Over on Valleywag, there’s the predictable coverage about Steve Jobs’ recent announcement regarding taking time off for health concerns. You can also tell you’re in Silicon Valley when both of the major papers (the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury) both lead with that story – not only because Apple is a local business, but because it’s a huge influence in the ecosystem of the valley itself. I can see superficially why people would be curious and concerned about his absence, but for some reason it’s turned into a story of ‘how it will affect Apple’s health’ and the particular angle Valleywag (and in particular Ryan Tate, the Apple beat reporter) keeps pushing again and again – that the public (and especially shareholders) have a right to know about their CEO’s health. As if that company is Steve, and vice versa. Of all the companies to be worrying about, I think after the past couple of years we can rest assured that Apple’s doing fantastically. I speak as a long time Mac user, who remembers when Steve came back to the Mother Ship after the exile. It is one of my favourite companies, and I’ve been fascinated with Steve and Woz’ story of creating one of the most influential brands out there – but at some point, I don’t need or want to know anything about their health. The same principle applies to Valleywag covering Mark Zuckerberg’s new house in Palo Alto – something I found distasteful as well. It’s a reflection that the Gawker media empire is a good amusing distraction, but has much in the way to live up to standards of journalistic integrity of the past. Success – and Gawker seems to be successful in terms of consumption – isn’t necessarily hand in hand with what it means to publish with integrity, something that the ‘traditional’ media establishment like newspapers and magazines still seem to understand.
I hate that I live in a world where someone’s health is considered major news that affects business – I can understand it, but I still find it distasteful. I suppose we always look back to the past with a false nostalgia, but I do wonder how stories like this would have evolved in another era. JFK’s extra curricular activities were known by the press, but they didn’t actively publish them and didn’t seem to feel like there were any less scoops to cover because there was always real news going on, and speculation without basis didn’t get printed. Now we have the acceleration of the news cycle and scoops take president over decorum and journalistic standards. I’d like to think there are ways to keep a balance between newsworthy fast scoops and integrity driven journalism. What we consider privacy may have changed because of technologies like Facebook and yes, Apple; it doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate those changes and ask if the evolution in our standards is the best one. I would like to see us be silent and respectful where we need to when it comes to our private lives as individuals, and insist that that private life doesn’t need to affect our professional life without our consent. What Steve Jobs does as CEO of Apple should be measured in the decisions that affect he company – when we measure the company by his health we don’t benefit anyone – him, the company, or ourselves. Feuchemostfontpres
Leave a Reply