Clueless in Manhatten

Laura Rich of the the New York Times interviews Autodesk ceo Carol Bartz (registration required). I've reproduced part of the introduction below. How many errors of fact can you find?

WHILE other software companies boomed in the late 1990's, Autodesk, which makes design software for architects and engineers, fared poorly. Its executives sat on their hands, waiting for new customers -- "pencil based users" in the company lexicon -- to become more widely computer literate.

But all that has changed now, as most architects and engineers use computer-based drafting tool like Autodesk's AutoCAD software. This helped Autodesk to become the No. 1 performer on the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index last year with a 316 percent jump in its stock price. It recently moved into 3-D rendering and modeling software, which also allows users to collaborate on projects and synchs with corporate infrastructure so that information from the design phase for products and services can be integrated into a company's larger supply-chain process.

The problem is that the relationship between journalists and readers has changed. A hundred years ago, reporters and editors knew more than Mr and Mrs Average Joe. Even 50-40-30 years ago, newscast anchors could be confident they were imparting new news to massive audiences of radio listeners and tv watchers.

For the last decade, journalists have fallen behind in today's specialized world. Many consumers of media have college degrees. The Internet provides multiple points of view -- and greater detail than any 30-minute news broadcast. Biases (previously called "propaganda") are have become noticable and irritating. The world itself has specialized in areas of technology, medicine, warfare, and even ethics.

In short, for any given news item, a signigicant segment of the population knows more about the topic than do the journalists. Ever wince when a tv reporter reports on computer viruses?

News organizations, such as the 'New York Times,' are now in the difficult situtation where their news is no longer new. Whose editors and writers are ignorant of CAD and other topics, through no fault of their own. (Religion is another huh?-topic that springs to mind.) It's a different world; the relationship has changed.

The solution is to hire specialist reporters. When we were looking for another editor at 'CADalyst' magazine in the mid-1980s, it quickly became clear we needed a CAD user who could write, and not a polished writer who needed to learn CAD. As I said at the time, "It's easier to teach a CADer to write, than a writer to CAD."

(Thanks to Randall Newton of AECnews.com for uncovering this interview at NYT.)

Comments

[rdtaggart]

Randall, this is a great find. I think it is abysmal that a news resource as well renowned at NYT cannot be bothered to find an editor that understands CAD (and there are enough of you out there!).
Worse, the one they used evidently did little or no research into terminology. It looks like they used 'close enough' terms that they recalled as opposed to what Carol Bartz probably said.

Now editors often don't like PR people, but Adesk's PR agency could probably have saved NYT from a few embarassingly funny errors in this one.

My estimation of NYT just took another step downwards.

[Randall Newton]

Is somebody keeping a list of all these Carol Bartz bios? There's another one today in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/23/autodesk-goodlife-ceo-cz_vm_0823good_ls.html

That's at least a half dozen this year.

[ralphg]

It could be part of her move to another position. After ten years at Autodesk, she stated she would not be around for antoher ten. It's nearly half-way inbetween now.

Carl Bass has been positioned to take over as CEO, and I suspect the Carol Bartz stories (getting tired of the "fluffy pink slippers" story appearing everywhere) are being planted to boost her image for the coming accession.

She has done a remarkable job with Autodesk, but is little known in the general business world.