In Bad Journalism, a columnist lets their personal views completely distort the news they’re trying to report. One example is in today’s Wired online thingamapage:

Wired News: Jobs vs. Gates: Who’s the Star?:

Gates is giving away his fortune with the same gusto he spent acquiring it, throwing billions of dollars at solving global health problems. He has also spoken out on major policy issues, for example, by opposing proposals to cut back the inheritance tax.



In contrast, Jobs does not appear on any charitable contribution lists of note. And Jobs has said nary a word on behalf of important social issues, reserving his talents of persuasion for selling Apple products.

I suppose the author is trying to show us how big an asshole Steve Jobs is, in that he doesn’t abuse his position of prominence (and his shareholders’ trust)to espouse the Cause du Jour, be it global warming or Third World debt. I guess it’s too much to ask of journalists that they at least try and assume that their points of view aren’t universally accepted as Truth. Does donating lots of money make someone praise-worthy, despite his potentially RICO-liable business practices? Is being a ‘single-minded capitalist’ actually a bad thing for an ultra-successful American industrialist? Actually, I had always avoided looking into Jobs’ background with the apprehension that he was another Bono. Color me relieved! Knowing that Al Gore has some shady connection with Apple, and that Jobs actually tried to work for the Kerry Presidential campaign, I had feared the worst.

The fact of the matter is that if Jobs was more vocal about his political beliefs, and Apple was more tightly associated with American Progressivism, I wouldn’t buy an Apple computer, period. I have no desire to put my dollars into the pockets of thuggish busybodies like Greenpeace. And I doubt it’s in the CEO of Apple’s job description to alienate customers politically. Both Jobs and Gates have enriched the lives of millions more people through their respective corporations than if they both had thrown their fortunes into the NGO-money machine.

I do find it interesting that the Author makes no note of the fact that Apple offered OS X as the platform for the hand-cranked $100 computer, which is specifically designed for underprivileged, color-blind children. They were turned down, because it’s not open source. No pleasing some people, I suppose. I guess it’s more politically acceptable to funnel cash-money through relief organizations than it is to offer valuable products or services; at least with cash, it can be funneled by those organizations into Democrat campaign coffers.

UPDATE: Theoacao says it better.