View from Silicon Valley- PR masquerading as "news"
(c) View from Silicon Valley, 2005. All rights reserved.
Washington and Sacramento both create videos touting their
"accomplishments." The government agencies apparently include a disclaimer, but embedded only at the end so that
it is not heard until after the damage is done. (And also to reduce the effort required by local reporters
to plagiarize such "news.") The agencies claim it's not their fault if sympathetic (or lazy) local TV or radio
stations choose to air such synthetic "news" without proper attribution.
We are so jaded that we accept this as "normal." We assume
it happens all the time. (OK, maybe that's just me.) After
a half-hearted attempt to figure out if taxpayer money was used, the news cycle grinds on to new "news" and the integrity
of government officials is somehow preserved.
Sadly, this same path-of-least-resistance
reporting, on top of poor disclosure, is not limited to politics. A similar practice permeates the technology
news arena. Pronouncements which even just imply things are OK from a John Chambers or Larry Ellison or Craig Barrett
routinely move the market. Many accept "news" from such figures as relevant to their financial planning.
Some of us understand the underlying motivation of such billionaires and take this into account before rushing out to
buy tech stocks.
There are some technology news
sources, however. which are widely assumed to be objective. The Semiconductor Industry Association's (SIA's) 2005 forecast
predicted sales would match 2004 sales --exactly match-- to four significant digits. Despite the impossibility
of any two honest forecasts matching one another to this degree, nobody questioned SIA's numbers.
(OK, maybe nobody but me?) None of the dozens of reports on this "news" questioned the objectivity, or motivation, of SIA. (Answer: SIA
is a trade group, funded by semiconductor companies, not an objective news agency.)
As astonishing as such blindness
seems, it is hardly an isolated example:
In a recent news article, Semico Research Corporation's "Inflection Point Indicator"
("IPI") was trumpeted as showing 2H05 will "recover." (Didn't SIA just assure us sales
were already strong?) By way of supporting documentation, the article noted only, "The IPI registered 16.0
in February, up from 15.7 in January (2005)", followed by, "Since the IPI is said to forecast the semiconductor market
8 to 9 months in advance, this further substantiates Semico's prediction of an upturn in the market occurring in the
3Q05 timeframe." (emphasis added)
You see, since Semico "said" IPI works, this "substantiates"
its accuracy? Hmmm...
I've been
in semis for 25 years and do not recall ever hearing of IPI. I figured it must be my ignorance.
The poor reporter had a deadline and didn't have time, or his editor didn't give him space, to fill in what seemed like
the minimum details required to understand if this "news" was meaningful.
Via e-mail, I asked the reporter some of the "who, what, when,
where and why" questions I learned in junior high that reporters are supposed to ask: "What is IPI?", "How
is it constructed?", "When was it created?", and "Where is the current reading compared to readings over the
last 12 months?"
Unfortunately, the reporter's response was to "contact Semico"
for details.
"Didn't you contact them when you wrote the story?," followed
by, "Do you actually read this stuff before it goes out?," tumbled out of my mouth faster than I could type
the e-mail. I calmed down (a little) and settled instead for, "OK, fine," as my wife or I are prone to
say when we recognize the other party is being "unreasonable" and it's a good time to walk away from an un-winnable argument.
The complete quote would be, "OK, fine, I'll do it myself."
It turns out Semico wants $1,000 for a yearly subscription
IPI. Is history data available without subscribing? Can I buy just the history data in a snapshot?
Or cancel the minimum 12-month subscription if I'm not satisfied? Sadly, I received zero response. Apparently, Semico
expects customers to pay their money and take their chances.
Why was this article published? Without the details, it
reads more like a free advertisement for Semico's IPI than a widely useful news item.
Interestingly, Semico offers a freebie weekly called Semico
"SPIN." (Order your own copy, Gotta love the name.) I already received a couple issues. (And the content is true to its title.
"Never was heard, a discouraging word.")
I might have let all this slide without a diatribe but
it was the second instance in the space of two weeks. I was already agitated over an earlier write-up on a series of Santa Clara meetings held by Wipro to sell Silicon Valley companies on using Wipro's low-cost alternative
to US tech employees.
The article started out just like a news article about
a trade show: "Over 50 senior executives from companies into computing platforms, consumer electronics, networking and storage
attended the meet, and surprisingly, there was a good attendance from startups too, said Sangita Singh, chief marketing officer,
Wipro Technologies."
The problem with this "news" item was a real tradeshow
news article would then go on to highlight some of the companies in attendance. Unfortunately, zero such
detail was reported.
If these Wipro meetings were really "news," wouldn't
it be logical to include the names of at least some of the local participants. In my brief exposure to
journalism, "who" was first on the list of "who,
what, when, where and why" for a reason.
As with the Semico item, this article reads like an free
advertisement for Wipro.
A couple e-mail inquiries into the reporter eventually yielded,
"Please contact Mr XXXX of Wipro at XX.XX@wipro.com for he should be able to help." "OK, fine."
Inquiries into Mr. XXXX yielded, "We are constrained
to share the names of the companies attending our Wipro Strategym on Collaborative Engineering. The event had an attendance
of over 50 senior executives ranging from Computing Platforms, Consumer Electronics, Networking, Telecom and Storage industries.
Interestingly there was a good attendance from startups too."
Based on Wipro's choice of words, one begins to suspect Wipro
may even have written this ad/article...
Wipro clearly is not giving out names of the attendees.
I can imagine the companies considering moving more operations off-shore might not want advance publicity. I guess we'll
have to wait for the next rounds of layoffs or offshoring contract announcements to learn who they were. (Which,
of course, is exactly my point in this rant. The reporter was there (I think) but didn't catch ANY of the names of attendees???
Didn't someone think this would be useful information? Why give Wipro both publicity and secrecy?
Conclusion: Learning "news" from politicians
and tech industry leaders is subjected to "spin" is hopefully not an earth-shattering insight. Finding tech industry
organizations do the same thing is disappointing, but not shocking. Hearing from yet another source that even start-ups
are looking off-shore should be a wake-up call for those who think a Silicon Valley employment recovery is right around
the corner.
