In a comment on Kim Zetter’s article on the McCracken-Crawford conflict, a PC World staffer, defending McCracken, writes:
It’s worth noting that these pieces were produced for the web site
only. We’re under a lot of pressure to attract more traffic, and
these list stories can be blockbusters. We do view them as an
opportunity to be less serious — fluff is as good a word as any
— but why that should be such a problem is beyond me. If the New
Yorker ran the headline, nobody would flinch.
So in other words, the killed piece was sensational “less serious” fluff intended to generate hits to the web site. It’s hard to believe this person has ever even seen an issue of The New Yorker, the most literate and least sensational magazine I know of.
★ Friday, 4 May 2007