I thoroughly enjoy reading articles from websites that dismantle bad punditry. I usually hang out on blogs or websites that point out how ridiculous the general sentiment is about Apple. Some great examples of these locations are Daring Fireball, The Loop, The Macalope, and others. They make a living “skewering” pundits. It really is incredible how poorly it seems financial analysts and business writers understand Apple.

When I read these articles or posts I often say to myself, “I wonder if the authors have full faith in the coverage of other news or companies?” I think the obvious answer is no, but sometimes I wonder.

I did come across this piece from the Financial Times:

After thousands of diligent appraisals, I can confidently sign off on this excessively simple truth: good writers write good pieces, regardless of subject and regardless of publication. Mediocre writers write mediocre pieces. And nothing at all can rescue a bad writer.
via Paris Lemon.

Writing, especially online writing, should be carefully thought out. Remember this wisdom from John Siracusa:

Not all new ideas represent progress. Do I really need to spell this out? It seems so. But ideas should not be rejected based merely on a lifetime of having lived without them.
via Hypercritical.

I think we could pretty easily apply this thought to areas outside of technology as well.

One major risk of online media services is the risk that you will live within the bubble of your comfort zone, never being exposed to new ideas. FaceBook, Google, and others give you news and posts of those people that are most likely to agree with your position. Hopefully we retain a healthy level of skepticism, identify great/poor writers, and remain open to new ideas while understanding that not all new ideas represent progress.

Do we think?
Tagged on: