Colleagues at my former outlet, PC World magazine, have told me that Editor-in-Chief Harry McCracken quit abruptly today because the company's new CEO, Colin Crawford, tried to kill a story about Apple and Steve Jobs.
The piece, a whimsical article titled "Ten Things We Hate About Apple," was still in draft form when Crawford killed it. McCracken said no way and walked after Crawford refused to compromise. Apparently Crawford also told editors that product reviews in the magazine were too critical of vendors, especially ones who advertise in the magazine, and that they had to start being nicer to advertisers.
Crawford was former CEO of MacWorld and only started at PC World about a month ago. According to the PC World source, when Crawford was working for the Mac magazine, Steve Jobs would call him up any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was running about Apple.
"Everybody is so proud of Harry but we're devastated that he's gone," said the source. "This is no way to run a magazine. But unfortunately, this looks like an indication of what we've got in store (from the new boss)."
He added that everyone at the magazine was upset by the news. "There's supposed to be a party with the MacWorld people going on right now, but no one's going," he said.
The source didn't know the specifics of what was in the story Crawford wanted to kill but said it was nothing new. "It was supposed to be light fare, just really innocuous stuff. The same kinds of things people have said about Apple before -- things that teased Steve Jobs," he said.
I reached McCracken on his cell who, from the sound of the background noise, seemed to be leaving the MacWorld party as we talked.
[Full Disclosure: Harry's my former boss at PC World and someone I greatly respect. He's a top-notch writer and one of the smartest editors I've worked with.]
He didn't want to discuss the details of why he resigned but said he quit "because of some fundamental disagreements with Colin." He emphasized that he wasn't fired or forced out and holds no ill feelings toward the company.
"I've worked at IDG (parent company of PC World and MacWorld) for 16 years. It's been unbelievably good to me, and I have ten-thousand great memories so I'm not leaving an unhappy person."
He said he actually resigned yesterday, but workers found out only about an hour ago. When asked what he'll do now he said, "I'm going to blog and freelance at least for a while. I'll probably write for PC World by the way. I want to make clear that I'm a huge admirer of what PC World does and I'm not leaving hoping that PC World will collapse with out me. I'm sure it won't collapse without me."
PC World's loss is a gain for other publications. Wordsmithing, by the way, runs in McCracken's family. His sister is novelist Elizabeth McCracken.
I said I wasn't going to write any more about this unless Colin Crawford (left) or Harry McCracken (right) came forward to explain what happened during their meeting, but another PC World employee has written a comment to my previous post about this issue and it's worth reading for the additional details the person provides. It's the one posted by "PC Worldly" toward the bottom of this page. To save you from having to sift through the comments to find it, I've excerpted here:
I was at the meeting where McCracken announced his resignation to the staff, and the point he made most strongly had to do with the EIC/publisher relationship. Had Crawford come to him and said "I have a problem with this article, let's put it on hold and talk," this thread wouldn't exist.
Apparently the article had not been fully edited and a rough draft only got to Crawford through the PR department, which had planned to promote it. McCracken said the piece definitely needed editing and he certainly would have listened to Crawford's concerns. But McCracken said there was no dialog--just the order to kill the piece.
Crawford has since said he tried to broker an agreement, but it's safe to say the staff at this point believes their award-winning EIC. Crawford has also said that he objected to the "emotive" tone of the word hate--PC World shouldn't be in the business of "hating" Apple. But the headline wasn't "Why we hate Apple." It was "10 Things We Hate About Apple." It was to be followed by a companion piece, "10 Things We Love About Apple." And a similar package was being planned for Microsoft.
It's worth noting that these pieces were produced for the web site only. We're under a lot of pressure to attract more traffic, and these list stories can be blockbusters. We do view them as an opportunity to be less serious--fluff is as good a word as any--but why that should be such a problem is beyond me. If the New Yorker ran the headline, nobody would flinch.
The CEO of a publication certainly has the right (and the duty) to define strategy and positioning. But an EIC is supposed to have the authority to create appropriate editorial content. If you don't think your guy can do the job, you don't start doing it for him--you get another guy.
By the same token, no EIC with an iota of talent or vision is going to accept that sort of micromanagement, especially for the reason Crawford apparently gave, which was that the piece would be needlessly upsetting to Apple. McCracken has plenty of talent and vision; PC World's loss will be someone else's gain.
Crawford denies that the article was canned out of pressure to please advertisers. He doesn't expand on what the actual reason was.
John Gruber asks a pretty good question. If McCracken was willing to resign over integrity issues, why would he still be willing to write for PC Magazine, like he says he intends to in a freelance capacity?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Durandal wrote:Crawford denies that the article was canned out of pressure to please advertisers. He doesn't expand on what the actual reason was.
John Gruber asks a pretty good question. If McCracken was willing to resign over integrity issues, why would he still be willing to write for PC Magazine, like he says he intends to in a freelance capacity?
Gee, let me think: maybe there's a difference between being the editor who has to kill stories for bullshit reasons, and being a writer who submits them? It's like wondering why someone is willing to be a police officer but not an executioner.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I am not a PC world subscriber, and most likely never will be. My question is has the magazine ever run a "hate" article? Usually picking a brand out and writing a hate article about it is not a good practice. I don't think I have seen any mainstream Automotive magazine run an article pointing out a company and why they hate it. Imagine, "10 reasons why we hate Honda." I doubt that would fly on any editors desk. It is just not good business. Like wise I am willing to bet they never ran a article bashing Dell, HP, Sony, or even Microsoft as a whole. It would be stupid for them to. Maybe critizing a product, but not targeting a company.
Well, I'm glad he's able to spring instantly forward with this journalistic integrity thing, but the article sounds like the usual tedious bashfest than actual news. If this were actually some serious misdoing on Apple's part or critical flaw in an Apple product being exposed, I might be more sympathetic, but it really just sounds like bitter tears at no longer being able to push a fanboy agenda as the editor of a published magazine.
Xisiqomelir wrote:Well, I'm glad he's able to spring instantly forward with this journalistic integrity thing, but the article sounds like the usual tedious bashfest than actual news. If this were actually some serious misdoing on Apple's part or critical flaw in an Apple product being exposed, I might be more sympathetic, but it really just sounds like bitter tears at no longer being able to push a fanboy agenda as the editor of a published magazine.
Sounds like fanboy vs fanboy.
Editor-in-chief pushes fanboy anti-Apple article with frivolous complaints. Mac fanboy CEO kills said article. Editor-in-chief throws hissy fit and resigns.
IMHO, they both are par for the course WRT tongue in cheek articles on the 'Mac vs. PC' front.
If this is the article the new CEO wanted to censor, he's more of an asshat than portrayed in the press.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
I'm curious if he was censoring both articles or just the hate one.
Both articles pretty much sucked. I mean, come on. Complaining about the letter I? Well, I hate the word Think. ThinkPad, ThinkCentre, ThinkVantage, ugh, can't IBM come up with any original names? It's a product line name. And complaining about the puck mouse from the late 90's?
The other side is mostly uninspired. Under things they love about Apple, they list some blog by some guy not affiliated with Apple because it's a funny read. The rest of it seems just copied and pasted from Apple's "Get a Mac" section of their web site.
Last edited by Praxis on 2007-05-08 12:10am, edited 1 time in total.
Having worked as an editor for a PC review magazine, I can say that this sort of thing isn't as uncommon as one might think.
Technically advertising and editorial for a magazine are handled by two entirely separate divisions of a magazine, but the E-in-C is still well aware of who the advertisers are and will not take lightly the idea of running a highly negative article about a major advertising source.
Editors still have a lot of freedom over running negative reviews or editorials and often they'll just live with the advertising hit since a single advertiser will either deal with a negative review every now and then or if they do decide to pull advertising they will quickly be replaced. But sometimes a single advertiser has a disproportionate share of the advertising space and it isn't unheard of for them to get special treatment.
I can't say that I ever experienced any of my articles getting killed because of this phenomenon, but I do remember a few times that I was nudged to not produce a scathing article about a major advertising contributor. This is rare, and I didn't feel like I absolutely needed to make a change, but it does happen.
I can say definitively that it's not like the vendors who advertise threaten to pull advertising if they get negative press, but the E-in-C's are extremely wary of the possibility of this occurring so they might kill articles or tone down extremely harsh reviews in order to appease advertisers. This is simple a fact of the business.
That said, I've never experienced a CEO having any sort of editorial control and that sort of thing WOULD be a strange event. Usually the E-in-C has the power of God over what ends up in the magazine and the problem here is probably not the implication that advertisers might have some pull over the editorial content but that someone outside of the editorial staff tried to dictate content.
Xisiqomelir wrote:Well, I'm glad he's able to spring instantly forward with this journalistic integrity thing, but the article sounds like the usual tedious bashfest than actual news. If this were actually some serious misdoing on Apple's part or critical flaw in an Apple product being exposed, I might be more sympathetic, but it really just sounds like bitter tears at no longer being able to push a fanboy agenda as the editor of a published magazine.
He quit because executives at publishing companies shouldn't have any sort of editorial control. It's not up to the CEO to decide what constitutes a valid article, that's up to the editorial staff themselves.
Why would a PC magazine not attack Apple, anyway? If Apple was an advertiser, then why would Apple want to advertise in a PC Magazine? Their entire fucking ad campaign is based on bashing PC's.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:Why would a PC magazine not attack Apple, anyway? If Apple was an advertiser, then why would Apple want to advertise in a PC Magazine? Their entire fucking ad campaign is based on bashing PC's.
A) Apple's advertising to the crowd they want to switch over, obviously.
B) Technically, Macs are Personal Computerss. And IIRC, PCWorld does include Mac reviews and iPod reviews.
Xisiqomelir wrote:Well, I'm glad he's able to spring instantly forward with this journalistic integrity thing, but the article sounds like the usual tedious bashfest than actual news. If this were actually some serious misdoing on Apple's part or critical flaw in an Apple product being exposed, I might be more sympathetic, but it really just sounds like bitter tears at no longer being able to push a fanboy agenda as the editor of a published magazine.
He quit because executives at publishing companies shouldn't have any sort of editorial control. It's not up to the CEO to decide what constitutes a valid article, that's up to the editorial staff themselves.
Makes sense.
Although I wouldn't quit my job over the issue, if I was supporting a family. I mean, it seems like a completely legit complaint, and certainly worth causing a stink about, but unless you had another job lined up, certainly not worth your job over one article.
I don't know how legitimate is the Hate article, since I use Macs at work only and have absolutely on interest in Apple's products, but it was an enjoyable read.
As for the Love one...they managed to fork out only 5 good reasons (probably because Im not expert enough to spot bullshit in them) before they switched to bullshit&space consumer mode. Lesseee...
6. The Fake Steve Jobs
7. The Apple Store Experience
8. 50 Bucks Saved in Security Software
9. Ads You Won't Change Channels On
10. Cottage Industry of Cool
The amount of bullshit contained in the titles alone is breathtaking.
Number 6 is so crappy that I wont even comment on it. Pray tell, how is fake Steve Jobs blog making Apple design and make better stuff.
Number 7...reminds me of McDonald's. When you criticize their food they will say that they fork out millions for promoting sports and have excellent interior designs at their restaurants and they change them often. Yeah, like that counts... Remember folks: Mac is not a piece of art. It is a computer.
Number 8: they have the audacity to say that you just saved 50 bucks after you had to pay 4 times more for Mac than you'd have to for PC, which can't be upgraded. And they say I SAVED 50 BUCKS? Go to hell.
Number 9: Ahh, the wonderful assumption that everyone loves their ads. As for the bullshit, its the same as number 7. I buy a computer to work & play on it, not to watch some goddamned ads on TV. Besides, I personally think that Apple's ads are dull, repetitive, boring and condescending.
Number 10: It is sure nice to have something which is good looking and design with some background standarts in mind...but quite frankly, they again assume that everyone just LOVES the slick look of Apple's products. I like them, but I assure you I can find people who don't.
I admit, Macs are fast, slick and have Final Cut Pro. But quite honestly, for something that costs like 4 times a normal PC it would be very strange if it didnt run better and was more stable.
And I cant get used to the window layout - the lack of workspace that every Windows OS provides. Accidentally click 1 mm outside the Photoshop window and you are back at Final Cut. I really love that when I need to do something in a hurry.
