

Gizmodo Banned from WWDC - there
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364707,00.asp

======
techiferous
"featuring the blogger walking through the CES floor using a TV-B-Gone kind of
device to shut off television displays throughout the convention."

Wow, that's low. Really low. Gizmodo definitely shows its true colors: make
money/traffic at any cost, even if it means sabotaging the hard work of
others. (They were cutting off TVs during people's _presentations_.)

~~~
wallflower
I met the Tv-b-gone inventor, Mitch, and he said he sold $20,000 more product
as a direct result of that incident. He said he did't like what they did with
the Tv-b-gone at CES.

~~~
andreyf
Tech is not a zero-sum-game. Creating wealth while destroying other's hard
work is not very nice, especially in tech industry, where opportunities at
simply creating without destroying are so readily available.

------
jacobian
Gizmodo doesn't get to have it both ways. If they want the perqs afforded to
journalists - things like press passes - they need to follow the established
ethics of that profession. If they want to be outsiders and invent their own
ethics, they need to be willing to forgo the perqs.

~~~
gojomo
The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you
access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate in a domain where they have control --
their own conferences. But it's not like Apple is defending the honor of all
'journalists' with this move.

~~~
jacobian
Wow, you could teach a class on rhetorical fallacies from your comment alone.
Let's try to unpack it here.

First, you've tried to claim access journalism as part of accepted
journalistic ethics. In fact, access journalism is _not_ part of any accepted
journalistic ethic, and is in fact the subject of great consternation among
journalists themselves.

Second, you've implied that I'm somehow proud of the practice of access
journalism. Once again, the fact is that I, like you, find the practice
repugnant.

Third, you've tried to use this supposed anti-ethic to thus dismiss the entire
ethical foundation of journalism via some sort of guilt by association. Of
course, even if some aspect of journalistic ethics were to be found suspect,
that still wouldn't negate the rest of the practice. In fact, like all ethical
pursuits, the whole is greater than the parts: journalists, like lawyers and
doctors, bind themselves to ethical practice. There are always those willing
to violate those ethics, but an access journalist no more discredits his
entire profession than a negligent doctor.

Fourth, you've made a false appeal to common ground ("It's fine if Apple wants
to retaliate") which mischaracterizes my argument -- you'll note I didn't once
mention "Apple" in my comment -- and sets up a false equivalency where Apple's
behavior somehow excuses Gizmodo's. In fact, I think Apple's actions _are_
clearly retaliatory, but that wasn't the argument I made, and is still
unrelated to Gizmodo's unethical behavior.

Fifth, you've argued against the claim that Apple "is defending the honor of
all journalists." That's indeed a specious claim, and one worth arguing
against. Except that I didn't make it. In fact, you've again mischaracterized
my argument which, for the record, was simply that Gizmodo needs to choose
which side of the fence they sit on.

Finally, you've enclosed the word "journalists" in air quotes as a sort of
argument-by-ridicule: you've tried to assert stylistically that journalism is
something to scoff at, and thus that anyone -- like me -- who defends
journalism is similarly subject to ridicule. In fact, journalism is generally
accepted as being a requirement for democracy -- see, for example, the Bill of
Rights.

~~~
gojomo
Your grandparent comment defended Apple's decision, on the grounds that
Gizmodo has abandoned conventional journalistic ethics, and has thus received
their just deserts.

I suggest that's still arguable; Gizmodo may have just been very aggressive
(and ethical) getting a story about a powerful agent -- Apple -- that
otherwise manipulates the press _very_ effectively. Time will tell.

If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and
advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story. Your comment
seemed to endorse that sort of competition for Apple's favor -- bad press, no
press "perqs"!

If that wasn't your intent, you might have chosen your wording more carefully.
Note that I wasn't the only respondent who saw your comment as a defense of
access-for-favors journalism.

I'm queasy that Gizmodo _may_ have rewarded theft with its actions -- but I'm
also glad that _some_ outlets don't play Apple's game. I'm similarly glad that
_some_ outlets don't play the federal government's access-for-warm-coverage
game. _Most outlets do play that game_ , sadly, and that's why I mocked it as
an 'ethic' of traditional journalism.

~~~
younata
> If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and
> advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story.

The full story, in this case, is CLEARLY a new iphone being announced. That
kind of story can only work to Apple's (or, for that matter, any other
company's) detriment, because it decrease sales of the current generation of
products as people decide to wait for the next-gen one that'll be released in
a month or two.

as for the "I'm ... glad that some outlets don't play the ... game" comment,
it's like you're told since childhood, "if you're not willing to play by the
rules, then you won't get to play at all."

and as for the "may" part, gizmodo has admitted, and they are proud of it,
that they paid $10,000 for it.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmod...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmodo-
paid-iphone-4g)

~~~
gojomo
Gizmodo proudly paid $10,000 for _something_. Whether what they did was
unethical or illegal depends on whether the prototype was stolen, whether
Gizmodo knew it was stolen, and whether Gizmodo was paying to possess the
property, or just to view it and shepherd it back to its rightful owner.

Yes, some of those interpretations may be strained but we often want the press
to stretch the rules to get secrets out.

~~~
_pius
_... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out._

These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the
actual flow rate of the Deepwater Horizon oil gusher; they were trying to get
exclusive pictures of an iPhone for their gadget blog.

~~~
gojomo
Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's
beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets
reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law
allows for scoops is to be expected.

Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both
ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was
returned to its owner fairly quickly.

Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored
about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may
have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is
debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements,
but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship
product.

So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your
observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent
damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.

~~~
_pius
You make fair points, though I think the central one is flawed:

 _No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and
Apple._

Exposing a trade secret the way Gizmodo did probably did hard-to-calculate
damage to iPhone sales for the past several months. After all, there is a
reason they stovepipe these announcements. I think it'd be hard to argue that
this is a net win for Apple.

~~~
gojomo
But: the 'secrets' about this model were pretty much as expected. Improved
iPhone models are released like clockwork each summer. And the meme "your
Apple product will be replaced by a better one in 6 months" is so strong it's
a recurring joke on talk shows and late-night TV. So I think your 'hard-to-
quantify' on buyers is in fact 'negligible' -- or failing that, 'outweighed by
knocking news of all competitors off the front-pages for a couple weeks'.

------
andreyf
Dear Jason Chen,

I was just hanging out at this bar in San Francisco and found these WWDC press
passes someone left behind...

Cheers, Andrey

~~~
verisimilitude
Let's give Cabel Sasser of Panic Software credit for that joke:
<http://twitter.com/cabel/status/15436511209>

------
pope52
"Banned" is a strong word. "Not invited" might be more appropriate.

~~~
kgermino
Why do you have an issue with saying banned? It's not like they were
forgotton, or passed over due to space constraints, they were specifically not
allowed to attend even after thy requested a pass because of the iPhone leak.

That sounds like banned to me.

~~~
cwp
Except it's not true that they were "specifically not allowed to attend." In
fact, they were specifically not given the special privileges offered to other
journalists.

~~~
kgermino
Good Point. My mistake.

------
joezydeco
Great tweet I found from Cabel Sasser (via @davehayden)

 _"Gizmodo not invited to the WWDC keynote, and wants liveblogging help? What,
they can't just "find" a WWDC badge in a bar?"_

------
pohl
This article reads way too much into the Jobs quote from D8. He could have
been using the word "stolen" according to the oft-mentioned California law
about the responsibilities of the finder of lost property.

------
jamesbressi
I don't know if I would call a "master" a 3rd party in the legal system. They
are part of the court and used--for the most part--to either mediate in hopes
a case doesn't have to go to the judge or examine something that would take up
too more of the court and judges time.

If you be been through a custody/support case, you probably know "masters" all
too well.

I'm sure PC Mag meant a third party within the judicial system, but some may
be scratching their heads as to why thar happened.

Disclaimer: I may not be 100% accurate as I a, not a lawyer and only going on
what I know or experienced firt-hand

~~~
halostatue
CNET has a decent article on this. The special master is an unpaid agent of
the court (usually a retired judge or law professor) who are not related to
the case at hand. In this case, the special master will examine Chen's
possessions for evidence related to the stolen iPhone and forward only that
information to the presiding judge. Chen gets an opportunity to object to the
gathered materials. Only whe that is done will the judge decide what the DA
gets to have for his or her case.

(paraphrased from <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20006876-37.html>)

------
ryanbigg
I would like to be one of the many to go:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You deserve it. Fools.

------
krav
I laughed out loud when I saw the headline - duh, what'd Gizmodo expect?

------
_pius
I am so surprised.

------
BonoboBoner
I guess this is why Apple PR has been'cold lately'

------
jonursenbach
Thankfully Apple didn't decide to go for the nuclear option and ban all gadget
blogs, so we'll still be there live tomorrow.

<http://live.gdgt.com>

------
slowpoison
Steve Jobs may be acting like a 5-year old here, but the thing I like about
him is at least he's direct. It's the two-faced liars that I really despise.

~~~
bonzoesc
He actually might be following advice from company lawyers; when somebody is
being investigated for a criminal case against you for theft and extortion,
you tend to not do business with them.

