p2pnet - rss feed: Dear Apple: tend your own house
p2pnet.net News View:- What makes a journalist? Is it someone with a journalism degree? Maybe it is more. Maybe, to be called a "real" journalist, you have to work for a big corporation. Maybe you need a slew of staff behind you like editors and copywriters and editorial assistants.
Or maybe you just have to publish.
But even here we find problems. Does publishing mean print and therefore anything scribed on the Web does not count? Some people feel that way, but TV and radio news folk count as journalists and they don’t print anything.
It is funny how some of us define things.
According to laws still on the books one drop of black blood makes you black. By this definition wealthy white descendants of Thomas Jefferson can claim minority-based college aid based on his relationship with Sally Hemming. Few have attempted to change such laws because that would require someone to come up with a new definition of what constitutes an African American. Exactly how many drops of blood should it be?
My question is this, how many drops of blood define one as a journalist?
All of my musing stems from the recent ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg. Kleinberg is presiding over Apple’s case against three Internet rumor sites; PowerPage, AppleInsider and Think Secret.
Apple filed court documents against the three for publishing accurate information on new Apple products prior to their official announcement. Apple filed their subpoena to force these entities to unmask their sources of this information.
Had the three entities been the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post there would be no subpoena. Legal precedent, as well as the first amendment, allows traditional news media to protect their sources.
But Kleinberg refused to extend these protections that shield journalists to the three Web sites mentioned. He did not give a reason for his action, but the action itself makes a statement - there is no such thing as a Web journalist. The Internet does not count.
I am sure this will come as a surprise to many acquaintances of mine. People who worked as journalists for years in the traditional media only to leave for a myriad of reasons including poor pay, poor job stability, consolidation of the media, an over-saturation of new journalism graduates, etc.
These people have the degrees, the credentials and the experience that come with the word journalist. Many have turned to the Web to express themselves. Some found online work as their new profession. Others publish online as a sideline. How can anyone say they are not journalists?
Kleinberg may have done just that.
Nicholas Ciarelli is the publisher of Think Secret. He’s a 19 year-old college student and rabid Mac fan who has been writing about Apple since his early teens. As far as I know he has never held a full time job. Does this mean we can dismiss him as a journalist by simply quoting his age and lack of a degree?
For a "kid" I have to say he has done a pretty good job of getting the facts. His rumors were so accurate that his description of Apple’s Photo iPod nearly matched Apple’s later press release word-for-word. The traditional media didn’t get this information, a media that has been iPod-crazed these last several months. Had USA Today or CNN got the scoop there would be no suit.
I can’t blame Apple for wanting to stop these insider leaks. I am disappointed in them for going after the fan sites that publish these leaks. Because these sites are mostly one-person affairs they must have looked awfully vulnerable to Apple. So Apple sued.
Judge Kleinberg issued his tentative ruling last Thursday, but he has not issued a final ruling yet, giving the defense another opportunity to plead its case. Whatever the outcome, the case will be appealed.
My feeling is that these leaks are an internal affair for Apple. It is their responsibility to see that company information is kept within the company. It is not the press’ responsibility to police corporate leaks, especially since many leaks are really intentional marketing activities designed to generate greater attention.
Nicholas Ciarelli’s site is heavily read, more so than most mid-sized magazines. These mid-sized magazines are extended journalist protections. I guess volume of readership is not a criterion with regards to who can call themselves a journalist.
So what are the criteria as defined by Judge Kleinberg? I would like to know.
Rich Menta -
March 5th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Its not only just the journalists who ruin apples product launches.
I remember when the shuffle was “announced ” in early October by an analyst. Everyone knew by mid October that the shuffle, Apples ” bare bones” first entry into the flash market, was going to be a reality 3 months in advance of any official announcement. I did note that the stock of the shuffle supplier Stigmatel went skyrocketing right after the announcement. Was it the supplier who let the cat out of the bag? I dont know for sure but these pre announcement leaks can be great for the stockholders of the companies involved. Ultimately it’s the person who leaks the information who is at fault — in any case, it certainly makes any official announcement less exciting.
March 5th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Hear, hear, this is a wholly uncool move by Apple. Apart from possibly fucking with the 1st Amendment, this is going to be a huge PR problem for Apple.
March 5th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Apple should take this as far as they can. Someone is divulging confidential information, where it was agreed upon by those who held the information not to make it public. In terms of the websites, whether the ‘law’ protects them or not, it is them that are being unethical. If Apple’s purpose is to keep THEIR information and products secret, why do people find it correct that this poor, lonely, young kid publish that information? He is going against the wishes of this company he supposedly LOVES. He is hurting that company he says he worships and admires. He deserves everything he is getting. It boils down to personal responsibility for one’s own actions. Something that is non-existent in U.S. society these days, not to mention respect. I personally hope that his website can no longer be supported and is shut down. I also hope that those who gave out the information are found and tried. An agreement is an agreement. There is no loophole in that.
March 5th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I disagree. If CNN had successfully enticed people to break confidentiality agreements, they would be just as guilty as any fresh-faced, 19 year old avid Mac fan. To steal a trade secret, or to be involved in the theft of a trade secret is not necessarily everyone’s definition of good journalism. Apple faces tough competition, and is often hurt when expectations are raised, and not met. They simply don’t want their people talking about upcoming products, and they don’t want others to try to corrupt them.
So what kills - Guns? Bullets? People? It takes all those working together. To say that only bullets kill, and the others are innocent 19-year-old bystanders is wrong. Web sites that entice people to break the law are not necessarily good journalism.
The one drop of “Black” blood idea is an interesting one, though. The whole idea of race should be completely forgotten, because it is so completely irrelevant. Or, I suppose we all wear T-shirts detailing our genetic makeup that says something like “5% Cherokee, 2% Chinese, 1.2% Northern Italian, 6% English, 2% Welsh, and so on…” Maybe it could include ethnic slurs, that say “that’s where I get my temper” or whatever.
No, the T-Shirt idea is way too complicated. We need things in “Black and white”- visual words to go with our visual assumptions. Stereotypes aren’t all bad - they keep us out of dark alleys at night - but their value in human relationships is uncertain. Is there any validity to thinking we belong to any race other than the human race? Not to me. Perhaps for doctors treating certain diseases, but for the rest of us, I don’t see the point. Another way to feel a little bit superior to our next door neighbor.
Your hero can be 19, by the way, and an avid Mac fan, and still break the law. He could be Scotch-Irish-Afro-Italian-American, and if he lives here, he has to obey our laws.
I have posted to your web site, and am now officially a journalist.
March 5th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
the difference is, Think Secret didn’t have just RUMORS, it had the actual product plans, and they reported them. It’s basically an issue of selling/providing STOLEN property. Sources like USA Today, CNN, etc… don’t divulge internal documents. They know better. I’m with Apple on this one… Rumors are fine, even FUN… but the buck has to stop at the real thing.
March 5th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Like said, it is an internal affair. Prince Jobs needs to relax and look inside is kingdom. Lots of hardcore fan(real customers who buy computers) are actually reading those rumors sites. This case is looked at too!
a mac head
March 5th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
It may take a few days for the bloggers and others to understand. but this is a clear case of THEFT — Not a 1st Amendment question. Apple wouldn’t shut people down for their views, or reporting. but when Apple’s property is stolen, then reported, the Courts, and well informed People want this to be stopped.
Established News Organizations would never of reported stolen information. If they did, Apple would of sued them just the same.
March 5th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
How do you know this? There are a lot of people out there saying: “had it been a big media company that blah-blah-blahed then Apple wouldn’t dare sue them.” Perhaps the big media companies would have been smarter in the way they reproduced the information.
This bizarre assumption that bloggers are journalists is just as crazy as thinking everyone with a copy of Adobe Illustrator is a graphic designer. These guys want the protection afforded to journalists without taking any of the responsibility.
And to all those parrots screaming “First Amendment! First Amendment!” I suggest they first read it, digest it and then start talking.
March 5th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Totally agree.!
March 5th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
I agree with the poster who brought up the CNN angle. CNN or any of the journals that you quoted have a distinct set of rules be they legal and/or ethical as guidelines to distinguish them from the likes of the Enquirer - who once again pay informants for any trash. So who cares if it’s a 19 year old student or foreign spy? Just because the web is dominated by teens screaming blue murder, as some kind of rallying point - doesn’t make it right. Blurring the lines as to what a journalist is, as you stated, is in part due to the fact of too many unemployable journalist students trying to make a mark on the web to get hired - in the real world. And please, screw this for the people by the people crap. Chaos is only the friend of radicals and neonazis. And the likes of Forbes jumping in, well, it gets ratings doesn’t it.
I really don’t think that the “cool” Apple we know is out to be “big brother,” though by the noise it’s generating you’d think so. That’s just a combination of excitable teens, would be journalists and those trying to cash in or hurt Apple’s image. Jeez, I wonder who that would be? Pleeease!
So on one side, the issue Apple is standing on is the correct one in my view, even if it’s unpopular.
However, where I disagree with Apple to some extent is in the degree to which they’ve taken this against a student. Yet, in all fairness, the case isn’t over yet. It’s the outcome that matters, not the noise inbetween that it’s generating. That’s just the circus aspect of the web at work.
Is it a scare tactic that must be played out to make a point? I’m hoping it is. If the real intent however was to flush out “the spies” at Apple - it looks like they’re going to get their answers that will lead to dismissals which is a good thing. Every business person understands all too well that this is one of the big issues of our day and are watching this very intently. Who wants to pay staff who are out to make an extra buck at the expense of the entire team. A rat is a rat!
Perhaps once the rats are caught, the case against the student will drop quitely into the night, and all this noise would have been for nothing. That’s my hope, we’ll see. I really don’t see this being about one student.
March 5th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
You are totally missing the point, this case is not about the Freedom of Speech, it’s about industrial espionage. And Apple would be doing the same thing no matter how big the Company. You doing what many Journalist do to with misleading headlines, to get person to read you views, or rumers.
So I ask you as a journalist, would you publish a piece knowing it was stolen.?
March 5th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
There are a lot of good comments here. I’m glad to see the majority siding with the angle that something is rotten with all of this and Apple is not the reason that something stinks.
Think Secret is a great site. I love reading it.
They have to take responsibility for their actions. That is what sane successful people do. It is survival.
Not taking responsibility for your actions is what youngsters and immature people do.
As a business owner, I want to work with people that have this attitude. As an individual, I want to know and associate with people who have this attitude.
I would also like my journalists to have this attitude, but unfortunately, I see much too much that some do not do the right thing, i.e Dan Rather.
Doing the right thing doesn’t care what political party you belong to, what religion you do or don’t practice, what your race is or what hemisphere you live in or if you are or aren’t a journalist.
March 5th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Apple is not “Going after these sites” and trying to stop them from exercising their free speech rights! They are going after people who broke their NDA with Apple and these web sites refused to turn over evidence (the names) in that case. Apple is challenging the rights of these sites to use the California Shield law which was designed to protect whistle blowers, people who told on people committing illegal acts. This law was not intended to protect people who were performing illegal acts.
March 6th, 2005 at 1:44 am
As with most laws, there are limits. You say that “legal precedent, as well as the first amendment, allows traditional news media to protect their sources.” And if these three people had been journalists working for the New York Times (one example you used) among other newspapers there would be no subpoena. Fact is, two NYTimes journalists are facing prison time right now, this very day, for not revealing sources in the Valerie Plame case. They have found the courts see limits to protecting the names of sources and there is no absolute protection for journalists.
I know bloggers think this is all about them, but it really isn’t. It’s about Apple wanting to find out which Apple employee(s) leak information. The bloggers are trying to hide behind shield laws. They are the ones draping themselves in the First Amendment flag, hoping Apple will not be able to compel their testimony.
The judge has _not_ said these three are not journalists. But he realizes the laws they are trying to use for protection have limits, and those limits would apply to everyone. All journalists know this — there is no absolute freedom of speech. The judge must feel that the publication of NDA-protected information did not deserve the protection of shield laws.
You say that there would be no suit if journalists from CNN or USA Today had gotten this info yet that is pure speculation. You can’t know that at all. But you do raise an interesting point.
If USA Today or CNN _had_ gotten this information because an Apple employee was leaking info to them they knew was in violation of the NDA, and the Apple employee was not going to go on record and verify the information was accurate, do you think USA Today or CNN would publish what is merely an unattributed rumor? Bloggers published that information and the mainstream media likely wouldn’t. This is where the mainstream media and bloggers diverge, at least in this case - their standards for what they will and will not publish.
March 6th, 2005 at 4:51 am
Contracts only bind those who agree to them.
Think secret did not have any contract with Apple.
Think secret should not have to do anything.
Let Apple find their leak by investigating their own people.
March 6th, 2005 at 4:58 am
The case you are referring to is a criminal case.
Apple is suying in a civil case.
Not the same.
March 6th, 2005 at 8:30 am
Apple is suing the “John Does” who leaked the information to Bhatia, Jade and O’Grady. Those three are claiming shield laws protect them from revealing the name(s) of their source(s).
If their legal efforts fail the three could be subject to _criminal_ violations of the Trade Secrets Act.
Regardless of whether a lawsuit is brought in the civil courts or charges are filed in the criminal courts, the laws these three are trying to use to protect themselves are _the same_ and the courts have shown in the past that these laws (like all of them) have limits that are described through case law and interepretation by the courts.
Which is exactly what I said in my post.
March 7th, 2005 at 12:35 am
While you can certainly compare web journalists to the New York Times, etc, at the end of the day, the New York Times would not have published prorietary information as the websites did. They would have held the story until the announcement. End of discussion…..