Dvorak: Media biased in favor of Apple

Link to his PC Magazine Column

As big and as important as Microsoft is, the coverage of the company is quite mediocre. This is particularly true in the mainstream press. The reason for this is that today’s newspaper and magazine tech writers know little about computers and are all Mac users. It’s a fact.

This is why when Microsoft actually does have a good idea, people look to trash it out of hand. With 90 percent of the mainstream writers being Mac users, what would you expect? The top columnists in the news and business magazines fit this model too. The technology writers fit this model. The tech writers and tech columnists for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and Fortune are all Mac users. I could list them by name, but I’d hate to leave one out. Maybe I’ll blog them by name. I could list 50. Readers should thus not be surprised by the overcoverage of Apple Computer. Every time Steve Jobs sneezes there is a collective chorus of “Gesundheit” from tech writers pounding away on their Macs.

90% of mainstream writers use Macs? That seems pretty high to me.

I’m sure Apple’s PR department deserves a fair bit of credit as well.

This sounds suspiciously like the assertion that just because the vast majority of newswriters vote democrat, the media is biased in favor of the left.

Well, it’s certainly true that almost every single computer in a Hollywood movie is a Mac… Windows boxes are extremely rare.

Dell monitors are in no short supply though. Have you seen how many shows use them? Like nearly all medical dramas do and a hell of a lot of others.

The thing I always notice more than the type of box tv shows and movies us is the cheesy made-up OS/GUI screens. I especially like the way the CSI-type crime dramas show computer database searches… with thousands of mug shots flickering across the screen as if the database needs to display everything it looks at before showing the search results.

Seriously though – I wonder why movies and tv shows don’t just show actual OS screens rather than made-up ones since they seem to have no problem showing brand-name boxes.

Because they’re boring. Thousands of mug shot flickering is at least interesting, if not realistic.

I thought that movies/tv shows had to secure permission from the O/S vendor to show the O/S on TV since there’s a whole host of copyrighted/trademarked/etc things involved in any GUI.

Jack Shafer at Slate had a great article last week blasting the Apple Polishers in the media.

And yes, Shafer comes clean that Slate was formerly owned by MS. Still makes some salient points.

That’s because Macs look good and Windows machines don’t.

As for the article, pfft. Maybe if Microsoft had come up with the iPod first and weren’t, y’know, EVIL, the media would be slavering over them instead…

Also everyone likes underdog stories.

My PCs are only used for games or DVR stuff. All my real work is done on a Mac.

The question should be, “What innovation has Microsoft come up with that should get the attention of these writers?”

He is talking about the mainstream press. The mainstream tech reporters are writing to a mainstream audience who care about their mainstream technology. Has Microsoft produced a product that excites the mainstream consumer?

X-Box. That’s it. And it has plenty of competition and isn’t sufficiently differentiated from them to generate any excitement. There’s no cool factor with it.

Contrast this with Apple product development. The first iMac with it’s coloured plastic case was cool. It was an exciting product for the consumer. It was different from the competition. It had STYLE is spades.

If that were true they’d also need to get permission from every book author, car maker, and soda brand whose products they show. Just looking at a trademarked property without permission is not yet illegal, although I’m sure lobbyists are trying to change that as we speak…

If that were true they’d also need to get permission from every book author, car maker, and soda brand whose products they show. Just looking at a trademarked property without permission is not yet illegal, although I’m sure lobbyists are trying to change that as we speak…[/quote]

I was under the impression that any time you see something “real” it’s the result of a product placement. I.E. The Oldsmobile in “Get Shorty.”

If that were true they’d also need to get permission from every book author, car maker, and soda brand whose products they show. Just looking at a trademarked property without permission is not yet illegal, although I’m sure lobbyists are trying to change that as we speak…[/quote]

Watch any sitcom that features people drinking cans of soda, and notice the brand. It’s very often a red can with the word COLA written in fancy cursive.

That’s because Macs look good and Windows machines don’t.

Yeah I know, it’s, like, totally as if Intel chips just don’t work if they aren’t surrounded by beige. Seriously, can we put a lid on this assinine meme already?

It is true, that’s exactly what they do. There are companies in Hollywood that get permission for every single product shown.

I’ve signed over rights to use the magazine a few times in various movies and TV shows.

You mean like using the following terms?

meme
schadenfreude
meta
jumping the shark

:wink:

Seriously? Well, I’m totally baffled. Could you cite the law that applies here? I’m really curious about the legal basis for this craziness.