I don't think Gruber makes any pretense of acting as an objective journalist at all, he's just a guy that writes about things that interest him. It's true that the things he chooses to write about frequently fall into the "Apple gets this right, everyone else is on crack" category, but (usually) he's got a valid observation to make. If there's any pro-Apple bias, it's in the specific topics that he chooses to write about (things that make Apple look good) as opposed to bias in the content itself.
There's a difference between being selective when you choose what to write about and actually being biased in how you present a topic once you've committed to write about it. I think he's guilty of the former but (usually not) the latter.
The fact that he spends so much time countering what he sees as invalid criticisms of Apple by market analysts ends up making a huge difference in the mix of topics he covers. I totally think DF would be a lot more interesting if he actually tried to cover a much wider swath of topics and perspectives though. There are weeks on end that are nothing but "claim chowder" articles and harrumphing about dumb analysis by other people, which can be justified sometimes but it seems like he could be doing so much more.
I dont find the pretense of acting as an object journalist particularly relevant. Actions speak louder than words. (my point being that MG is less of a journalist than people think, thus making him a fan-blogger like Gruber which is the comparison that this thread originally was about)
There is a fine line between blogger and journalist nowadays. In fact its closer to overlapping circles than a hard line. So while you made a good case that DF is more of a blog than a journalism site, I dont think its 100%.
If you were to ask me if MG is a blogger or journalist, I would scratch my head and probably answer that he is a blogger who works (worked?) for an opinion-dominated news site.
Its hard to separate bloggers from journalists. I dont think Gruber is to blame for that. MG and techcrunch have no qualms about it though.
It could be that their bias is a legitimate bias. Or, it could be that it isn't. Rather than attacking someone for a bias, wouldn't it better to prove it by writing about it ... just like they do?
There's a difference between being selective when you choose what to write about and actually being biased in how you present a topic once you've committed to write about it. I think he's guilty of the former but (usually not) the latter.
The fact that he spends so much time countering what he sees as invalid criticisms of Apple by market analysts ends up making a huge difference in the mix of topics he covers. I totally think DF would be a lot more interesting if he actually tried to cover a much wider swath of topics and perspectives though. There are weeks on end that are nothing but "claim chowder" articles and harrumphing about dumb analysis by other people, which can be justified sometimes but it seems like he could be doing so much more.