Editorial Independence Is Great But...

There has been a lot of talk about "editorial independence" lately. Between the Rupert Murdoch/Dow Jones talks and the editorial battle at PC World, the topic has gotten a lot of play. As a writer and editor, I'm a big proponent of editorial independence. The ability to write an editorial or cover a story without worrying about what an advertiser or corporate management might think is precious. It is the cornerstone of a free press. But while everyone has been concerned over the possibility of editorial interference by various parties, why is no one concerned about the obvious decline in editorial quality.

The battle at PC World was over an article titled "10 Things We Hate About Apple" written by Editor-in-chief Harry McCracken, the article was killed by the CEO, allegedly because it would anger Apple CEO Steve Jobs. If that was the only reason to halt the article, then the CEO absolutely overstepped his bounds. But there was another, much more important reason not to run the story.

It was bad.

There was nothing redeeming about the article. The list of things were all items that had been discussed before. The article added nothing to the dialogue. No new information. No strong point of view that hadn't been heard. There was no purpose to the story, except possibly to fill up space and suck up to Apple bashers. The companion article, "10 Things We Love About Apple," was just as bad. It served no purpose except to suck up to Apple fans and take up space.

In today's world of 24/7 news via television and the Internet, there is so much time and space to fill that we have lowered our standards so we can fill it. But is bad work any better than no work. Do we want to teach our children that anything is good enough, or do we want to teach them to do their best work? I think it is time to say that "good enough" really isn't.