关于Harry McCracken的离开PC世界

在星期三,Kim Zetter报道了Wired的Epicenter博客that Harry McCracken stepped down as editor of PC World after Colin Crawford, a senior vice president at IDG and former CEO of Macworld (which, like PC World, is published by IDG), forced McCracken to kill a story titled “Ten Things We Hate About Apple”.

Paul Thurrott总结道苹果公司参与其中:

And bad, frankly, for Apple: Its insane desire to constantly control the messaging raises its ugly head so often these days (witness: Suing blogs, trying to prevent publication of “iCon”, and so on) that the company just seems diabolical.

在Zetter的博客条目中,也没有在CNet的故事Thurrott链接到,有没有提到任何来自Apple的压力即使你接受到目前为止报道的所有内容都是正确的 - 此时这是一个很大的“如果” - 苹果公司完全有可能不参与这个问题。当然是的可能,但没有人,甚至没有匿名消息来源,声称这一点。

关于克劳福德担任Macworld杂志的时间,Zetter写道

克劳福德曾是MacWorld的首席执行官[SIC] and only started at PC World about a month agoAccording to the PC World source, when Crawford was working for the Mac magazine, Steve Jobs would call him up any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was running about Apple.

How does Zetter’s unnamed source at PC World know this? If it were true, it strikes me as something Crawford would keep to himself更糟糕的是,使用“正在运行” - 而不是说“已经运行” - 显然意味着当Crawford运行Macworld时,文章在发布之前被发送给Apple批准嗯我们应该相信史蒂夫乔布斯本人每个月都会有效地监督Macworld?

我会提醒你,我现在偶尔也会这样后页专栏作家对于Macworld但我不是IDG员工,而且我对Macworld编辑团队的运作方式知之甚少但是,我确信Macworld不会在发布之前将文章发送给Apple或任何其他公司 - 没有任何完整性的出版物。

Zetter本人否认Harry McCracken是她“PC World的前任老板,也是我非常尊重的人”他是一位顶尖的作家,也是我与之合作过的最聪明的编辑之一。“

Zetter概述的方案是:

  1. McCracken, the editor of the magazine, wants to run an opinion article critizing and/or making fun of Apple and Steve Jobs.
  2. Colin Crawford, McCracken’s superior at IDG, kills the story because he doesn’t want to displease Apple or Jobs, and is instituting a policy of publishing favorable coverage of the magazine’s advertisers.
  3. 麦克拉肯不会支持这一点并退出。

没有命名的消息来支持这一点。科林克劳福德断然否认了这一点在他自己的博客上麦克拉肯本人告诉Zetter,当被问到他下一步打算做什么时,“我将至少在一段时间内去博客和自由职业者I’ll probably write for PC World by the way.” If he quit as editor because the magazine’s publisher is enforcing a “You can’t write anything bad about Apple or other major advertisers” policy, why would McCracken still be willing to be associated with the magazine in any capacity?

关于文章本身,Zetter写道:

The source didn’t know the specifics of what was in the story Crawford wanted to kill but said it was nothing new“It was supposed to be light fare, just really innocuous stuffThe same kinds of things people have said about Apple before — things that teased Steve Jobs,” he said.

所以这是一个替代方案:

  1. The article was fundamentally flawed, the sort of thing that’s fodder for a jackass-of-the-week award.
  2. McCracken, for whatever reason, likes the articleHe thinks it’s funny or something.
  3. 克劳福德说没有,文章很糟糕,我们没有运行它。
  4. 麦克拉肯不会支持这一点并退出。
  5. An anonymous PC World staffer who liked McCracken pitches Zetter on the angle that Crawford is an Apple sycophant who won’t abide any negative coverage of Apple.

我没有这个,匿名或其他方面的来源我是根据Zetter对该文章的简要描述和PC World发布有关Apple的愚蠢文章的历史编写的。我不是说这是真的,我只是说这似乎是合理的 - 或者至少比Zetter的情况更合理。

It boils down to this: Did Crawford kill a fair and truthful article because it was unflattering to Apple? Or did he kill it because he thought the article wasn’t good?

没有看到这篇文章,就不可能说了。

以前: iPhone的搞笑价格
下一个: 新衬衫时间表