PressEthic

The New York Times ran an article this past Thursday about the new iPod Nano. The story, written by David Pogue, ran on the front page of the Business Section. Pogue praises Apple’s latest music player, calling it “a tiny, flat, shiny wafer of powerful sound.”

The article reads like an advertisement, citing all of the “clever” features that the iPod Nano offers. Pogue goes so far as to say, “Beware… to see one is to want one. If you hope to resist, lash your credit card to your wallet like Odysseus to the mast.”

In the middle of the article, Pogue compares the Nano to its predecessor, the iPod Mini, the most popular music player in the world. He notes that the Nano lacks many of the Mini’s features because of its smaller size, but he certainly puts a positive spin on it when he says, “But even though Apple taketh away, Apple also giveth: the Nano offers a raft of features never before seen in an iPod.” Pogue spends the rest of the article worshipping the Nano for its ingenuity and, of course, its stylish design.

Disguising the negative by sandwiching it between the two positives is an old and often-used technique. Managers use this tool when disciplining employees, especially when they don’t want to sound too authoritative. They will always start off by saying something like, “You are a great employee Johnny.” Then comes the negative: “But you know you should not take an extra break after lunch.” And finally, another positive: “I know you will take care of this concern because you work so hard and you really know how to deal with the customers.” The employee doesn’t feel so bad after a meeting like this and he or she will more likely be motivated than disgruntled.

Pogue’s article uses the same premise. After reading the article I felt like the Nano had some minor flaws, but who cares? I was motivated to buy one.

So what’s the big deal? Who cares if the article is more like an advertisement? Perhaps the Nano is the greatest music player ever made. According to Pogue, and maybe it’s the truth, the competition only makes “bigger, uglier, and less capacious” models while the Nano is “gorgeous, functional and elegant.” Certainly an aesthetic judgment like ugly versus gorgeous can be made if it is the truth, right?

What if I told you that Pogue has a little more at stake than just a paycheck for the review of the Nano? After putting on my “Ethics Cap”, and realizing that this article should be a full-page ad paid for by Apple, I did a little research on Pogue.

According to his bio, Pogue “got hooked” on Apple products 20 years ago after graduating from Yale in 1985. He wrote for Macworld Magazine in 1988. He has written numerous books on Apple products, including Macs for Dummies, now on its seventh edition; The iMacs for Dummies; The iBooks for Dummies; and Macworld Mac Secrets. In addition, Pogue has edited a book called – Yes, you guessed it – iPods and iTunes: Missing Manual. Of course, he has written on numerous other topics as well, but nothing as extensive as his books on Apple products.

Pogue makes money off the sale of his books and he openly promotes Apple products in the New York Times without the label of advertisement. I don’t know if this is wrong or not, but I certainly question if it is ethical. This seems to be a major conflict of interest and I think the New York Times should make an effort to inform the reader of the perspective of the writer when it concerns a particular product or service that the author has a vested interest in. Perhaps a short paragraph mentioning his connections to Apple would suffice. The reader needs something to let him or her know that the article is based heavily on the opinion of the writer, whether the writer’s opinion is true or not.