Tech executives and the seasoned reporters who cover them have a well-documented animosity toward one another. For many in the tech world, journalists writing for outlets like The New York Times are seen as predisposed to loud, negative takes and to spotlight issues with technology that professionals deem minor. And there is some truth to that: mainstream coverage of social media can veer toward pessimism and doomsaying.

On the other side of the coin, people in tech circles can be combative about comms, sometimes to the point of appearing unusually distant when talking to journalists—and they frequently expect coverage to be relentlessly sunny. They want pieces that celebrate their products and can grow irritated if the tone dips into nuance.

So there is merit to both critiques. Yet a recent piece in Wired genuinely moved me to the tech-side of the argument.

The article isn’t the worst example of its genre, but it adopts a notably negative stance toward Pangram, an AI-detection tool, and its creator Max Spero. The reporter, Lexi Pandell, unloads a string of superfluous anecdotes about Spero’s conduct during a remote interview. She is put off by his choice to microwave lunch while speaking and by his habit of taking a moment to think before answering. The piece closes with the following impression:

As our conversation ends, it seems Spero isn’t fully engaged. He appears wary, even reserved. He drifts around his apartment during the call, moving from his desk to a window crowded with greenery, then to another corner of the kitchen. At several moments, his face leaves the camera frame. He adjusts his headphones, only to remove them again. And at one point, while discussing model training, he belches softly.

The problem is that these details feel somewhat mean-spirited, especially since Pandell doesn’t find much fault with the product itself. Pangram has been at the center of several disputes in literary circles and has even been used to expose AI-generated material that cost authors contracts and drew stern criticism. No matter how stressful it may be for writers to feel policed in this way, Pangram appears to be accurate and genuinely useful. Spero stresses that his software isn’t perfect, but argues that combining Pangram with one’s own judgment usually yields the correct outcome. The article does not offer a refutation of this claim.

There are legitimate reasons for publishers, academics, and others to employ AI-detection tools to catch misconduct. By most measures, Pangram performs quite well. Given that, the overall tone of the article reads as extremely harsh, and it sparked a wave of backlash across social networks.

Some interesting reporting here on Pangram and I don’t think the reporter deserves to be piled on. That said, I kept waiting for actual concrete evidence of Pangram getting stuff wrong and it just… never really got there? https://t.co/b8rIXTGNJj

— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) September 3, 2026

idk, the tone is so needlessly hostile and the claims are so under-analyzed that it does amount to a pretty bad piece.

and it’s well known among users that pangram false negatives are quite common (esp if you heavily tinker with the LLM output) and false positives are quite…

— Nat Purser (@NatPurser) September 3, 2026

Spero himself groused about being portrayed as “the most awkward person alive” for taking 15 seconds to consider his reply. Yet he maintains a good-spirited stance and urged detractors not to attack the reporter:

Hi guys. Please don’t dogpile any journalists over the recent Pangram piece. It’s all in good fun on Twitter but in reality I’m not upset and everything written about in the piece actually happened https://t.co/pG82TLtNCO

— Max Spero (@max_spero_) September 3, 2026

That’s a healthy attitude, so credit to him. In the meantime, while occasional grumbling from tech bosses about unfair media coverage is not uncommon, it might be wise for some tech journalists to dial back their contempt just a notch.

This Week on Free Media

I’m joined by Amber Duke to discuss President Donald Trump’s remarks about data centers and the broader status of the Iran conflict.

Worth Watching

Next week, I’ll be debating the popular YouTube streamer Destiny about whether COVID-19 originated in a lab leak or emerged from an animal spillover. Tune in!