully won't have him back.
>>To those who defend him, you're part of the problem.
A lot of people, myself included, don't feel a line was crossed so long as disclosure was provided. Had it not been, I would have felt differently about it. You read reviews of products and services every single day from sources that were comped an item or service, even if only temporarily. YOU define it as a line being crossed. That line looks pretty broad to me if some companies say it's okay to give a journalist cellphone service for a while to test something but it's not ok to have a journalists hard drive repaired when it goes down just because the fix is permanent. Those journalists surely aren't using the phone for personal use to order out, talk to friends and family, are they? Oh please. The distinctions become miniscule and absurd.
There was no clear ethical lapse so no, I, nor people who feel as I do are ''part of the problem.'' Just listen to yourself: "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty." That self-righteous attitude is the problem.
CBS has a hair-trigger to apologize these days and had THEY investigated the situation further, they would have realized an apology was unnecessary. Clarification perhaps, an apology, no.
Just my point-Pogue's defenders are more than happy to argue there are no "absolutes," every ethical barrier is malleable and subjective, so there's no "wrong" behavior.
Luckily, most people do feel there at least some absolutes. What Pogue did was wrong, and he is guilty.
Unfortunately, there will always be, like Pogue, excuse mongers in society.
Hey everybody, I'm an EXCUSE MONGER!! Yay. Look at me.
We're the type who understand there are grey areas and maybe two sides to every story.
But Steve K believes in absolutes! Yes, he never travels faster than the posted limit. Therefore, he could _never_ accept an explanation that an action was approved all the way up the chain of command because that person is guilty, guilty, guilty in Steve K's list of ABSOLUTE no-nos.
Hypocrites... ('long as we 're labeling people) ya gotta love 'em.
by daltonrooney - 3/21/06 5:21 PM
I do respect David Pogue for defending his reputation against bogus facts. Some of the points he made were quite relevant and accurate. At the same time, I think Tom and Molly have a point too, and I'm glad the SFGate article, no matter how inflamatory, has brought this issue to wider attention.
While I do understand Pogue's position, his behavior was pretty ridiculous. Making Molly read back his column out loud was just petty and childish. Playing back the audio recording was silly too. It made me lose all respeect for him. If you want to get your point across, just say what you need to say. Games like this are just pathetic.
Molly's teachable moment
I disagree. Asking Molly to read back his column was a very valuable moment for her. I doubt Molly will ever again comment on hearsay or articles she hasn't read. Tom and Molly made a big deal about journalism and journalis ethics. Rule 1 of journalism is get the facts right. Tom and Molly should have disclosed that they hadn't read Pogue's reviews or watched the CBS show.
Methinks the man doth protest too much..
by Wilf_Brim - 3/21/06 7:54 PM
First, yes, Molly and Tom should have RTFA. No excuse at all. Don't even post of /. without doing that, let alone go off on somebody on a well subscribed podcast.
That having been said, Pogue was aggressive, bordering on rude. I have a feeling it is because his hand was caught in the cookie jar. Here are some of his arguements
1) The data wasn't all that important.
2) DriveSavers only recovered half the data
3) He mentioned that he was comped (sort of). I don't count the phrase "if we had paid for this" as being the same thing as stating, up front, that the service was provided FOR the writer, and was free.
4) Taking a $2000 service is the same as getting free Xm coverage on a review unit.
He got a service for free. I would liken it to getting a free Lasik procedure, and coming out of the surgery with 20/30 vision. With drive savers, like getting an operation, you are getting a service. There is no guarantee of results. You pay for the process, not the outcome.
Comparing this to a review unit that gets returned is incredible. I found the line "how do you put a value on two weeks worth of cell phone service.." to be pathetic. Hey David, ever heard of pro rating? (Cost of month of service)*(# of days used)/(30 days in a month).
Pogue was so angry because he knew that this whole thing was questionable at best. People tend to act indignant when they are the most insecure.
And I will take the high road here and not make some snarky comment about Mac users....
You just did.
>>And I will take the high road here and not make some
>>snarky comment about Mac users....
So is that what this is? Some PC versus Mac thing?
Okay this is getting a bit out of hand guys
by LifeStar - 3/21/06 8:58 PM
Honestly, this debate is getting a little old considering that the event has already come and gone. David got his chance to defend himself; Molly & Tom apologized for whatever missteps they took; David understood that what he did can be taken wrongly; and BOL listeners are up in arms.
As glad as I know the BOL team is that the forums are just tickling with chat, I would like to say please cool it down guys. We're fellow listeners, whether we agree with everything that David/Molly/Tom/whoever says/does, the fact is, it's all said and done. Let's move onto other topics please?
Plus, considering that Tom & Molly seem to be okay with it signals to me that for them (and David I suspect), the matter is done with and they have moved on. Lets do the same.
Yepper. Sorry. I was frustrated to discover this might have been that same tired tune of the Mac camp versus the PC camp and the name calling got my temper up. Still, I have to admit, I love a good charged-up debate once in a while. To be honest, I especially enjoy the Molly-Tom exchanges (rare as they are) Lots of good stuff comes out of those!!
So, Steve K and Wilf_Brim - hope we all had fun. I'll try to make up for it with some informative posts (non Mac-related for a change... God, is that even possible for me... )
Molly and Tom were gracious, whats-his-name was abusive and over-the-top. He made his point in the first two minutes (if not soner). He should have stopped while he was ahead.
However, Molly and Tom were wise to podcast the whole thing. It allowed us to see just how much of a self-centered *ss that guy was.
Molly and crew slipped up, yes.
However the point still remains that they guy got $2000 worth of perm. service to his credit that he did not pay for.... period. It doesn't matter that his review was so-so or that his editors approved or that he disclosed.... it doesn't matter.
He accepted a bribe.
I completely agree. The time he wasn't correcting Tomolica he was putting down CNET's testing process and promoting the New York Times's. That angered me. Like majorly. Hugely. Profusely. And any other words that I can't think of right now. Bottom line: it made me mad.
Total posts: 21 (Showing page 1 of 1)