Is Gizmodo more about sensationalism than quality reporting?

Gizmodo really irks me. I have been reading Matt Buchanan‘s coverage of the Nokia N97 and while I agree with some of the comparative criticisms when looking at the iPhone 3Gs and the N97, his posts are completely over the top and sensationalist. Here is an example from his initial review post about the N97 titled “Nokia N97 Review: Nokia Is Doomed“:

I don’t even know where to start the hate parade I want to unleash on S60 5th edition. Nokia’s managed to make RIM’s BlackBerry Storm OS retrofit look like a work of art. And when legacy (sorry, mature) software runs into a crappy half-assed UI, it’s a steaming pile of suck on a slab of garbage toast. All I could think about was how badly I wanted to shove Android onto it. Since I have nothing nice to say, let’s keep this part short.

This sort of writing may appeal to Gizmodo readers but it certainly doesn’t appeal to me at all. Gizmodo is supposed to be one of the authoritative tech blogs on the Web and it seems to need to resort to this sort of junk writing to get attention.

Now, this criticism isn’t based on my disagreement with the criticisms of the N97 when comparing it to other modern smartphones like the iPhone 3Gs. I don’t disagree with many of the concerns raised but I have far more respect for blogs like MobileCrunch and podcasts like the gdgt podcast for the way they discussed the N97’s limitations (here and here, respectively).

Anyway, I did my social media thing this morning and posted a comment to one of Buchanan’s latest posts which I took a screenshot of in case it isn’t published for some reason:

Picture 2.png

I wasn’t much of a Gizmodo fan before but I don’t have nearly enough respect for the blog now to consider it a worthwhile source of news, for whatever my opinion is worth.

%d bloggers like this: