Stewart Wolpin

Say It Ain't So, Moto
February 12, 2008

A staple of late-night comedians is the off-beat news story. TV's Craig Ferguson usually shows a printed version of the outrageous story to prove its veracity, then sarcastically adds, "And if it's printed, it must be true."

This, obviously, is a well-deserved poke at the press, which revels in printing (or posting) the salacious over the significant, contorting context or creating headlines to focus on the spectacular aspects of a story at the expense of more complex and important information, all to attract attention. Tabloids revel in posing provocative questions in front page headlines, i.e. "Is Britney Spears A Man?", "Can Stuffed Animals Kill Your Children?", or "Is George Bush An Alien?" only to refute these self-created 72-point headline accusations in the twelfth paragraph of 9-point prose buried on a back-of-the-book jump page. Many times, these twisted tales take on a life of their own. The headlines become the story and remained uncorrected until way after the damage has been done.

I'm particularly pissed at the way the media reported the recent spate of news emanating from Motorola. A couple of weeks ago, the company announced a disappointing fourth quarter, especially in its cellphone business. In a follow-up, Motorola issued a press release that stated in its opening paragraph that "[t]he company's alternatives may include the separation of Mobile Devices from its other businesses …"

Around the same time, an investment analyst by the name of Richard Windsor, of London-based Nomura International, suggested that Motorola would soon sell its mobile handset division (I've been unable to resolve the exact timing, but a CNBC blogger reported Windsor's prediction was made prior to Motorola's seemingly confirming statement).

Windsor's prediction and Motorola's seemingly subsequent statement got wide play in the tech media and tech blogosphere. But none of these reports seem to have adhered to the basic precepts of journalistic integrity.

First off, with a headline stating "Motorola Hangs Up on Handsets," the aforementioned CNBC reporter reported Motorola's conditional alternative of possibly divesting its cellphone division as fact, which it most certainly is not.

But particularly vexing to me is that none of the dozen-plus stories I was able to find on the subject contained any comments from Motorola. There wasn't as much as a "we could get no comment from Motorola," which would indicate at least an attempt to get both sides of the story. (Grammatically speaking, an inanimate corporate entity can't actually comment, but I digress.) Even Motorola's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, reported nothing more than speculation based on quotes taken from press releases.

So I queried Motorola myself. Is Motorola going to sell off its cellphone division?

A Motorola executive acquaintance answered me:

"Everything is pure speculation. Only time will tell."

And an executive in Motorola's public relations department sensibly and understandably noted, "[W]e don't comment on rumor and speculation."

In the journalism world, we call these non-denial denials.

Not earth shattering responses, admittedly. But performing the simple exercise of asking for and reporting on reaction from Motorola would have lent the varying reports a higher degree of gravitas. Without it, they may as well have reported on the Motorola situation by headlining the answer from a Magic Eight Ball. "Motorola Selling Cellphone Division? 'You May Rely On It' Sez 'Expert'"

Unfortunately, Motorola's prevarication increases the uncertainty surrounding Motorola's cellphone business and the potential for future media feeding frenzy. A simple "we have no plans to sell off our handset division" would quell all questions. In other words, just say it ain't so, Moto.

And I'd like them to mean it.

I have a fondness in my heart for tech companies that created the industry in which they are in. Losing RCA, which invented the TV business, was bad enough. But for the company that invented the cellphone to leave the cellphone business would be a damned shame.

* * *

Speaking of inventing, yesterday, Feb. 11, was Thomas Edison's birthday. He would have been 160 if he'd managed to invent immortality. He seems to have invented everything else. At 10 p.m. on Oct. 21, 1931, three days after Edison died, President Hoover asked all Americans to dim their electric lights to honor the great inventor. I've always thought Feb. 11 should be commemorated in some way by the tech community. Since it's not, gaze up at the last of your incandescent lights, your turntable, your movie collection, even your electric outlet, and pause for a moment to reflect on a world without Thomas Edison.

 ***

Posted by Stewart Wolpin on February 12, 2008 | Comments (1)