[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Also, I ask once again that further posts on the subject of Macworld as a magazine be relocated to the forum designated for that purpose, (the existence of which illustrates that Macworld is open to hearing constructive comments about itself as a publication).

---

I quite agree.

[Jason Snell]

You forget one key point. IDG exists as a revenue vehicle entirely because it has readers who trust its editorial content. You can't have one without the other.
But you're right, we're not a charity. What of it? Show me a major U.S. publication other than Consumer Reports who is. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
You can toss out lots of figures with dollar signs in front of them -- it doesn't change any of my original points.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Jason - your statement that Macworld is not in the pockets of its advertisers does not hold water.

---

Does Macworld -- and nearly every other magazine -- depend on advertising revenue? Sure. But that's a very different thing than saying that advertising revenue affects editorial opinion and coverage.
The business model of a reputable consumer magazine is very different than what you seem to think. As I pointed out in the other thread, both readership and advertising levels are directly related to the integrity and reputation of the publication. The only way we get loyal readers is to be independent and trustworthy. The only way we get advertisers is to have lots of loyal readers. Finally, few vendors will regularly advertise with a publication that gives favoritism based on money spent. In other words, it's not only possible for advertising and objective coverage to co-exist, but desirable -- objective coverage leads to more readers and more advertisers.
The business model you claim, on the other hand, is simply unsustainable over the long term.
(As a side note, keep in mind that whenever you make such accusations about our editorial coverage being based on advertising dollars, you're not only criticizing Macworld's editorial policy -- which is fine -- but you're calling into question the integrity and character of those of us who work hard to produce objective, independent reviews of products. I realize we live in a cynical world these days, but some of us do take seriously our responsibilities to be fair, independent, and objective. So if some of us seem to take offense to your accusations, that's why /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[MCJ]

Bjorn, as I read it the core of your argument is that Macworld's editorial integrity is compromised as a result of its dependence on advertisers. What you haven't told us is how you propose that the publication would go about generating the necessary revenue to survive if, as by implication you seem to be suggesting, it were to turn its back on advertisers as a source of income.
I would argue that advertising revenue actually allows Macworld to be a better publication as it provides access to resources to maintain an acceptable standard e.g. by hiring the best staff. Also, I think that you underestimate the intelligence of the Macworld readership. If, as you seem to suggest, Macworld gives good reviews to bad products to suit its advertisers I believe that its readers would soon cotton on to this and abandon the publication.

[jmincey]

Below are some quotations on this subject which are not likely to go over well with the Macworld staff, but I include them here "just for fun" and out of intellectual and historical interest. There is (on my part at least) absolutely no implication intended here. I'm including them only because I find them interesting and, after all, this subject has certainly been brought up. It's fascinating how these sentiments have been voiced throughout history:
[The press] is seldom intelligent... It is never courageously honest. Held
harshly to a rigid correctness of opinion by the plutocracy that controls
it with less and less attempt at disguise, and menaced on all sides by
censorships that it dare not flout, it sinks rapidly into formalism and feebleness....
H. L. Mencken 1880-1956 (American editor, critic, lexicographer)
--------------------
The dependence upon corporate advertising of the mass media...makes them
editorially subservient, without in any way being prompted, to points of view
known...to be favored by the big property owners.... The willing subservience
shows itself most generally, apart from specific acts of omission or commission,
in an easy blandness...toward serious social problems.
Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money
Today, 1968
--------------------
Self censorship silences as effectively as a government decree.
Tom Wicker 1926- (Newspaperman, columnist of the New York Times)
--------------------
There is no such thing in America as an independent press...
I am paid $150 a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper...
and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions
would be out on the streets looking for another job....
We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the
jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our
possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are
intellectual prostitutes.
John Swinton (New York Sun editor), remarks at a dinner given in his honor
by colleagues, 12 April 1893
--------------------
I buy newspapers to make money to buy more newspapers to make more
money. As for editorial content, that's the stuff you separate the ads with.
Roy Thomson 1894-1977 (Canadian-born British publisher), quoted by
Tom Wicker in On Press, 1978
--------------------
A writer needs almost as much courage as a warrior; the former ought not
to worry about newspapers any more than the latter about the hospital.
Marie Henri Beyle Stendhal 1783-1842 (French writer)

[Nobody]

No one is that naive, including moderators here (unless you feel they wouldn't quite catch on), to let such comments against integrity of reporting (a central and obviously contentious theme in some of the previous posts) be blatantly challenged. Even if your disclaimer is perfectly true, the obvious purpose of your quotes is impossible to ignore. Your post is also not about the topic (I should be last one to bring that up but suddenly I have become curious about uniformity of community standard /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)-- I am going to watch and see how long before your post disappears; shouldn't be too long! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jmincey]

"... the obvious purpose of your quotes is impossible to ignore."
I told you the purpose of my post. If you choose to disbelieve me, there is nothing I can do.
I think my reputation in this forum for speaking my mind and being straightforward in doing so is well known. I do not shrink from (or tiptoe around) expressing my point of view -- including when I disagree with (or challenge) the opinions of the Macworld staff.
I'll thank you to leave the expressing of Jeff Mincey's opinions to Jeff Mincey. You in turn can take care of your own.
"Your post is also not about the topic..."
How on earth do you figure that? This thread gots its start when a poster suggested that the current Macworld print edition is a shadow of its former self, and by way of explanation he called into question the correlation between advertising revenue and editorial content. Read the quotations above again and tell me they are unrelated to this topic.
Ah, I know -- maybe you are under the impression that the topic of this thread is "The Posts of Jeff Mincey" since this is what your last post addresses. Pot, meet kettle.

[Chris Breen]

No worries, Alam. You take such things on a case-by-case basis. We're all familiar with The Ways of Mincey and weigh his remarks accordingly.

[jmincey]

Hey, won't anybody defend my honor?

[Chris Breen]

Who says I wasn't?
Sheesh, Jeff, I tried to make my response as vague as possible to please everyone.

[jmincey]

"I tried to make my response as vague as possible to please everyone."
Ah, upon rereading it, I see now that your statement was worth of the most skilled politician. So keep that in mind as an alternate career option. You could run on the Mac platform. Or maybe the platform-independent platform. Or the "Multi" platform.
Okay, it's pretty bad, but the Sunday Night Football game is not holding my attention.

[Nobody]

Jeff,
I was somehow under (obviously utterly wrong) impression that the title of the thread ("Re: 24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2.16GHz") may have something to do with the bulk of the contents because being on the topic is one thing that is being brought up by the moderators from time to time. [And I am not refuting that I am never not guilty of going off the main topic but usually there is a relevant context to the tangential post(s).]
Thankfully, the next post in the thread explains things a good deal better... there are rules and then there is the convenient enforcement on a case by case basis!
Congratulations!
[Personally, I have no problem with tangential posts (as long as they are not purposely made to insult or attack someone needlessly); they often bring either interesting points to ponder or interject humor, which is always good. ]

[Nobody]

Obviously!
[I am quite impressed by your diplomacy. ]

[jmincey]

"I was somehow under (obviously utterly wrong) impression that the title of the thread ("Re: 24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2.16GHz") may have something to do with the bulk of the contents..."
I guess you didn't notice that this was originally born as a thread in another forum and that Jason had truncated this subset of it in order to move it to the forum which best suited its subject matter. Unfortunately, the title of the original thread made the trip -- so I see now the source of your original confusion.