Tom went through quite a bit of effort to explain how info about a new processor cannot be found all in a day, and that it takes time to sort out all the details.
Yet knowing this, for some reason he made brash conclusions after only the second article that you should not recommend the P4 for anyone to buy. In fact he even used joking sarcasm in his anti-recommendation that was so premature, he felt compelled to *change the article after it was published*.
Changing commentary after the fact is tantamount to a retraction, which is tantamount to a journalistic spanking.
Do I fault Tom for not having perfect P4 information at an early stage? Of course not.
But making brash conclusions that you are not willing to stand behind 2 days later, and trying to justify it by saying new facts are available? This is unprofessional.
*** It's not the point that new facts are available - the point is jumping the gun on conclusions before all the facts are in, and then not admitting the mistake.***
Now some disclaimers:
- I'm not a Tom hater - he has done some great work and filled an important need in the space of hardware reporting. Credit gladly given where deserved.
- I'm not an Intel lover - for god's sake I own AMD stock!
The bottom line is, it was a mistake. Just please use the word "mistake" or "retraction" (which was never done), and make us feel you learned from the experience, rather than making us feel you are trying talk around the words "mistake" or "retraction" like a politician would do.
Yet knowing this, for some reason he made brash conclusions after only the second article that you should not recommend the P4 for anyone to buy. In fact he even used joking sarcasm in his anti-recommendation that was so premature, he felt compelled to *change the article after it was published*.
Changing commentary after the fact is tantamount to a retraction, which is tantamount to a journalistic spanking.
Do I fault Tom for not having perfect P4 information at an early stage? Of course not.
But making brash conclusions that you are not willing to stand behind 2 days later, and trying to justify it by saying new facts are available? This is unprofessional.
*** It's not the point that new facts are available - the point is jumping the gun on conclusions before all the facts are in, and then not admitting the mistake.***
Now some disclaimers:
- I'm not a Tom hater - he has done some great work and filled an important need in the space of hardware reporting. Credit gladly given where deserved.
- I'm not an Intel lover - for god's sake I own AMD stock!
The bottom line is, it was a mistake. Just please use the word "mistake" or "retraction" (which was never done), and make us feel you learned from the experience, rather than making us feel you are trying talk around the words "mistake" or "retraction" like a politician would do.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram