"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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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'.
I wonder if those expressing their disapproval of Gizmodo (and anyone who thinks Gizmodo's actions may have been legal and ethical) with copious downvotes think (a) Gizmodo is lying; (b) Gizmodo is telling the truth but still indefensible; (c) Apple and similar secretive corporations should just always be respected, no matter the legal details.
The reason that argument doesn't work is that it is gizmodo that have been refused the status; the ohers haven't been awarded it.
I think that's fair; the whole iPhone thing was pretty dodgy and certainly upset apple (even if it doesn't turn out they did something unethical) so it seems a reasonable response for apple to refuse them :)
> The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of.
Uh no the ethical issue is that they broke the law themselves by buying stolen property. And they acted like dicks. Not sucking up is irrelevant and fine, buying stolen shit and flouting that fact isn't.
This has nothing to do with warm or cold coverage and access. Gizmodo (probably) broke the law when it bought the prototype. Gizmodo were complete douchebags about Gray Powell (who's "outing" was completely unnecessary to the story). To top it all off, they tried to extort better access to Apple events in return for returning the prototype.
I'd pretty much decline requests for access to ANY news organization that did that.
If Apple wants to deny access to Gizmodo because Gizmodo is a bunch of douchebags, great. Just don't tell us, as Jacobian did, that Apple is defending journalistic ethics by doing so.
Apple is just playing the same tit-for-tat access game they always do. Apple is an admirable company in many ways, but they're not a consistent champion of free speech, a free press, or high journalistic standards. Apple shouldn't be defended on the basis of their press-policing.
This - Gizmodo wasn't banned, they just weren't given press credentials. They could have bought a ticket just like everyone else (well, at least be fore it was sold out) if they wanted to make sure they could have someone there.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)