 |
THE WORLD'S RFID AUTHORITY
 PREMIUM = Requires Subscription. Learn MoreRFID Privacy Forum
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RECENT ENTRIES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Give Me Back My Sanity
RFID Education for Consumers
Business 2.0 Gets It Wrong
McAfee Recycles Old Privacy Fears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said the magazine's outside test lab might have done the side-impact test at speeds that may have exceeded 70 mph (113 kph), instead of the reported 38 mph.
What does this have to do with radio frequency identification? Not a lot—except you might recall that Consumer Reports also published a blatantly one-sided article about RFID entitled "The End of Privacy" (for my rebuttal, see Consumer Distorts).
The sensational nature of the article was odd for a magazine known for objective testing. I thought maybe the writer had snowed the editors into believing RFID really is a threat to privacy. At least, I believed that until I read the headline of the retracted story: "What If This Were Your Child?" This was printed below photos of an infant seat getting torn apart in a test car crash.
I've been in journalism for more than 20 years, and I know the pressures editors and reporters come under. Magazine sales are down. You need to be relevant. You need to get attention. You need to be more sensational. I don't know for sure that this is what happened with the Consumer Reporters privacy and car seat stories, but if it looks like a fish and smells like a fish, then it probably is a fish.
The sad thing is that the privacy article wasn't based on flawed testing, just flawed reporting. So it won't be retracted. But the privacy article was misinformation, just like the car seat story. Both badly served the magazine's readers.
What does this have to do with radio frequency identification? Not a lot—except you might recall that Consumer Reports also published a blatantly one-sided article about RFID entitled "The End of Privacy" (for my rebuttal, see Consumer Distorts).
The sensational nature of the article was odd for a magazine known for objective testing. I thought maybe the writer had snowed the editors into believing RFID really is a threat to privacy. At least, I believed that until I read the headline of the retracted story: "What If This Were Your Child?" This was printed below photos of an infant seat getting torn apart in a test car crash.
I've been in journalism for more than 20 years, and I know the pressures editors and reporters come under. Magazine sales are down. You need to be relevant. You need to get attention. You need to be more sensational. I don't know for sure that this is what happened with the Consumer Reporters privacy and car seat stories, but if it looks like a fish and smells like a fish, then it probably is a fish.
The sad thing is that the privacy article wasn't based on flawed testing, just flawed reporting. So it won't be retracted. But the privacy article was misinformation, just like the car seat story. Both badly served the magazine's readers.
2 Comments
Is any press good press?
I was not happy with the Consumer Reports story, either, but I don't think they'd stoop to tabloid journalism to sell subscriptions. And I dont think a letter from the president would come if that were their motives. They've been around more than 70 years and I understand with somthing on the order of 7,000,000 subscribers they're hardling hurting for more. Isn't is possible they just made a (big!) mistake?
Posted By: Robert 1/26/07 at 12:24 PM
I was not happy with the Consumer Reports story, either, but I don't think they'd stoop to tabloid journalism to sell subscriptions. And I dont think a letter from the president would come if that were their motives. They've been around more than 70 years and I understand with somthing on the order of 7,000,000 subscribers they're hardling hurting for more. Isn't is possible they just made a (big!) mistake?
Posted By: Robert 1/26/07 at 12:24 PM
Agree with Mark
Your points are so well-made. It used to be that consumers would not make major purchases without consulting CR, but these two stories have caused me to think twice about this resource.
Posted By: Linda 1/26/07 at 11:42 AM
Your points are so well-made. It used to be that consumers would not make major purchases without consulting CR, but these two stories have caused me to think twice about this resource.
Posted By: Linda 1/26/07 at 11:42 AM
Please enter your name or an alias and your email address.
Only your name or alias will appear in your post.
Only your name or alias will appear in your post.