New Media GigaOM Om Malik's Reporting Better Than WSJ

When the story about Verizon's announcement of the opening of its network and platform was posted online by the Wall Street Journal, it was already a few hours old. Ben Worthen had been outpaced by Om Malik who offered a much clearer analysis of what the move by the US wireless company meant to the public in GigaOM with not one, but two posts.

This is not the first time Om Malik does a tremendous job reporting on technology. He had a great post on the Skype Outage a few months back, one that clearly demonstrated a greater passion for the topic than traditional media. As was the case back in August with 41 comments for the Skype post, his coverage of the Verizon news was rewarded by 18 and 61 comments respectively. The reason for the comments is two-fold:

• Om Malik has built a reputation of swift and easy to understand coverage for technical news
• The community of GigaOM readers is just as passionate about the topic as the writer and they will support each other in the discussion

This is a hard lesson to take for news writers who are used to thinking that the coverage is done when the post is written. With new media, that is only the beginning. As Malik demonstrated with the Verizon story, there was opportunity to come back to it with further implications after the initial announcement. In his first post early in the day, Malik terms this as "a huge announcement: akin to Mikhail Gorbachev responding to President Ronald Reagen’s call to bring down the walls."

Contrast Malik's analysis in the first post (one of the reasons I too felt skeptical about the move):

One minimum technical standard: the phones (or devices) have to be based on CDMA standards, not the more popular GSM standards. Further thoughts on this later, after the press conference. One thing is clear: Verizon and other incumbents are very, very worried about the siren call of “open networks” and are reacting. My inner sync also thinks that this could be a PR move that will help Verizon win the 700 MHz auction. Verizon can always point to the “openness” as a way to counter Google.

With part of the story by Worthen at the WSJ:

The obvious trigger for Verizon’s decision is Google’s plan to build tools that will let anyone develop software for mobile devices. In Google’s world view, mobile devices are about to go through the same sort of software boom that PCs went through over the last decade. There’s no telling what developers will come up with, but Google is betting that they’ll come up with interesting and innovative stuff that people will want to use.

As a small aside, I had talked about how I thought the negotiations Steve Jobs had with AT&T for the iPhone as the precursor of greater flexibility for US wireless customers -- Steve Jobs may have managed to change the phone maker/cell carrier relationship for the first time in years. And now Verizon joins the fray on the heels of Google's grand mobile ambitions.

In the second post, Malik takes the opportunity to dig a bit deeper on his commentary about the news, breaking it down in four parts:

• Why is Verizon doing this?
• What it means for wireless customers
• Why I am still skeptical (but will change my mind if change does happen)?
• Why my inner cynic says: Don’t believe the hype (but disregard if you think I am, by nature, a pessimist).

With hard questions that demonstrate an understanding of the issues at play, opinions captured in bullet point format and clear language, concrete examples and a dash of humor, Malik delivers.

Comments

[Carolyn Ann]

Hyperbole. It's a reasonable word, used to describe incredible attributions. Gorbachov and Reagan, hmm? Last I recall, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down because the Soviet Union ran out of money. Having made the rather outrageous, and incredibly stupid, attempt to outspend Reagan, who - and this may escape notice by some - nearly bankrupted the US economy with his rather deliberate ploy. Deficits do matter, no matter [sic] what Uncle Dick says.

Besides, since when did political freedom (or the ersatz version that Russia now enjoys) have any parallel with wireless phone charges?

I find it odd that I've not read about any parallels between the way the US carriers look at their wireless networks and the way AT&T looked at the entire communications network. (British Telecom has a similar problem; it's called "I'm big and powerful and you're not" syndrome. Good politicians and lawyers are the only known antidote. Sadly, these seem to be in short supply.)

I'm skeptical about the phone companies and their ambitions; not least because I worked for a really big one, but because they are stupendous beaurocracies that are, almost by definition, incompetent. Verizon is opening its networks not because it has "seen the light", but because it makes business sense to do so. They are reading the from same book as IBM's Lou Gerstner; maybe they'll be just as adept and capable in forcing "corporate cultural" change. (Oh, how I hate those benign inanities! Such a waste of decent words!)

Considering that the US market is almost primitive in the wireless telephony world, I'm sure that Verizon's announcement is a step forward. But I can't help but think some other thigns have to come first - like a network that actually works. (And doesn't fade out at the first sign of a power brown-out, a hint of an overload and maybe, even, stay up when it rains.)

Personally, I'd like a phone/DSL connection that doesn't fade out in the rain, and a wireless connection that doesn't require me to stand next the right hand side of a nice piece of quarter-sawn white oak Art Deco cabinetry in the Dining Room - that being the only place in the 1 acre of ground I own that actually gets a signal. Verizon is our provider, for many reasons, not least being their co-billing arrangements, the resulting discounts and their response to trouble reports. At least they're prompt, if not exactly helpful.

Sorry, his hyperbole doesn't persuade me. I would say, however, that this is an important step in helping the US consumer catch up with the rest of the world in terms of wireless capabilities. Surpass it? We'll see.

Carolyn Ann

[Carolyn Ann]

Oh, insofar as the Wall St Journal is concerned: it's a shadow of its former self, these days.

I've walked its press rooms, twice. The first time it was a hive of activity (in the early 1990's); the next time, in the latter part of the mid-90's, it was quiet, almost library like. And there were far fewer people, and the paper itself had taken an ideological turn that belied its original purpose - reporting on Wall St.

As an ex-(international) subscriber, I can honestly say that I can't stand to read that "rag" these days! It's a rag, pure and simple: only slightly more sophisticated than People, and usually not quite as erudite, plausible or contained.

I don't have any hopes of it improving (even to the point of being what it used to be: a trusted and worthy newspaper) under the tutelage of that Australian Neanderthal, either.

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

We would need to ask Om Malik why he used that expression or hyperbole ;-) Sometimes we make sweeping statements to help the reader stop and consider what we're saying more closely. I'm not implying that's what he did, of course.

I stopped reading the WSJ when I switched from risk management to manufacturing. For some reason I had to read more trade publications and there was little time left. I suspect that what you describe with the Journal is what happens when companies are run by people who think they can cut their way to greatness.

To paraphrase a saying, one cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. It needs different thinking. Cutting or letting sales run an organization are not strategies. They are short term stop gaps. This is in general. I have no idea how the WSJ is being run.

[jon burg]

While Om may be building both substantial reach and an audience, do bloggers really have the same amount of responsibility and personal liability as mainstream media?

Valeria, as a blogger, do you hold yourself to a higher standard on your personal blog or in your more "traditional" publishing career?

[Valeria Maltoni]

Jon:

It's a valid question. Do you hold yourself accountable? Clearly we put forth opinions and ideas that are biased for being filtered through us. We also publish information that might be incomplete or not researched. What caught my attention in Malik's posts are the fresh language and the smart questions.

By contrast, the post at the WSJ read washed out, a mere addition to the PR. Does risk enter the equation. Absolutely. A more established business has much more to lose. then again, I have nothing to base that kind of comparison on for GigaOM.

As a blogger I put forth what I deem the result of my education, experience, information at hand and thoughts on issues and information. I do the same at work hen I recommend one course of action to another. The difference is that here the checks and balances are offered live by readers who take the time/care to join the conversation. At work we have the team (or committee, depending on protocols).

Maybe the real question then is: Is the output different? You bet. What do you think? Is the way you conduct yourself in your day job different than how you operate in your blog? Why?