LMAO! "Kool-Aid with vodka." Sounds like a rap song title.

Alefor, I remember a story from about six weeks ago that was so riddled with errors that it inspired several pages of anti-Apple and anti-NYT comments. I'll try to find it.

But the bigger picture that I find so troubling with the way the mainstream media, The New York Times, in particular, covers Apple is the sheer breadth of coverage (check the NYT tech section daily and you're sure to find at least two or three stories devoted to the iphone or ipad (It's two products, people; do you really need to have two new stories about them in your tech section every day?). Several other stories will mention how this or that is a result of the ipad/iphone. Yet other stories will mention tech products and evaluate them based solely on how they compare to the iphone/ipad, whether that comparison makes sense or not. Then of course, there's the fact they don't actually cover the tech field so much as they cover everything inside the Apple bubble, often ignoring everything else--unless they can compare it unfavorably to the ipad/iphone.

Just imagine if those kinds of media resources were devoted to some other single product, say Kool-Aid, at the expense of coverage of Perrier, Tropicana, Coke, Pepsi?

It's sloppy journalism, and it's sickening.

Addendum: Here's a "fun" exercise: Go to www.nytimes.com and type "iphone" in the search box. You'll get results that show at least two or three stories per day--just in the tech section--that mention the iphone. The results aren't necessarily in chronological order, so if you sift through a bit, you may likely get even larger per-day numbers. Granted the iphone is quite an innovation, but it's not "magic." A nice thesis project for a journalism/sociology student would be to research whether mainstream media covered other recent innovations with similar coverage.