The Fake Steve Jobs bugs me. This whole week the coverage about Dan Lyons and the Fake Steve blog bugs me. I understand that it’s a parody but I don’t know what is happening to the media today. Instead of flipping burgers, like some speculated Dan Lyons would have to do, Forbes is thrilled that the Fake Steve Jobs is their own Dan Lyons and will even host the blog. And the man has a pretty good advance on the sale of his book, about none other than Steve Jobs.
Was it a marketing ploy? It may have been a very good one. But what does that say about bloggers, much less journalistic bloggers. I think they get carried away with the anonymity. It’s easier to say what’s on your mind behind a computer screen, especially when nobody knows it’s you. Is the fun ruined now that everybody knows that the Fake Steve Jobs is Dan Lyons, editor at Forbes?
Apparently, the Fake Steve Jobs has said he did it to poke fun at the candidness in the growing number of CEO blogs attracting media attention. Couldn’t this have been done another way? And does this mean that Forbes will support all of its journalists engaging in this type of activity?
In other news, Rupert Murdoch has said that harsh media coverage of him during the Wall Street Journal negotiations almost ruined the deal. I quote, “I spent the better part of the past three months enduring criticism normally leveled at a genocidal tyrant.” Well …
Although the deal is believed to be an effort to improve News Corps Fox Business Channel, taking Rupert at this word is discussed in a letter by Terence Smith called Dear Rupert.
The media world is changing. Publications like Business 2.0 are going away. Social media is having a huge impact. Many of the old rules no longer apply. Journalists are covering bloggers. Bloggers are pretending to be moguls. It’s not always as easy as it used to be.
I loved your comment after the Rupert Murdoch quote, ‘Well…’. Haha! About journalists covering bloggers, I think that is the silliest thing these news organizations are doing. That’s not making much sense to me. Whoever calls the shots, probably some very much older people (no offense to anyone in particular), but they have misinterpreted “blog boom”. It should only be used a secondary resource and never a primary. And what I mean by that is whenever CNN, FOX, ABC, etc need to verify statements or a situation that a issue then they should look at the company blog or individual’s blog to see if they can connect the dots for a fuller story.
The extended coverage TV media has given blogs is ridiculous to me. It has been absolutely misinterpreted by a couple people at the top of these news organizations.
Right on Michele. I think it could be as easy as it used to be.
If journalists (television excluded because that it is different topic all together) just did what they used to do best … report the news, find the truth, and realize that the moniker “blogger” doesn’t mean as much as the person behind the blog, they might find social media sourcing them more often than they source social media. The reason the media is picking up on blog stories or worse, creating the news like the fake Steve Jobs blog, is because they have lost their way. Bloggers, in some cases, are starting to cover what people want to read — often the stuff that today’s media has no interest in covering anymore.
Best, Rich
The Rupert Murdoch quote was rich. He delayed doing business with a newspaper that didn’t paint a pretty picture of him in its coverage. This pretty well captures his idea of what journalism is.
Thanks for your comments. Journalists do cover bloggers. I know one reporter who reads 10 various blogs to see “what’s going on” in their industry before delving in. We’re making their jobs easier.
Thanks Jennifer. And your last statement … I couldn’t have said it better.