In the continuing journalistic saga of "camera phones are the devil," one more journalist -- a Denver Post columnist -- has written an article about all the horrible things that camera phones can do.
Al Lewis writes, "When camera phones hit the U.S. market in late 2001, I figured they were a useless gimmick -- like TV huckster Ron Popeil's 'Inside-the-Shell Egg Scrambler.'" But now Lewis has decided that camera phones aren't useless. They are great for criminals.
The headline reads, "Camera phones dial up fraud, theft, smut." Lewis writes, "Camera phones can help you commit credit card fraud, shoplift, extort, steal trade secrets, cheat on tests and disseminate smut."
Is he really so simple?
This morning I sent an e-mail to Lewis, saying I could write the same headline about the Internet. But we don't abandon the Internet because it's too much fun and too valuable. We admit to the problems and deal with them, but we don't destroy the underlying product/network.
Being a columnist can be lots of fun. I have written many wireless data columns for magazines. As a columnist you're paid for your opinions (supposedly intelligent) -- not necessarily for being objective. Reporters are supposed to be objective.
If Lewis truly believes camera phones are primarily tools of the Dark Side -- providing more problems than value -- he's an uniformed dope (or am I being redundant?). But if he understands that camera phones are mostly a tool of The Force -- and just wanted to write a thought-providing (albeit one-sided) column to generate controversy -- then you have to take another approach.
Public perception
The problem is people read his column, and just see the horrors of camera phones. They don't read about the value. It's one more article condemning camera phones, and it -- once again -- highlights my continual rants about the incredible incompetence of the cellular industry in marketing the value of wireless imaging.
If Lewis really cares about objectivity, perhaps a second column is in order.
Comments