MG I have a ton of respect for you and mostly agree with Gruber's piece. But to say that most tech news is negative seems false. A huge subset of the tech press cranks out puff pieces everyday, while there's a much smaller subset that tries to push back—ValleyWag is a blunt example and Jenna Wortham and Nick Bilton's work at the Times is a more thoughtful example. I don't think either extreme is right; conversely, those in the middle are exactly what we need *because* tech is so important today.
I think your last point is a good one: the coverage should be somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, that type of coverage usually doesn’t sell, so to speak. The extremes do. I wish it weren’t that way, but it is. And that’s why we see the types of stories that we see.
I guess the larger point that I didn’t get across clearly enough is that a lot of these people writing about technology today almost seem to hate it — or at least they’re extremely skeptical of it by default. Or worse, they have no context for how the current technological changes fit into the bigger picture — Om Malik’s piece (which I also linked to yesterday) captured this well, I thought.
Ideally, someone covering the tech industry should come from a place of both excitement and understanding. That doesn’t mean every piece should be a puff piece, of course. In fact, I’d argue that many of the puff pieces also arise because the author doesn’t really understand the context of what they’re writing about.
Back to the main point: too many of the posts I see these days read as if the author simply set out to write something negative. Which is very strange.