NYT’s David Pogue and the Blind Pirates
Allan Fotheringham once told a story about an editor of his that rewarded his writers by how popular the writers’ stories were. Before the days of internet analytics, the editor gauged story popularity by the amount of mail the story prompted. Fotheringham noted that if a writer meddled with the facts a wee bit — say you wrote that football player x was born in Mississippi when in fact it was Missouri — you would get lots of mail and possibly a pay raise.
Unethical? You bet. But stirring things up can have its place.
I sometimes think of that story when I see smart people make simplistic arguments in the press.
Back in May, the New York Times’ David Pogue revealed he didn’t want his books digitised because he
wanted to be paid instead. His column has elicited 148 comments so far — most of them are a paragraph or more. The piece — blind con-men and all — clearly is a spark in the darkness of the digital transition.
People care about this stuff. There is more engagement in evidence below that one column than I have seen in my few trips around the block in Canadian book publishing. In that regard, Pogue’s post is successful. But a quick reality check: this thing is complicated. Hiding from it is naive. Jumping in with both feet probably is too. Pogue is “happy” he doesn’t have to sort it out. No kidding. It is a lot easier to be the provocateur on the side lines. ;-D
Thanks David. Thank you for writing for the DRM-free, ad-supported New York Times. Thank you for being a columnist and not a journalist. Thank you for telling me about your books — I hadn’t heard of them before. Thanks for providing the missing manuals for manufacturers unwilling to do so. I hope your kids make it to college. Like the great rhetorician Dr. Foth, I am sure you will make out OK.
No Comments Yet