Ethics in tech “journalism”

<p>Generally tech reporting is fairly ethical – they're good people, overall, like most everybody else, and they want the best for themselves and everyone else. That's not the problem.</p><p><br></p><p> The problem is that the quality of the material is extremely low. There is usually little analysis beyond the rudimentary, and frequently the analysis is wrong regardless of how in-depth it is. Many tech journalists are the opposite of Paul and Mary-Jo, and instead of decades of focused experience in a specific part of the market with relationships that help them get insight into the way the wind is blowing, they're just technically inclined folks who can rub commas together slightly better than the average STEM graduate who isn't already employed doing STEM work. They don't know anything about people, history, politics beyond the outrage of the week, or the world outside their own little bubble, and it causes problems when they try to expand outside benchmarks and spec sheets.</p><p><br></p><p>The 24-hour news cycle and brutal competition involved in trying to extract income from creating something whose value is already approaching zero at the moment it's created doesn't help. Most technology writers are not (and cannot be) differentiated from their peers in such a way that they can command value enough to push for quality over quantity, and many readers can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. This all combines to result in masses of low-quality work created to fill a spot on somebody's Facebook feed or homepage.</p>