UPDATE: PC World Editor Quits Over Apple Story -- PC World Responds and a Worker Responds to Their Response

Before I posted the announcement yesterday about editor Harry McCracken's resignation from PC World magazine, I contacted the magazine for comment but the spokeswoman never got back to me. Today I called again and was able to reach a spokesman for IDG (the magazine's parent company) who told me that PC World and Macworld CEO Colin Crawford (pictured at right) will be posting his own response to the controversy on his personal blog in about an hour.

IDG spokesman Howard Sholkin also emphasized that McCracken resigned because of a disagreement over one article and not because Crawford had asked editors to tone down their criticism of the magazine's advertisers. [NOTE: There seems to be a contradiction between what the spokesman told me and what the CEO is saying. See the UPDATE at the end of this post.]

"The reason is that Colin and Harry had a disagreement on one opinion piece related to Apple and they could not come to a settlement as to how the differences should be resolved so Harry felt that necessitated him resigning," Sholkin said. "He was not asked to resign, he volunteered to resign."

Sholkin said the draft article in question "Ten Things We Hate About
Apple" was an opinion piece rather than a news story or a review. He didn't know the name of the writer who had been assigned the piece but said Harry had not written the draft that launched the controversy.

Some may find it hard to believe that McCracken would throw away 16
years with a company over one story -- and an opinion piece at that.
But Sholkin says there were no other issues involved.

"I don’t know what transpired between them as they negotiated through this disagreement," he says. "As to what would motivate Harry to resign for one incident I can't say. You'd have to ask him."

McCracken (at right) has declined to discuss the details.

As for the charges from PC World workers that Crawford wants reviewers to tone down their criticisim of advertisers' products Sholkin said:

"That is not the case now nor will it be the case in the future neither at PC World
nor any other IDG outlet. The 40-plus years of the company have been built around writing about products good and bad. Positive praise and negative comments."

Looking over past entries on Crawford's blog, he reveals some of his thoughts about his new gig as CEO at PC World and Macworld and the changes he wants to make at the publications -- as well as a comment that Steve Jobs made to him.

Just how powerful is Google and how will it evolve is an interesting debate but rather that worry about the future "artificial intelligence Googlezon", publishers need to focus on the here and now and build their brands around their local and vertical communities.
It’s all about your audiences, not all about you. Having just taken over PC World and Macworld, I know we still have a lot to do in this regard. The attitude, (despite obvious indications to the contrary that the audience needs to be front and center) is still one of pushing out content rather than pulling it in. This approach is a by-product of our print legacy and it's out of date.

I intend to work hard to change this approach at IDG and particularly at PC World and Macworld. In one memorable interaction with Steve Jobs he very calmly told me that is was not I was wrong, it was just that I needed an "attitude adjustment".

And here he writes about the tough hurdles publications face with regard to advertising revenue and industry changes:

Print advertising has been declining for years and will likely continue to decline. However, despite the downturn in print advertising, IDG is coming off of one of the best years in its history. Why? Because we are executing well on a strategy that we have been talking about publicly and openly now for some time:
We are managing print for profit as we push aggressively into non-print businesses such as online and events including our mobile test with mDog

The sheer size of our non-print businesses is testament to the strengths of our brands and our online strategy.

I’m the first to admit we are on a long journey and there is still much to be done to realize this vision. It’s not easy for organizations to fundamentally change from their legacy roots. Paul Conley documents some of the internal training and issues with which we are dealing.

While it's hard sometimes to face reality and to deal with massive change, the mark of true leadership is to provide the strategy and vision for growth; to take our organization through these turbulent market shifts with compassion and understanding for those directly impacted.

UPDATE REDUX: After I posted this update I got wind that CEO Colin
Crawford was in the midst of a staff meeting that he convened to address the controversy over McCracken's sudden exit. Per a staff member I spoke with after the meeting ended, the first words out of
Crawford's mouth at the start of the meeting were that McCracken didn't resign over just one story (contrary to the spokesman's assertion), though he didn't elaborate on what else might have caused the sudden resignation.

According to the source, Crawford told staff members that
McCracken refused to compromise, which the staff member found hard to believe.

"Knowing Harry, there's no way he wouldn’t be willing to listen," the source said. "This is really an issue of who's going to call the shots.
The only realization this leads to is that (Crawford) wanted this outcome and it just happened sooner rather than later. Because if he really valued Harry, he would have found a way to keep him and not lose him -- especially over one small story.

"What it really comes down to," the source added, "is that Harry wanted autonomy over the editorial content, and Colin is usurping that. Harry always served as a buffer between the business side and the rest of the editors and that's gone now."

With regard to whether or not Crawford addressed the issue of asking editors to tone down their negative reviews of vendors, the source said, "He denided that he would ever ask editors to tone down the coverage, but at the same time he said he wants the marketing people to have input on our processes."

The meeting, which lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes, was ultimately cut short as staff members continued to pepper Crawford with questions. The last question a staff member asked was, will this happen again? Will the next editor-in-chief have last-call on what goes in the magazine or will Crawford, essentially, always be asserting his rank over editors?

"And the answer was no, I'm going to have last call," the source said
Crawford told them. "The response, essentially, was that the same damn thing would happen again (if someone clashed with him)."

'Nuff said on this issue -- unless Crawford or McCracken elaborate on what really happened to cause this rift. The proof will be in how, or if, the magazine changes its coverage over the next year.

UPDATE: To read new details about the incident from another PC World insider who posted a comment to my original write-up, go here.