Does the truth hurt that much?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a column for a different publication about a small, yet well-known company. In that article, I discussed why it's wrong on so many fronts and lacks many of the attributes we should expect from a well-run tech organization: solid products, strong management, and cost competitiveness. Unfortunately, this particular company lacked all three.

About two hours after I wrote the column, I received an email from the company's PR team asking me to discuss my beliefs with its co-founder. After telling him that he has left the company in bad hands and he needs to turn things around as soon as possible, or else become a guaranteed failure, he understood where I was coming from and told his attack dogs to back off.

And although I haven't heard anything from the company since, it had me thinking: why does the truth hurt so much?

Of course, the answer quickly came: it isn't the truth that really hurts these companies, it's the fact that someone is willing to say it.

Sadly, we've entered a world where placating is a usual occurrence even though it's not justified. The reason? Well, gee, if you're not nice to them, or at the very least, a bit more "understanding," they may get upset.

And to that, my response is always: "why should I be "understanding?""

Sure, that response may not be the most popular among PR circles, but I really believe it. Why should I be understanding of companies that do crazy things? If I see something that's totally and utterly wrong, should I pretend to be OK with it? Why should I take the PR response and really believe that that's what the company meant?

I don't care what anybody says: my responsibility is to you, the reader, and no one else. I don't have a responsibility to Google, Microsoft, Apple, Sony, or any other company to be nice and try to make my readers see things through their warped views. I have a responsibility to my readers to cut through the garbage and show them that the reality of the situation may not be nearly as innocuous as the companies want us to believe.

Now, that's not to say that everything is bad. I'm a firm believer that most of these companies really want to do what's right and the good usually outweighs the bad, but ironically (or maybe not), when I say something nice about a company, I don't get an email from the PR team thanking me for such a nice column. Instead, I only hear from them when they think I'm being a bit too honest.

When that happens, I'm more than happy to listen to what they have to say and if I was wrong, I'll freely admit it. Last year, I wrote that Yahoo didn't know anything about the iPhone. The company's PR team called me up, asked that I speak with its mobile division chief, and after that conversation, it was made abundantly clear to me that, yes, it really did care about the iPhone and it was firmly behind it.

In this business, everyone is wrong sometimes. At least I'm willing to admit it.

When I first got into this business, I realized something quickly: some people are just too nice. And while there's nothing wrong with being nice, what's wrong with being brutally honest?

As I said, it has always been my belief that I have a responsibility to the reader to ensure that they're getting the unabashed truth. And while the readers, the PR teams, and the companies may not agree with me all the time, I hope they can appreciate that I'm trying like hell to represent my readers' concerns and give them a voice where the otherwise wouldn't have one.

Sometimes, readers who don't know how I write and don't frequent this site and others, ask why a particular column wasn't "objective." To that, I've always said that I don't write objectively because, well, I think that space is pretty well covered by the fine folks at News.com, Reuters, Engadget, Gizmodo, and countless other blogs.

As for me? Subjective journalism is where I find the most value, and so far, I think you've found some value in it too. And believe it or not, this "objectivity" phenomenon is relatively new. Go to the library and pick up a newspaper from the early days of journalism and you might be surprised by what you read -- objectivity is no where to be found.

And while you may not always agree with what I have to say, I look forward to continuing our trek towards full honesty and openness, towards holding these companies accountable when they're wrong, and towards putting them on a pedestal when they're right.

The truth hurts those that are trying to run from it. But for the rest of us, it will continue to set us free.

Happy Fourth.

Want to know what Don is up to? Follow him on Twitter and FriendFeed.

[electronista]

Now I need to go back and find this earlier article!

I'm in the business too, and it's amazing that companies will hope (if not count on) you dancing around the truth. You should have seen the response from Rogers to questions about why their iPhone plans offer so much less than AT&T - it's as if they hope that "it's not as bad as others" is going to fly as an excuse and that you'll just run with it.

[TheAlpacaHerder]

Well said in this. In my industry it is worse.

[GeneOdyssey]

Don, there are more constructive and edifying ways to critique, but you tend to lean towards scathing (and a bit rude) wording at times to make your point. In any human relationship anyone in the world will take offense and get hurt. You can be more professional about it, maybe add a little diplomatic wordage and maybe actually help in a more human way a business' vision down the road. You just can't stand back and say "well the truth hurts doesn't it" - that's cheap and doesn't belong on cnet.

[RobinQueens]

Don, From your lips to god's ears! major props! you are on point. and we need more people like you to look at the hard facts!
Happy 4th bro!

[mk-1601]

Don, the problem with your output isn't that it's undiplomatic, it's that (with the exception of your attacks on the RIAA, which are just shooting fish in a barrel) it's invariably ill-informed, poorly articulated and illogical.

PR people try to politely correct you (which you seem to have misinterpreted as a two-way exchange) because you've inexplicably been given a highly trafficked platform for your blathering.

[dd13reis]

Hi mk,

Can you provide specific examples of these events that you cite? I'm not too sure I remember any of those and I would gladly like to see where I would find them.

Thanks!

Don

[Composer_1777]

Hey Don, this post reminded of the Google dilemma over You tube ads; well I was just on Facebook and they an advertisement saying "target your audience pay per clicks" If Facebook could come up with that surely Google can use it on You Tube.

[djfelix512]

To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised Tivo has lasted this long as well. Your critique is dead-on, and unfortunately for Tivo, the stockholders agree.

The best thing they could do would be to sell the company to Comcast, Time Warner, Cable One, or another large cable/saltelite/IP TV company. Hell, they could sell to Apple and do better. Imagine an Apple branded Tivo. The Tivo interface that everyone knows and loves on-top of the OS X / iTunes platform with the ever-so-trendy Apple name that all the hipsters love. Either that or sell to Motorolla, the manufacturer of those cheap knock-off DVR's that all the cable companies are selling.

That's their only hope to stay viable though. They need to cash in their chips while they are still worth something.

I don't always agree with you, but this time, I believe you are spot on.