A disturbing trend long ago infected the world of cable news and is now, I believe, worming its way into the world of IT news and analysis.
Let’s take an honest look at the cable news landscape. The most complex of issues are usually summed up in 30-second sound bites (that’s down from 60-seconds), and are often incorrectly framed as questions with simple, yes/no answers. Are you for X? Are you against Y? Hurry up, we haven’t got all day… The controversy of an issue takes precedence over any actual facts. No controversy? Then let’s create some so that we can report on that. Many stories are driven by personalities rather than by objective reporters, who are also unencumbered by any data. This situation holds true regardless of your political persuasions.
Of course the majority of complex issues can’t be successfully dealt with in this shotgun, fact-free fashion. Rather, they require thoughtful analysis and a little explanation. A policy point might have substantial background data to consider, may vary with the particulars of the situation we are facing, and may even exhibit the dreaded shades of gray that are so anathema to our increasingly binary public discourse.
Our gut tells us that things are a little more complex than what we see on cable news, but we go along with it over time. Everyone’s doing it, that’s just the way it is. Yet it seems disconnected from the complicated, multifaceted world that we live in.
This unfortunate trend seems to be working its way into the previously staid, mundane world of IT news and analysis.
IT news and analysis is being democratized, and that’s a good thing overall. It has never been easier to create content and build an audience on the web. IT practitioners and executives with a wealth of real-world experience are online and joining the ranks of full-time IT analysts (many of whom have little actual experience in the trenches) and are adding much-needed perspective to the discussion.
Yet while the volume of content continues to increase, the quality of that material appears to be on the same downward slide that we experienced with cable news:
[1] Tech analysis titles are increasingly written solely to grab the readers attention, rather than describe the story itself. The more provocative the title the better, even if it is not in any way descriptive of the story. Do readers gain more value from IT analysis that uses these aggressive techniques to be promoted? Hard to say, though that question may be low on the list of priorities for outlets practicing these methods (while desperately looking for click traffic).
[2] Where previously there were clear demarcation lines between personal opinion (like this post) and data-backed analysis and research, those lines appear to be fading. Many IT analysts no longer feel the need to have any actual data in hand before making bold claims about a product or service, an organization’s sales estimates or prospects for the future. The lack of data and solid methodology is replaced by pure opinion – it is so because I say it is so.
[3] IT news and analysis is now increasingly personality-driven. Just as with the cable news, the IT reporter/analyst is the story, or is inseparable from the story. The analyst, the story content and the promotion methods for the story all blend together into what could be taken for a big piece of performance art. One has to do some real research to uncover the myriad conflicts of interest that may exist for a particular analyst, and real motivations are hard to pin down.
We have grown accustomed to seeing (and may understand) these methods being used in the fast-paced world of startups and product rumor sites (which I also visit and enjoy), but one sees the same methods more and more in what were previously considered “serious” IT journalism sources.
Each of us has had the recent experience of reading through something purporting to be a serious analysis piece filled with provocative findings, only to be disappointed by the absence of real supporting data, a poor analysis methodology, or even the author’s total lack of understanding of the technology being discussed. The examples come from the technology columns of trusted news magazines, IT trade journals, cable tech reporters, respected blogs and high-end consulting firms. In many cases expert analysis will be internally inconsistent within the same print or web source, with little apparent editing before it went live.
A new generation of IT professionals consider many of these sources to be nothing more than dinosaurs, and prefer to discuss and get analysis through their peers at community-driven sites such as Hacker News, Reddit, or (for specific technical questions) Stackoverflow and related sites. While one will certainly find some silliness on any site that is completely community driven, there is also a great deal to be impressed by, from the thoughtful and mature discussions to be found, to the sheer investment of time being made by thousands of IT professionals with no motive other than to help each other out and perhaps build some cred/karma along the way.
Ask a few of your team members how many of them have bothered to fill out subscription forms for the free, paper-based IT trade journals lately…they may not even be aware that they exist anymore. Those that do have subscriptions to these publications may have mentally written off their value years ago, but they continue to arrive in the mail and get stacked in neat piles on a credenza.
So what does this situation mean for IT leaders? I’d propose that it requires us to (a) be aware of the filtering role that we have always had for our organizations, (b) bring a critical eye to the body of news and analysis being utilized by our teams, and (c) be even more discerning with the content we rely upon to make individual decisions or changes in direction.
In concrete terms it might mean that:
- The development methodology that was so trumpeted last month will likely be labeled as passé this month, perhaps by the same expert. While that’s unfortunate, you will still need to do the real research among options, pick the methodology that will work best for your team, and take responsibility for the decision made.
- A half-baked inflammatory analysis (opinion) piece on the fallout of a tech company acquisition, written and posted purely to generate traffic, won’t help you when you need to determine the real-world impact to your team that happens to be relying on those acquired products to support operations. Additional research may uncover a more mature piece with conclusions that will hold up better over time.
- If two or three articles with similar conclusions were previously considered sufficient supporting material for an IT investment proposal you were working on – you may need to dig a little deeper today, especially since the articles you are quoting are now inconsistent with other findings in the same trade magazine, from other experts on the same payroll.
Each of us is responsible for determining and taking responsibility for the strategic direction, methodologies, investments and solutions that will support the needs of our organization. It is more critical than ever that we act as filters for the hundreds of news and analysis sources available, and assist our teams in using those sources to make solid decisions.
Just as there never was a real “IBM excuse ” wherein one could make a single vendor choice and be free of any negative repercussions if things went horribly wrong, there is no single source that will free us from the need to become experts at filtering IT news and analysis to support decisions and investments made.
The job of finding really authoritative content will be a little harder and may take a little more time, but on a positive note, once found, these sources will be highly valued, promoted and supported, much as the community-driven sites have been.
Do you agree that the quality of IT news and analysis is heading down the same unfortunate path as cable news? If so, how have you managed to filter through the noise? Are you comfortable relying on smaller, less well-known sources to support your decisions?
Your comments are welcome. If this post was helpful, you might like to subscribe to the RSS feed, sign up for weekly updates via email or follow me on Twitter.