Journalists rushed to offer instant – but often unconsidered – judgments of the iPad, writes IAN CAMPBELL
AFTER MONTHS of rumours and speculation, Apple unveiled the iPad this week to the frenzied delight of the world’s media, which spewed the story out across its multimedia channels and fulfilled its own prophecy that this was the biggest product launch anywhere, ever.
Some online newspapers used minute-by-minute reporting to dripfeed announcements live from the event on Wednesday evening, quickly revealing why this approach works better for sport than for press conferences. At least New York Times correspondent Brad Stone had the good grace to add some scepticism: “I’m cutting out all of Mr [Steve] Jobs’s ‘phenomenals’ and ‘amazings’ and ‘incredibles’, folks. Just assume they are there.”
Others slavishly reported every time he stood up and sat down.
The minute-by-minute format for covering an event is a curious mix of reportage and opinion, where journalists are expected to offer instant judgments, when a little time and consideration would serve the story better.
This was highlighted by a British journalist who took an hour to sharpen his knife before announcing that he was unconvinced that the iPad was a revolution worth joining. Later, after a hands-on demo, he declared that the ideas the iPad contains “will be with us for a long time to come”.
Even more exasperating than the minute-by-minutes were the Tweets. Geeks twittered on and on about each specification as it was announced, like some hellish press release that you thought would never end.
Television was there too. Sky News, rarely a bastion for hard news when there is tittle-tattle to relay, surprisingly chose to stick with footage from the Iraq War inquiry in the UK, reducing the iPad to a ticker-tape announcement across the bottom of the screen.
Other 24-hour news channels were more exuberant, however. Jobs may have only have been half way through describing the product features, but that did not stop pundits on CNBC debating if it was any good.
Bloomberg carried clips from the press conference but the cameraman was clearly more used to covering financial news stories, where all you need is a talking-head shot. His shaky camera was focused on Jobs sitting in his chair with the iPad on his lap rather than the projected screen behind him that demonstrated what he was actually doing. Oh well.
It was no surprise that the first YouTube clip appeared while the event was still taking place. Other footage began to circulate as well, including a clip of celebrity geek Stephen Fry, a self-confessed Apple fan, “drooling with anticipation” about owning one.
About eight hours after the launch was over, more considered coverage began to emerge. The wise owls of the tech press are keeping their powder dry until they get a full hands-on. But Walter Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal gadget guru, let it be known via his blog that he liked the software and proclaimed it a new product category – a true smartphone/laptop hybrid.
The backlash also started. US tech website CNET ran a story on the five things the iPad is missing.
The morning after was more sober in Europe too, summed up by the Financial Times, which put “revolutionary” in its headline but was careful to wrap the word in quotes.
Much of the world’s media would have woken up with something like a hangover, wondering what they did the night before and if it was embarrassing. In their enthusiasm to get the Apple scoop some fell foul of a Tweet by a mischievous technology executive, Jason Calacanis, who claimed he was testing the Apple tablet. He said it had two cameras and it was dutifully reported as though true.
The iPad does not have any cameras, an omission that has triggered the most debate in the blogosphere.
At the start of the press conference, Jobs alluded to the last time a tablet created so much anticipation. One can only speculate on how a minute-by-minute news service would have handled what Moses had to say about the Ten Commandments. “Uh-oh, number seven, bad news for Tiger Woods . . .”
