Why technology journalism matters

Tom Standage, The Economist

January 17th 2009

Introduction

Tom Standage: Business Editor

and Technology Quarterly Editor,
The Economist
Introduction

About The Economist

Global news weekly

Circulation: 1.4m
56% of readers in North America
31% in Europe; 10% in Asia
2% in Middle East & Africa
Introduction

Why I am a technology journalist

“The future is already here… it’s

just unevenly distributed.”
-- William Gibson

And I get to talk to the world’s

cleverest people
Introduction

1. The past: How tech journalism

has changed

2. The present: How we do it

at The Economist

3. The future: Where tech

journalism is going
1. The past: How tech
journalism has changed
1. How tech journalism has changed

Two big stories in the past 15

years have made tech journalism
more important than ever:

• The rise of the internet

• The spread of mobile phones
1. How tech journalism has changed

The internet has affected almost

every aspect of human life:
business, politics, social life

(It has changed journalism, too)

The internet makes computers

useful to almost everyone
1. How tech journalism has changed

The internet’s rise created strong

demand for people to explain it

Economist readers consistently

asked for more coverage of its
impact on business

My route into journalism in 1994!

1. How tech journalism has changed

Tech journalists went from

writing about gadgets…

…to being expected to comment

on privacy, censorship, telecoms
regulation, competition policy,
intellectual property, etc
1. How tech journalism has changed

Many early debates have been

resolved, and real-world laws and
rules have largely been imposed
on the internet

Journalists helped to frame the

debate and influence the outcome,
if only by explaining things
1. How tech journalism has changed

Nobody still thinks the internet

can be “turned off”

It is understood that carriers and

ISPs are not responsible for their
users’ actions
1. How tech journalism has changed

Unresolved internet debates:

•Net neutrality
•Behavioural targeting
•Terrorists/Google Earth

We still have work to do

1. How tech journalism has changed

The spread of mobile phones

has affected more people than
the rise of the internet

The internet supplemented other

forms of communication for most
users; mobile phones often
provide access for the first time
1. How tech journalism has changed
1. How tech journalism has changed

Mobile phones have direct

impact on economic activity:
•Substitute for poor infrastructure
(shop in Afghanistan)
•Price discovery, market access
(fishermen in Kerala)
•New uses: mobile banking
(M-PESA in Kenya)
1. How tech journalism has changed

An extra 10 mobile phones per

100 people in a typical
developing country leads to an
extra 0.6 percentage points in
GDP growth. (Waverman,
London Business School, 2005)
1. How tech journalism has changed

All governments claim to be

pro-growth and pro-connectivity

But not all of them have the right

policies in place to promote the
spread of mobile phones
1. How tech journalism has changed

Private firms will build networks if

they are given the chance
$230 billion invested in telecoms
infrastructure in the developing
world,1993 - 2003 (World Bank)
Not big Western firms: local
champions such as Orascom,
Investcom, MTN, etc
1. How tech journalism has changed

Deregulation is key

Ethiopia: 1.4% (one operator)

DRC: 10.5% (four operators)
But comparable GDP per capita

Somalia 7% (no government!)

1. How tech journalism has changed

Governments also impose

“luxury taxes” on handsets,
hindering adoption

But done right, mobile telecoms

can be a big contributor of taxes
(14% in Afghanistan)
1. How tech journalism has changed

Unlike with the internet, there is

not a thirst to have this explained.
But it is important

Technology overlaps with

economics, regulation and
development. Reporting it
accurately is more vital than ever
2. The present: How we do it
at The Economist
2. How we do it

Scientists and technologists

like our coverage because:
•We get it right, mostly
•We explain what they do to
their families and friends
•We keep them up to date with
developments in other fields
2. How we do it

We try to be three things

in our coverage (not just in our
tech coverage):

•Broad
•Deep
•A filter
2. How we do it > Broad

We strive to place stories in

broader context using:
•Overview of the field
•Cross-industry comparisons
•International comparisons
•Historical comparisons
Avoid hype. Be realistic
2. How we do it > Broad

Overview of the field

•What other companies are
doing this? Look at whole field.
•How long has the idea been
around? What is new?
•What are its prospects, really?
(Eg: portable fuel cells,
biometrics, videoconferencing)
2. How we do it > Broad

Cross-industry comparisons
•Can help to identify trends or
potential pitfalls
(Eg: Dotcoms and clean-tech;
airlines and telecoms; cars and
phones; social networks and
early ISPs)
2. How we do it > Broad

International comparisons
•What happened in other
countries? Policies? Social
factors?
•“Evidence from X suggests…”
(Eg: telecoms deregulation,
broadband in South Korea,
3G in Japan)
2. How we do it > Broad

Historical comparisons
•Analogies can help to
explain or predict
(Eg: telegraph and internet:
World peace? Hype? Hackers?)
2. How we do it > Deep

Deeper coverage: more

technical detail, not hand-waving

Our readers have an appetite for

an extra level of detail

Detail can be added without

using more complex language
2. How we do it > Deep

The problem with this design was that

during recharging, the metallic lithium
reformed unevenly at the negative
electrode, creating spiky structures called
“dendrites” that are unstable and
reactive, and can pierce the separator
and cause an explosion. So today's
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries do not
contain lithium in metallic form. Instead
they use materials with lattice structures
for both positive and negative electrodes.
As the battery discharges, the lithium
ions swim from the negative-electrode
lattice to the positive one; during
recharging, they swim back again. This
to-and-fro approach is called a “rocking
chair” design.
2. How we do it > Deep

Analogies can help

The trick is to simplify in a way

that helps novices yet does not
offend experts in the field

We often ask experts for help

when choosing an analogy
2. How we do it > Deep

Roberto Padovani, Qualcomm’s chief technology

officer, explains the difference between these
approaches by analogy with a dinner-party
conversation. FDMA is akin to a party at which
everybody talks simultaneously, but each pair of
speakers converses at a different musical pitch,
from booming bass to piping treble. A rota system
in which party-goers took turns to speak would be
like TDMA. And everybody talking at once, only in
different languages (so that other conversations
are rendered incomprehensible), would be
equivalent to the spread-spectrum approach, by
now dubbed CDMA.
2. How we do it > Deep

We “boffinise” technical stories to

check that they are accurate

Virtuous circle: more accuracy

means better access

And we can always ignore

boffins’ comments if we choose
2. How we do it > Filter

One of the most important things

we do is ignore stories, and act
as a filter

Be sceptical, but not cynical

Miracle-cure stories look good,

but undermine credibility
2. How we do it > Filter

PR firms are very active in IT in

particular; more filtering needed

Is their client the best example,

or just the most accessible?

Good PRs will admit that their

clients’ rivals exist
2. How we do it > Filter

We only run six tech stories a

week, plus TQ every quarter

“Vital, not urgent”

When we ask readers if they

want TQ to be longer, they say
no. They rely on us to filter
3. The future: Where tech
journalism is going
3. Where tech journalism is going

In the 1840s
The Economist
incorporated the
Railway Monitor

Nothing lasts forever!

3. Where tech journalism is going

In 2006 readers started to ask for

more coverage of alternative
energy -- not the internet

This is clearly the next big thing

Climate change is a tech story

-- the biggest in history
3. Where tech journalism is going

One point of view: peak in 2013

(“The next bubble: Priming the markets for

tomorrow's big crash”. By Eric Janszen. Harper’s
Magazine, February 2008)
3. Where tech journalism is going

Computing/telecoms is no longer
the only definition of “the tech
industry”

So start learning about batteries,

fuel cells, solar panels, ethanol,
wind, wave, nuclear, etc
3. Where tech journalism is going

History (dotcom bubble)

suggests broad adoption will
occur after bubble bursts

The fight against climate change

will involve lots of technology
that will need to be explained.
No silver bullet; a portfolio
3. Where tech journalism is going

Debates raging around:

•Cap and trade v carbon tax
•Biofuels v food
•Clean-tech subsidies
•GM crops
•Geoengineering
Plenty of explaining to do
3. Where tech journalism is going

Biotechnology will probably be

part of the solution:
•GM crops
•Fuel from artificial life-forms

And biotechnology is heating up

anyway. So learn about that, too
3. Where tech journalism is going

The good news for tech

journalists who know about
computers:

Alternative energy and biotech

depend on a foundation of IT
(smart grids, DNA analysis)
-- so you have a head start
3. Where tech journalism is going

I am an optimist

If we do our jobs right, we can

help to fix the problem

I am looking forward to the future

-- see you there!
Why technology journalism matters

Tom Standage, The Economist

January 17th 2009