NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- I understand what hacks such as myself are up against. It's impossible to talk to every founder or executive you write about. Quite a few refuse to talk. Many who do say very little. And, even if it management makes itself accessible, it's just not possible to interface with everybody.That said, there's no excuse for the horrible reporting and opinion-making most of the media churns out vis-a-via Pandora ( P). Consider what Jim Edwards wrote over the weekend at Business Insider:
There are two ways to think about Pandora.
The first is the way most people are familiar with (and the way founder Tim Westergren wants you to think about it): That it's an enormously popular music streaming service with millions of users and a huge mobile ad business.Thanks to Twitter follower -- @Murphy_Danny -- for tipping me off to Edwards' piece. In the first part, we get an unfortunate surface scratch: There are two ways to think about Pandora. Yep. Water everything down to simple dichotomy. It's more complicated than that. A five-minute conversation with Pandora's receptionist might reveal as much. How does Edwards know "the way" Westergren wants you to think about the company he founded? And how does he know there isn't more than one way? He doesn't. Yet that hasn't stopped him from writing thin articles on Pandora for as long as I have been reading. He conceded on Twitter that, when it comes down to it, he put words in Westergren's mouth.