Jobs below the fold in the NYT

Steve Jobs had an impact on the world -- and our country -- that's 20 times greater than Gerald Ford. And that's probably a conservative estimate.

Jobs revolutionized the way we access information, the way we communicate, the way we listen to music...

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That's the list of in-office accomplishments.

I'm as tired as anyone of the Apple cult worship. But regardless of that, Jobs leaves with a mind-blowing resume.

 

Yes, our news department dropped the ball on this -- as it does with most stories of national relevance for anything that's gone on in the last 20 years. The Jobs story was on A3, no photo, about 12 inches worth. I shit you not, when Fess Parker died, it was A1 above the fold with (I think) a 4 col photo of when he visited town back in the 50s for the Davy Crockett premier.

For us on Jobs, I truly believe maybe a mug and the head - 1 or 2 col - above the fold on the right with the story mid way of the page would have been about right. I don't put him in the pantheon, but I recognize his contributions to every day life in 2011.

On the flip side, one of the papers in a neighboring town had the Jobs story taking up about 3/4 of A1 in black reverse with white type, a photo of him plus a giant Apple logo. That was way overblown.

 

Free Press had the story inside. But a big teaser in the top left corner.

 

I think a big part of the play decision is how recently he'd been in the public eye/relevant. No his death wasn't a "shock" or sudden but he had been "hands on" as recently as a few months ago. A former President decades out of office has less recent impact.

 

Jobs alert moved at 7:30. Story, an advance obit, was below the NYT fold for the first national edition, which is 9 p.m. close. For the first city edititon, at 10:15, it was in the lede position.

 

Jobs was on our front page but in another part of the region, their A1 was entirely local and Jobs was placed inside the A section.

 

My local paper had a huge tease on the front and the main obit on 3A.

We could debate all day whether that treatment is the same as simply playing it on 1A. I simply don't know anymore.

 

News judgment on obits is not easy. The usual balance of interest and significance.

It does seem that the media have gone way overboard with the fanboy response to Steve Jobs. He is interesting -- many clicks to be had from writing about him -- but not that important.

Compare Steve Jobs with, for example, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who died the same day. Who was better known? Jobs. Who did more to change and improve all our lives? Shuttlesworth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/rev-fred-l-shuttlesworth-civil-rights-leader-dies-at-89.html

This Gawker post by Hamilton Nolan nails it: Steve Jobs was not God.

"Steve Jobs was great at what he did. There's no need to further fellate the man's memory. He made good computers, he made good phones, he made good music players. He sold them well. He got obscenely rich. He enabled an entire generation of techie design fetishists to walk around with more attractive gadgets. He did not meaningfully reduce poverty, or make life-saving scientific discoveries, or end wars or heal the sick or befriend the friendless. Which is fine—most of us don't. But most of us don't provoke such cult-like lachrymosity when we pass on. When even the journalists tasked with covering you and your company are reduced to pie-eyed fans apologizing for discomforting your insanely powerful multibillion-dollar corporation in some minor way, some perspective has been lost.

"I've never owned an Apple product. Yet here I am, talking on phones, typing on computers, and reading the internet every day. If you like Apple products, fine. They are products. They do not have souls. They are not heroes, and neither is their creator, no matter how skilled he may have been. Let's mourn Steve Jobs as we mourn the passing of any other good man—modestly, privately, and quietly. Those of you whose remembrances have already taken on a quasi-religious tone: seek help."

http://gawker.com/5847338/steve-jobs-was-not-god

 

Two points:

(a) The Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth did not do more to change my life than Steve Jobs. In fact, it's not even close. There is no question that his work was of a much higher nobility and his passing deserves to be recognized, and it has been. He was a great man. Jobs is a giant of business and technology who died at 56. That's a big deal.

(b) You've got to separate the man and his accomplishments from the cultish Apple worship. It's really easy to dismiss the whole thing because of how ridiculously over-the-top people are about Apple and Jobs. People act like their daddy died and half the people I'm friends with on Facebook have changed their profile pics to Apple logos. (Lost in all of that is the fact that by any reasonable standard, the guy was an unbelievable asshole.) But bottom line -- he revolutionized computers, phones and how we listen to music. That's pretty damn amazing. The Gawker dude points out that he has never owned an Apple product but still works on a computer and uses the phone, which absolutely misses the point. The computer works the way it does because of Jobs. His phone likely does, too. It's like dismissing Henry Ford because you drive a Chevy.

 

Did you guys read the Wall St Journal's A1 story today about Steve Jobs' biological father?

Readers debated whether it was something the WSJ needed to be covering or whether it was just Murdochian tabloid fodder.

What do you think?

I see both sides but... ultimately, I'm glad it was handled by WSJ reporters because the story was even-handed and fair.