Golden Apple

Even before Steve Jobs unveiled the much-hyped gadget that media types hope delivers a major boost in business, coverage of Apple was decidedly rosy.

Every Jobs press conference is treated like the State of the Union. (The iPad rollout fittingly coincided with President Obama's big speech this year). Tech reporters describe the company's sleek products as if they are Hollywood beauties. Apple's products are used as shorthand by writers looking to describe broad categories of mobile devices -- the iPhone is a substitute for saying "smartphones"; the iPod replaces the need to write the clunky phrase "digital music players."

There's plenty of reason to heap praise upon Apple. Its products have revolutionized the computing and music and cell phone industries. But the launch of the new iPad should raise questions about how often journalists reference the tablet and how glowingly they describe it to their readers.

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, there's cautious optimism that the iPad provides a chance for news organizations to monetize some of their online content. One idea is that they could create apps that could be sold through an Apple e-store. It's a potential win-win for Apple and the news business.

Which is why all types of media companies run the risk of seeming like they're so in bed with Jobs and Co. that they give the device all sorts of good press. This first round of coverage is certainly warented -- consumers initially want to hear about the cost and the product's capabilities.

But because of the possibilities for conflicts of interest, editors should think about under what circumstances the iPad is getting ink. Is it a story about sales figures or new versions of the device? Or is it a self-serving piece about the ability of the tablet to display glossy magazine layouts?

If it's the latter, the question should be this: Does the news value outweight the perception that the iPad is getting special treatment because of its importance to publications?