PC Mag: Rubel’s tweet smells like twit
Shortened permalink:
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Steve Rubel must be cowering in fear. He can’t even bring himself to defend…himself, I guess. He’s so concerned about apologizing for a recent Twitter tweet that trashed (literally) PC Magazine.
Jim Louderback, the editor of PC Mag, is pissed. Rubel is apologizing. Comments are a-flyin’ all over the place, particularly on Rubel’s open-letter post.
I like the comment from Steve Coulson of crayon, who says Louderback is, to paraphrase with my own words, being childish and missing an opportunity to improve his magazine. But I see another issue:
I understand Rubel’s reason for the apology here (Jim’s response column on Strumpette paints a potentially ugly picture for some of Edelman’s clients — “I’ll probably be somewhat less inclined to take a meeting with one of Edelman’s clients”), but Rubel’s post would have meant a lot more if he actually explained what he meant in his offending tweet and just defended himself a bit.
Louderback guesses that, in just tossing the mag, Rubel apparently doesn’t even care to see if any of Edelman’s clients were covered in the magazine. Does he not realize that flipping through the paper pages isn’t the only way to find that out? And does Rubel not feel strongly enough to say, “Yeah, you can keep my print subscription. I’ve got your RSS feeds and your Web site, and that’s all I need from you. Thanks”?
And don’t even get me started on the thoughts I had about Jim’s childish (although seemingly sincere, which is great) response, in which he borders on abandoning any and all journalistic principles just to stick to Rubel and Edelman. Unless he’s acknowledging that PC Mag is just a PR pro’s wet dream of low editorial standards, why would it matter who’s pitching Adobe CS3 or Microsoft Whatever’sNext? Regardless of the relationship with the PR firm, shouldn’t his magazine cover what’s of interest to the audience — not what fits into the framework of the editor’s grudge-du-jour?
Related items
Great insights and perspective on this issue - it was indeed an opportunity missed where they could have found ways to improve the print magazine
Thanks, Chris. You’re right about it being a missed opportunity; that’s true in more than one way. Unfortunately, it just devolved into a childish response and an respectable (and perhaps professionally critical) but I think unnecessary apology/explanation.