What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
93 Comments
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Well, I'm not here to slam Pogue (just his paper), but really, all he needed to do was add a sentence explaining that the data saved was his own, and that Drive Savers had not charged a fee. Let the reader have the info and decide for themselves. That's how it looks to me.
- dlprager, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22This is a tough one ... I think that a review of Drive Savers and the work they do (price not withstanding) based on their work on defective drives (for testing and review) for free is fine ... but the possible mistake was the recovery of data from a drive that belongs to the reporter (that the reporter benefitted from the recovery of). I could have seen myself struggling with the same moral principles as a journalist on this one. I would HATE to lose my data and this being a service rather than straight up donated goods makes it easy to try and convince yourself that it is OK (although I agree that it is not in this case).
- Sandwiches_Time, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Pogue is a funny and very talented writer.
I'm a journalist, and I remember reading his e-mail on Drive Savers and thinking to myself that this just doesn't stand up ethically. To compare getting a free movie ticket and getting over $2,000 worth of work to your own private computer in order to retrieve your private files is absurd.
And, in my opinion, Pogue clearly knew that this was a "wink and a nod" job. He write incredibly glowing reviews for three major news outlets after getting the free work done. What does that tell you?
I love his writing, but Pogue definitely messed up here. Not worth getting fired as Steaminx suggested, but he definitely deserves this public lashing he's been getting about it. He needs to take his lumps and move on. - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25The "Old Grey Whore" has serious credibility problems, you are correct. Pogue has some 'splainin' to do.
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Here is the deal. Most journalists for places like NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, Time, CNET, ZDNet, etc do NOT take gifts over a certain amount, usually like $20-$50. Yes, they get to play with the latest gadgets, but they all get sent back to the manufacturer. Yes, they can take CDs for review, so they can review them before they hit the shelves, and they get invited to screenings of movies for the same reason. (Note: most professional reviews think this is a mixed blessing at best. Yes, they get to see some good concerts, movies, etc for free. However, they also have to sit through tons of total crap that most of you wouldn't even watch 10 minutes of on a bet.
Taking $2500 worth of free services from Drive Savers is way over the line. The NYT Ombudsman made a point of saying that this is not consistent with their policy, that (contrary to that Pogue says) their food critics pay for their meals, and their travel people pay for their trips etc, they are not comped. - obscurelyfamous, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14No need to bury a comment just because he is ignorant on the NYT's credibility. Digg down if it's irrelevant or inflammatory.
Anyway, quasipalm, reviewers do not get free gadgets. They get unfettered cost-free access to devices to review. I would hope that it is a huge issue that any reputable reviewer is reviewing products a company is just sending him for free. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There's no "lumps" in the industry, bro. All a journalist has is his/her integrity. Once they lose that, they've lost the only foot they have to stand on in their profession. People don't understand this, and that's why they don't understand why journalists try their very hardest to report exactly the information that they've got.
No chances or do-overs. He ***** up, he needs to move on to something that allows lying, like every other job in the world. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm guessing you've never really made a tax write-off in your life, otherwise you would know that a write-off only means you don't pay the tax on the money you're writing off, which is significantly less than the whole amount being written off.
- nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Getting "free stuff" may seem unusual or unethical, but it's the norm in journalism. The people who review albums, DVDs and concerts for Rolling Stone got them free (I have a mountain of CDs and a shoebox full of comped concert tickets from my music journalist days). I guarantee that the Engadget guys are swimming in swag. Almost every review of every piece of computer hardware in every major magazine and newspaper was a machine provided free--usually loaned, but sometimes given. Etc. Etc.
The problem with the Pogue piece is that the drive recovery company can't "loan" their service. (If that were possible, you all would have been perfectly okay with it, right?) So, being used to the economics of tech journalism (as opposed to NYT, where they get blasted for stuff like this) he let them perform their service, and reviewed it.
The review, by the way, could only be positive because the worst that could happen is a null result (they can't recover the info). So in that respect, I don't see the comped service affecting the review. But I wouldn't expect an ordinary person in post-Jayson Blair times to understand that.
Pogue should have asked to be billed in the first place, as window dressing, but do you think that getting free service because his boss is paying for it is going to affect his review in any way, vs. getting free service because it was comped? - phern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's nothing wrong with free file recovery for review purposes if the files being recovered are of *no value* other than to test the service (using junk data). However, retrieving Pogue's files did carry a value to him and it would have otherwise cost him $2K+, if I’m reading it right. Not an inconsequential amount of money for most people.
In essence, he had a vested interest in getting his data back so his objectivity was called into question. When this got out, it gave the appearance that DriveSavers "bought" a good review. Being completely forthcoming could have avoided this. - Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't much like Pogue but I do like DriveSavers. As a student journalist I frequently received comped tickets to concerts and the like and these tickets always included a request that I send a copy of my review back to the agency that issued the tickets. I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue, but I believe that disclosure should become the norm rather than the exception.
- Netmindstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4NPR did air a clarification that the service was *not free*, but that the reviewer did receive the service for free.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't get it. Technology reviews work by companies sending products for free to reviewers. If a computer magazine reviews a product, they got it free from the company. This is just how it works. The reviewer is expected to return the product after he's done reviewing it, but it remains FREE.
So, what is wrong with a free data recovery? It isn't very well a service that you can return. In order to review a service, it is reasonable to expect that the service would be offered for free to the reviewer. I wouldn't expect it any other way. - nhansen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Having worked as a writer and managing editor for a major tech publication, I can attest that we would receive gifts/offers all the time, but not necessarily in exchange for a good review. With that said, let me be the first to say that when we gave a bad or less glamorous review of a product, our phone lines and email accounts were clogged with mean spirited requests from PR staff, the occasional product manager and tech supervisor(s) from the "reviewed" company, demanding we soften the tone of the review. It got so bad, and the offers so outlandish, that we had to publish our ethical standpoint on our website so companies (and our audience) would know exactly where we stood. Pogue is a very talented writer, and can reach a broader audience than most "tech" writers, so it's unfortunate this happened.
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Also, articles written entirely in italics make baby Jebus cry.
- Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Don't feel duped. DriveSavers is an excellent company that does quality work at what I find to be industry standard rates.
- orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Feh. There was an apology and clarification on the March 12 CBS Sunday Morning broadcast. This is old news.
Still a stupid move by the overrated Pogue. But old. - Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ nigeltufnel
"Getting "free stuff" may seem unusual or unethical, but it's the norm in journalism. The people who review albums, DVDs and concerts for Rolling Stone got them free (I have a mountain of CDs and a shoebox full of comped concert tickets from my music journalist days)."
As the article says, though, its not an issue of practice, its an issue of magnitude. Getting a $10 music cd is not in the same ethical ballpark as getting $2000 hard drive recovery service. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but is sure less than $2000.
This was an error in judgement on Pogue's part. He may not have been trying to be sleezy, but that's ultimately how it comes off in the end when the reader has all the information.
As to whether Pogue's employer paid for it or whether it was comped, I think it could have had a subtle effect on the review. There's a different mindset when the writer knows he is being given a favor by the company he's reviewing than when he knows that the service is being genuinely paid for by his own company. Whether it did in actuality or not is irrelevant because it can't be proven one way or another. Credibility is still lost because the reader (when they are offered all the information on the issue of payment of the hard drive recovery service) has to make that judgement themselves with no ability to prove anything.
P.S. Pogue's name and my username are in no way related to each other.
I agree that it makes tech journalism a very grey area, because there are a lot of - johnchristopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's the whole story of how one angry journalist can ruin your whole day. I'm the John Christopher at DriveSavers mentioned in Matt Smith's article.
First off, David Pogue was never "bribed". He called in on our 800 number, was handled like any other customer and was provided a quote on the cost of his recovery. He was transferred to me because I have known David personally for many years. (He is also a friend of DriveSavers' president).
We discussed his drive failure. He mentioned only in passing, that he had always wanted to do a story on data recovery. This was on July 11th last year. The drive arrived here on July 28th and was so problematic, it took several attempts (35 hours in time) to get past the media damage.
I felt bad about the fact that we only had a partial recovery for David and as I told Matt Smith as a "professional courtesy", we waived the charge for the recovery. For the record, it is DriveSavers policy not to offer free recoveries to members of the media. I have personally turned down requests from journalists that have asked for free recoveries.
In the original NYT article published September 1, 2005, David Pogue says, "Had I been a paying customer and not a reviewer, I would have been charged about $2,000." That's a pretty clear statement. Obviously, David had nothing to hide.
The real trouble began a couple of weeks back when Matt Smith from S.F. Weekly (a free throwaway newspaper here in the Bay Area), called DriveSavers for a quote on his crashed drive. After seeing Pogue's article online, Smith pressured our phone representative on the price he'd been quoted. Smith started asking questions about David Pogue's recovery and why it was "comped".
I told Matt Smith a few day's later when he called me, that I couldn't help feeling like he had a personal vendetta against David Pogue and the fact that he received a free recovery. I also mentioned that David's stories were months apart from each other (NYT 9/1/05, CBS 1/22/06) and that David was forthcoming about not paying for the recovery in his original article. Nothing I said seemed to matter and Smith went out of his way to make a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe he's happy now. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18Reviewers always get free gadgets; why not free services too?
Restaurant reviewers often get special attention and often comped services when reviewing a new place. Gadget companies send out free gadgets in hopes of a positive review.
I don't like it -- but I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the writer makes it out to be. Just because you accept a free service doesn't mean you're accepting a bribe. It is possible to be an objective reviewer, even when the service is free.
Of course -- the journalist should ALWAYS note when they receive an item for their personal use at a discount or for free. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Absolutely petronski. You nailed it. That's a reporter's job: to report all of the information and let the reader decide.
But lately people have started to become too lazy to think for themselves, so publishers ask editors to slant the information, either from pressure of advertisement or their own personal biases.
News media cannot be trusted anymore. The solution? I'm still working on it. I'll get back to you. But I think it has something to do with operating solely by profits from subscriptions, like the Consumer Reports. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ooh. Someone complaining about Pogue. Or as I like to call him... iPogue. Seriously, he's never given a bad review to an Apple product.
- XenonofArcticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nothing to see here. I'm a software developer/publisher. Reviewers get free stuff all the time -- services, goods, etc. If a reviewer contacts me from a credible industry publication, where I want to see coverage, and asks for a review copy, they get it. If the reviewer actually gets real use/benefit out of the product, I don't regard that as an issue. In my mind, it makes the review that much more credible. Contrast: "DriveSavers recovered some useless data off of a failed hard drive that I dug up somewhere." versus "I just about lost the manuscript to my next book and DriveSavers recovered it -- a situation not unlike the one you'd probably be in if you ever needed their services." So what if he got the service comped, if his account of what he got was factual, I don't see the difference. I guess you might like to see disclosure that it was free to him, but then why not demand that disclosure for every review out there?
- pt4117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@fightstrife
Yeah we should be more concerned about a million other things, but the focus of Digg is technology. - orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For starters, every major newspaper and magazine pays for their own meals for restaurant reviews. Reviewers take great pains to disguise themselves so the restaurants won't know they're being reviewed. No, the critics don't pay -- their publications do.
I dare you to find a recent photo of the Washington Post's food critic, Tom Sietsema, if you disagree. So all you morons pulling "facts" out of your butt can just shut up about free meals and restaurant reviews.
Movie critics do get to go to free screenings -- on a weeknight, usually in a crappy theater, with no concession stand open. The best critics still see movies in the theater in this fashion. - rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I applaud the journalistic self governing going on here with one writer taking to task another for a lapse in judgment. What I don't understand is how American journalism can be so diligent on items of plagiarism/ethics such as Jason Blair and items like Pogue but then so blatantly ***** up when it comes to issues of editorial prejudice such as Fox News and MSNBC (pro right emphasis) and CNN/ABC/NBC/CNN (pro liberal emphasis).
It is mind numbing how blatant and out in the open these biases are yet nobody within these companies wants to fess up to them. - pt4117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the one you are talking about is a PC Magazine article on On Track. They actually put one in a fire for their story.
- rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Brandonhines, the issue is that it is NOT common practice to receive free services of a value this high. Also, the reviewer NEEDED this service and it looks like he just took the story to get a free service. It taints his story like one of your digits after a night with finger-***** Mary.
- bobloblaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If Pogue is such a Tech Expert, why didn't he have backups? Maybe he should have done a review of backup software?
- seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Completely agree. When a restaurant reviewer goes to a new place, he doesn't tell the chef that he's a reviewer so that he gets his meal comped. Doing so would effect the objectivity of the review.
If you're going to do a review, I believe that you should do it without the knowledge of the party you are reviewing! It's completely bogus when tech sites review preview editions of video cards because who knows what the manufacturer did to the card. - onestep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you listen to a lot of the tech journalists, with the exception of leo laporte (who I think has a high level of integrity), they brag about getting new stuff all of the time. Listen to Dvorak, who talked about his Xbox 360 for months... I haven't heard him say he had to send it back. I think it's pretty common place to be given products. They have said on twit before that usually, if the product is under $50, they generally keep it.
Pogue's situation is somewhat gray to me. By reviewing Drive Savers, he would have nothing to send back, since it is a service -- and only to gain by it. He shouldn't have done a story on this at all, unless it was a review at epinions.com - rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey we will have to agree to disagree...bottomline is that I think it is ***** up and you think it is not. So do you think if they did a half ass job he would write that? Or do you think maybe he would make them do it over again and still write up a good review because his PROPERTY was being worked on for free? Dude, car reviewers don't decide to write up a review on Porsche because they are thinking of buying one and think they will get one for free if they review it. Is this sinking in or am I just wasting time here???
- jdr93, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2after listening to the mad scramble on the cnet thing i have the opinion the interviewers were way too fast to apologize and way too slow to get into the problem. if d pogue was really ethical he would know before-hand, without his editor telling him, or the paper telling him point blank, that a journalist accepting $2000 or more of services is unethical, no matter whether he admits he received the expensive services for free or not. and he didn't know it, so i see his behaviour as unethical.
he had his little script all planned out, what he was going to say, when he was going to replay a piece of last week's program, what he was going to read; but still his excuses, his attacks on the two interviewers, his explanations were lame, way off the mark. how can he talk about the value of services he received for free? for me, if he doesn't know he was unethical, then he never knew what is unethical. if he needs to be lead around like a blind person by his editor or the ethics handbook printed up by the papers and broadcasters he works for then nothing he writes has validity, even after it has been strained for ethical lumps through the editor's colander.
john - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6holy *****, i read that story and in turn recommended the service to dozens of people.. i feel so duped.
- vrajput, on 03/27/2009, -0/+1hmmm There are many views i don;t have much exposure but appreciate you all guys ..
cheers
http://www.stellarinfo.com - LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Thats my thoughts also who really cares movie critics get free movies (where do you think all your pirated movies come from) Food critics dont pay to eat EVER, Car magazines get a free car to test but what you probably dont know is that car doesnt go back to the factory someone from the magazine drives it for the rest of the year and then its returned. All reviews are done like this and always have been. The best part of this story is this reporter thinks he uncovered something major. Moron............
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Pretty grey line - to summarize:
Pogue thought it was OK because it was like journalists getting free movie tickets.
NYT is cutting the company a check, because they feel it does go against thier guidelines.
Personally I am OK with it, from teh sense that all of the reporting was factual. I can see food critics not taking in free meals because reviews of food are so subjective. But reviewing anything that is by its nature objective and fact based I would think would be OK to receive for free, though a mention of that fact would be good.
The article also waffles a lot on this noting that an SF paper recieves a moutnian of free CD's and books and things and reviews "a few". That I have a problem with. - adkmom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because the service was for Mr. Pogue's own personal use/data recovery, he should have paid- upfront- for the recovery.
Then, if he went forward with his review- he could disclose this & would be merely speaking from his own experience as to the value this company delivers.
I'm quite sure that he wishes he had done so now... - kimhill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2a) Was his data loss impt enough to him that he would have ponied up the $$$ on his own to have it fixed?
b) Or did he lose some data he could live without, but figure that this is a good time to test out a disk recovery service?
If it's (b), then I'd say the only problem is the perception problem. If it's (a), then that's more serious. In any case, he didn't say anything about DriveSavers that I haven't read ten times already... - Chupatumama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2When Alexa Brecht gets his new laptop and it happens to be a freebie from Lenovo or Alienware,
will we take his IBM and DELL comments with a grain of salt? - mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Yes, but not because of the usual complaints of liberal bias.
Case in point, Judith Miller.
Case in point, withholding NSA story for over a year. - nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"He shouldn't have done a story on this at all, unless it was a review at epinions.com"
Don't you think that having a drive go dead is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to readers, many of whom use Maxtor drives (;-)) that all is not lost?
The average digg reader knows about drive recovery, but the average NYT reader does not. To me that's the point of the article. - bryus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That is the general take I have on this. He is just pissed he couldn't con DriveSavers out of a free drive recovery. Maybe if he had actually read/watched Pouge's review sooner he would have backed up and not had this problem.
- BloodyPath, on 10/12/2007, -29/+30I'm not much up on newspapers, but isn't the NYT kinda on the low end of the credibility scale already?
- decaturcomp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As much as I'd love to be be holier than someone else, too, it seems like, to me that he couldn't have written the piece without knowing what the service was like and that he DID say, 'if I'd been a retail customer, it would have cost X dollars.' That doesn't look like he was hiding anything at all.
Now here is my admission. I wrote an article about hard drive recovery and got some free service in exchange. The company wasn't able to fix the drive, they knew I was writing an article and the hard drive wasn't mine. It belonged to someone I knew who had written it off as lost and wouldn't have benefited much from the recovery.
Shocked? I hope not. - cmw72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3David Pogue responds to the allegations on today's edition of CNET's excellent "Buzz Out Loud" podcast.
He takes Tom & Molly to task (playing back audio clips and all) for their only slightly-scathing indictment of him on last Friday's episode.
You can listen to it here:
http://dw.com.com/redir/file.mp3?destURL=http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/pod/cnetbuzz_032006.mp3&ctype=podCast&cval=BuzzOutLoud;032006 - Alex3917, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Times should make Pogue pay for an advertisement the size of his article. In fact, they should do this to anyone who reviews free swag without disclosing it.
- wernst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3OK, let me start by saying that *I* review software (and occasionally service-based websites, and sometimes hardware) for two printed computer magazines you have certainly heard of (and though I won't say which here, you could easily use Google and find out). I've been doing it for 10 years, and for some magazines that are no longer with us, so I can say this with a lot of certainty.
OF COURSE THE REVIEWER DIDN'T PAY FOR THE DATA RECOVERY SERVICE! DUH!
I've never had a single company ask for their software back after reviewing it. Ever. Editors don't need it filling their offices, the company can duplicate millions of copies (and shipping isn't free) so they don't want it back, so it winds up with the writer after the article is done. 9 times out of 10, it actually winds up in the trash, or the CD goes into the "reviewed product drawer," never to be seen again. Again, THIS IS THE NORM.
Hardware is different, but only just a little. Most companies set aside a limited number of units expressly for reviewers (especially if they cost more than, say $400), and writers are asked to return them (shipping paid by the company), and the unit goes to the next reviewer. These are used items, so they aren't resold, as far as I know. If the item is not expensive, or is especially heavy, reviewers are almost always told it is not worth the expense to ship back. Editors don't need this stuff cluttering their offices, so it stays with the writer. Again, this is the norm.
And now we get to this: a service. There is NOTHING tangible about this: this company makes money by performing a task, and the markup is probably very high. Though such a job may cost a consumer $2400 (or whatever), the actual operating costs to the company were probably just 1/10th of that, because their hardware is bought and paid for (or amortized). That 9/10th is pure profit. The costs involved are probably mostly labor.
Now then. If we establish the cost to the company as $240, and therefore the value of the recovery of $240, is this really a big deal? I don't think so.
But even if you don't buy that, and say "No, the value is really $2400," then fine. Why is it the writer's fault? Why isn't the newspaper picking up the cost of the data recovery? Its just a cost of the story, right? I mean, the newspaper pays to fly out a reporter to a location to cover a story. Why should the cost of the service being written about NOT be covered by the newspaper?
That would be because the editors didn't think it was unusual that the writer got the cost of the service in the story for free. Only now that people are scrutinizing it are media outlets squirming over what their reviewer did.
Honestly, if readers/listeners are really concerned about this, they should be insisting that publishers pay for everything reviewed by their reviewers, and let the cost of the newspaper/magazine/whatever be higher to reflect it.
Or just stop worrying about it.
My two cents... - Chasin_Fat_Kids, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This guy has it out for Progue - I wonder what he did to him?
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Damn straight
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is