More on Wired Correspondence

I've made two edits to yesterday's entry. First, I've put a pointer to the actual Wired article on Chandler at the top of the entry. Second, I've inserted a note with the actual headline text, which was slightly different than what I recalled.

I also failed to mention yesterday the overall title of the piece is "The Outlook Killer?", which firmly bracketed the article in the David vs. Goliath trope I got agreement would not be used.

I've heard from Chris Anderson, the Editor of Wired, asking me to clarify my concern. He wants to know whether I object to the headline or to the fact that my list of Outlook complaints was used. The fact is, in my interview I chose my words carefully and did not speak in terms of complaints about Outlook.

As I remember my telephone interview with Joseph Portera, what I actually offered was a set of ways in which Chandler was going to be different, not only compared to Outlook but also on its own. So, rather than put Outlook down in terms of its negatives, I spoke strictly in terms of positives about Chandler. I can only imagine that the writer basically put words in my mouth to achieve the desired effect. I remember him saying, "OK, so tell me what it is about Chandler which is going to be new and different?"

That is, I said we were going to strive to have a straight-forward interface, wouldn't require a server, would be available on all PC platforms, would add many features to aid in the organization of email and other types of information, would have built-in security, would be easy to share information, etc.

Journalistic misrepresentation like this is fairly common. CNET also got it wrong, something I wrote about early on in this weblog. I used to get really angry when this happened. Lately, I feel more half-irritated, half-amused by life's foibles. Journalists taking the easy way out is a fact of life I'm not going to have much impact on.

In hindsight, I think it was naive of me to believe in the assurances I was given. . I'll bear it in mind in the future and pick my interview spots more carefully.

Finally, it's fortunate that a weblog is a wonderful, alternate, and complementary forum in which to speak directly, thus by-passing the intermediation of formal media.

Posted by mitch@osafoundation.org at December 15, 2002 02:10 PM