Accountability in the Media

I suspect that when printed media was a fairly new thing, people trusted what was written more than we do today. Over the years, however, we've become pretty good at weeding through the fact and fiction that we see, hear, and read about in our mainstream media. The current election coverage is a rich example. In contrast, we remain fairly trusting of the technology news we read today. We're not attuned to filtering and questioning the bias here like we are with mainstream media. Is this a healthy thing? Technology is, by definition, technical. Therefore, it should just be facts, plain and simple, right? When someone in the tech media reports that a certain chip operates at 1.5GHz, or that a company's new platform release date is slipping, we have no reason to doubt that fact. Technology is what technology is. Or, is it?

 

Lately, I’ve been seeing more and more opinion (and terribly uneducated opinion) passing as fact in our technology media. I think this is primarily driven by 2 factors:

1. With more and more "writers" and access points to the news (tablets, smartphones, etc) there's a lot more competition for our attention so sensationalism is creeping in to acquire and retain readership.  A good friend of mine, and ex-news cameraman, reminded me recently that the mantra in the media has always been "If it bleeds, it leads".  That explains so much.
2. Our relationship to technology is becoming much more personal causing people to inject their personal bias into their technology reporting.  If you're following the news about BlackBerry, iPhone, Android, and Windows Phone, you'll know what I'm talking about.  The "news" is almost more like reporting religion than it is facts.

 

What's most disturbing to me, however, is how much power technology analysts and journalists have.  Writers that don't double check their sources or fact-check their data before they rush to print can actually cause significant material impact to shareholders and companies and they have virtually no accountability.

 

A good example of this is the October 9th statement from Jefferies analyst Peter Misek where he states that BlackBerry 10 will likely slip into March. This gets picked up by Forbes, PC Mag, Bloomberg, Yahoo News, AllthingsD, etc. and very quickly markets react.  Was there any news here? No. RIM, my employer, stated quite consistently that it's targeting release of BlackBerry 10 in Q1 2013. Yet one analyst decides he'll spin that information into a “slip” and causes real material impact. Here's the Forbes blurb:

 

Research In Motion: No BB10 Debut Until March, Analyst Says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/10/09/research-in-motion-no-bb10-debut-until-march-analyst-says/

 

Fortunately, there are responsible analysts out there that call him on it, but the damage is done.  Here’s a good example of someone else in the industry refuting his claim:

 

BlackBerry 10 delay refuted

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/10/blackberry-10-delay-refuted/

 

One might argue that the industry is doing a good job of self-regulating as demonstrated by the two links above.  However, I say it’s not enough.

 

Now, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and freedom of press, etc. so, we can't keep people from writing whatever they want. However, we can try to hold them accountable. Here's what I propose:

 

Accountability for Tech Media:

1.     Each tech journalist and analyst gets rated by their readers and the industry over time. We're all used to rating apps we buy, pics our friends post on FB, books we read, sellers we’ve purchased from on eBay.  We even rate each other’s comments on tech forums. Why not rate the analyst’s predictions and their technology coverage? If they say something that turns out to be true, they get credit for that. If they say stuff that turns out to be false, they get dinged for it.   

2.     The rating should measure the analyst's Accuracy, Ability to Predict the future, and the Relative Bias we see in their work.  Meaning is it balanced or typically slanted in one direction all the time.  So, in the example above, the Jefferies analyst would have received a number of ratings that demonstrated the point they were making was not accurate (there was no slip) and potentially biased (what was the motivation of this non-news piece?).

3.     Statements made by Analysts moving forward would then be tempered by their industry rating. For instance, an analyst that checks their facts, makes generally good predictions, provides useful information, and tends to be fair and balanced in their coverage will have a strong rating and therefore warrant more attention when they make bold statements. Investors can react with confidence. Conversely, analysts that tend to the sensational, don't check their facts, and are generally seen as providing biased information will get low ratings. Markets and investors would easily know to take their comments with a grain of salt.

4.     People that rate others can also develop a rating based on how often their rating correlates with the industry's rating.  Thus, informed readers can develop credibility as well over time.

The beauty in a system like this is that it adds accountability. People are still free to say and write whatever they want. The difference is that now we have a rating to help us decide whether to react to the comments made by these people or not.  Also, by holding these guys accountable, analysts and tech journalists will double check their facts more and this can only have a positive impact in the quality of the news and information they deliver to us.

 

If you like what I’ve written, rate this piece!  J

 

--Larry