Why is it that political journalists are critical, trying to turn every stone, and business/financial journalists treat their subjects with softer gloves than a teen mag does Rihanna?
If there's one person in the Valley who you can ask difficult questions, it's Bill Nguyen. Instead, the author asks him about whether his wife likes the house on Maui.
Politicians live in the public eye, in a way different from celebrities (be they pop stars or CEOs). They are, in a sense, obligated to grant interviews and be open to the hard questions, because a politician is selling him or her SELF.
A pop artists sells music, a company sells a product or a service. I'm not predicating my use of facebook based on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg did pot in college or got blowjobs from his secretaries.
So when you interview someone who isn't selling themselves, you don't have the freedom to ask those kinds of questions. Unless maybe you don't that person to ever grant you or your magazine an interview ever again.
This explanation doesn't really get to the heart of it.
Fast Company has always been breathless and brainless. They always present "business" in such a way to make it seem like all you need to be a rich, successful, famous, sexy entrepreneur is "a great idea" and maybe some fun personality traits.
They aren't in the business of reporting, they're in the business of titillating, teasing, and making their reader think "that could be me!" - exactly, in other words, the stuff I've dubbed entreporn:
that's true, but that's also why I love Fast Company. If you want harder-hitting business journalism, it's better to stick with Fortune or Businessweek. There you can read about the underbelly of business,the Madoffs/Goldmans/oligarchs etc.
Fast Company and Inc. are both owned by the same firm, and they try to portray a more humanistic view of business, ie. social capitalism, the belief that entrepreneurs can one day solve all of the ills in the world. Its a very uplifting philosophy, and I for one find it encouraging.
I've never heard of the term entreporn though, if you coined it then congrats! I like the term, and maybe it is apt. Maybe that's precisely what someone is curious but hesitant about entrepreneurialism needs.
Which is fine! I'm not ANTI-Fast Company. I'm also not anti-porn. Assuming it doesn't hurt anyone, people have a right to enjoy whatever they care to enjoy. Some people even enjoy TechCrunch.
People just need to understand what they're reading, and why they shouldn't place their trust in its realism. What I see here on HN all the time is a refusal to question the motives or background of the speaker/writer/what-have-you. It's considered ad hominem, a fallacy. But it's not. It's just good thinking.
Journalists fear that being too critical will cost them the access to be able to write profiles like this. For a magazine mostly about doing puff pieces, that would be a killer.
Political journalists encounter the same thing, but their success is less dependent on this availability - and people are buying their content for that criticism, not puff pieces.
Also there is the question of talent - don't you think a more diligent reporter would rather be working for a publication/in a subject area with more prestige?
This is essentially why everyone enjoyed reading that Techcrunch guys articles. He asked the difficult questions everyone wanted answered and wasn't afraid to take some flak, unfortunately, it got him booted too.
Comments
Why is it that political journalists are critical, trying to turn every stone, and business/financial journalists treat their subjects with softer gloves than a teen mag does Rihanna?
If there's one person in the Valley who you can ask difficult questions, it's Bill Nguyen. Instead, the author asks him about whether his wife likes the house on Maui.
Politicians live in the public eye, in a way different from celebrities (be they pop stars or CEOs). They are, in a sense, obligated to grant interviews and be open to the hard questions, because a politician is selling him or her SELF.
A pop artists sells music, a company sells a product or a service. I'm not predicating my use of facebook based on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg did pot in college or got blowjobs from his secretaries.
So when you interview someone who isn't selling themselves, you don't have the freedom to ask those kinds of questions. Unless maybe you don't that person to ever grant you or your magazine an interview ever again.
This explanation doesn't really get to the heart of it.
Fast Company has always been breathless and brainless. They always present "business" in such a way to make it seem like all you need to be a rich, successful, famous, sexy entrepreneur is "a great idea" and maybe some fun personality traits.
They aren't in the business of reporting, they're in the business of titillating, teasing, and making their reader think "that could be me!" - exactly, in other words, the stuff I've dubbed entreporn:
http://cubic-m.blogspot.com/2011/09/entreporn-dictionary-def...
"I've got a pizza here with extra sausage." "Ohhhh, we lost our purses, however can we pay?" -- I DELIVER PIZZAS… IT COULD BE ME!
that's true, but that's also why I love Fast Company. If you want harder-hitting business journalism, it's better to stick with Fortune or Businessweek. There you can read about the underbelly of business,the Madoffs/Goldmans/oligarchs etc.
Fast Company and Inc. are both owned by the same firm, and they try to portray a more humanistic view of business, ie. social capitalism, the belief that entrepreneurs can one day solve all of the ills in the world. Its a very uplifting philosophy, and I for one find it encouraging.
I've never heard of the term entreporn though, if you coined it then congrats! I like the term, and maybe it is apt. Maybe that's precisely what someone is curious but hesitant about entrepreneurialism needs.
Which is fine! I'm not ANTI-Fast Company. I'm also not anti-porn. Assuming it doesn't hurt anyone, people have a right to enjoy whatever they care to enjoy. Some people even enjoy TechCrunch.
People just need to understand what they're reading, and why they shouldn't place their trust in its realism. What I see here on HN all the time is a refusal to question the motives or background of the speaker/writer/what-have-you. It's considered ad hominem, a fallacy. But it's not. It's just good thinking.
Journalists fear that being too critical will cost them the access to be able to write profiles like this. For a magazine mostly about doing puff pieces, that would be a killer.
Political journalists encounter the same thing, but their success is less dependent on this availability - and people are buying their content for that criticism, not puff pieces.
Also there is the question of talent - don't you think a more diligent reporter would rather be working for a publication/in a subject area with more prestige?
This is essentially why everyone enjoyed reading that Techcrunch guys articles. He asked the difficult questions everyone wanted answered and wasn't afraid to take some flak, unfortunately, it got him booted too.
I haven't visited the site since.