This Keefe thing has grown into a bit of mountain from the anthill it began life as. The defence of Keefe and his question has been on the slow burner even though criticism was swift. The arguments that his question wasn’t dumb and that people who think it is seem to fall into three camps: The Columbo defence, the I’m a journalist you wouldn’t understand defence and The what would you ask then? Defence.
The Columbo approach
As far as I’m concerned, is total codswallop. Columbo may well have asked dumb questions to illicit an incriminating answer from a potential murderer but it’s not a real world example of anything because it’s fiction. Just like there could never be a president of America like Bartlett or a doctor like House because they are fiction.
The Columbo approach admits that the question is dumb but that it needed to be asked because the questioner had a deeper understanding, or a least a hunch, that there was a deeper story. Also, it requires the person answering the question to believe that they had the upper hand and could never be found out. Not likely in this situation.
The I’m a journalist you wouldn’t understand argument
is the most self-centred and ridiculous argument as far as I can see. It’s an argument that belittles bloggers (lumping them all into one handy basket) as people who don’t get the black art of disseminating information. Don’t get me wrong I certainly think there are journalists who are more experienced and we indeed do perform a different task than that of bloggers but to say your opinion is wrong because you blogged it instead of writing about it for a publication is a bit shallow and self-important.
Finally we reach the
What would you ask then?
Defence. Total waste of breath and time for two reasons. The first is that if you reply with a question the inevitable response is ‘well that’s even dumber because…’ The second is it’s a discussion about how dumb the question was not what else should he have asked because that’s the question he asked. Debating what ‘might’ have been asked is a waste of time.
Though your mother may have told you that the question not asked is the only stupid one she probably also told you that you were beautiful and that you shouldn’t care what other people think of you.
I’ve read a few different approaches to the defence of Keefe.
I stick by my original opinion that asking why Apple doesn’t put stickers on its machines was dumb.
Technorati Tags:
Intel Inside, Bob Keefe, Apple
“The I’m a journalist you wouldn’t understand argument ….is the most self-centred and ridiculous argument as far as I can see. It’s an argument that belittles bloggers (lumping them all into one handy basket) as people who don’t get the black art of disseminating information.”
1) it’s the argument journalists who know how hard it is to extract information from Apple use, because they have the experience and most bloggers don’t.
2) the black art in play here is not *disseminating* information, it’s *extracting* information. Bloggers *think* they know why Apple does stuff, or doesn’t: as I pointed out, the Mac blogosphere thought it was given that Apple wouldn’t move to Intel, and that the iPhone would have an API. Wrong. Wrong.
What I find offensive is bloggers who have an opinion dumping on someone trying to establish facts.
In a world where the importance of facts, rather than opinion, literally costs lives - remember the 45-minute WMD opinion? The “Saddam involved in 9/11″ opinion? - anyone who tries to establish hidden facts, and even notices those which are hidden in plain sight (Mac users wouldn’t have asked themselves why there’s no Intel stickers; it’s sort of an Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome) ought to be applauded, not vilified.
Bloggers are entitled to opinions. They’re welcome (and applauded) if they establish facts. But sometimes it takes a journalist to realise what factual questions haven’t been asked, and to ask them. Always bear that in mind.
Urgh, enough pixels have been expended on this, though this is a good post.
I think that the hole in your otherwise entirely valid arguments, Charles, is that it’s conceivable that there are more interesting factual questions that we can ask. But like Charles, I’m utterly sick of the *knows* mentality that so many Apple fanboys have.
Anyway, enough of all this. How’s your birthday, old man Brennan?
@ Charles
“Bloggers *think* they know why Apple does stuff, or doesn’t”
How do you *know* that did you ask all of them?
“What I find offensive is bloggers who have an opinion dumping on someone trying to establish facts.”
You’ve hit my nail on the head here. This I cannot argue with and this is the argument that makes me feel bad, uninformed and prissy.
@Chris
People who mention my 30th birthday are not good people they are bad people. As you can tell I’m taking it very well.
@chris: I was using “Bloggers” in the generic ‘applies to those I mean it to apply to’ sense.
It’s always about the facts.
30? Hmm, I’d been recently made redundant (magazine closed) and was earning money reporting the US Open. Getting quotes from Jimmy Connors by standing next to him before he went on the centre court. Asking Boris Becker is if was true he’d seen someone being knifed in Times Square. The facts, always the facts.