Slashdot Mirror
Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC
recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."
I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't care so much that they exposed Apple's new phone but the fact they so happily gave up the guy's name showing no journalistic integrity. Fuck 'em, ban them for years.
Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature to be allowed attend these types of events.
This is the same outfit that thought it would be an amusing prank to show up at CES with a universal TV power-off remote, which they used to interrupt demonstrations, presentations and meetings. I wouldn't blame anyone for banning them from a trade show. Apple just has more specific reasons than most for barring them.
I hope you were joking.
This kind of shit is par for the course today, and it's the reason it is hard to trust journalists these days. Most so-called reviews out there - especially larger sites - are essentially paid-for ads. It's a rare day that a bad game or bad product gets panned like it deserves, because the editors are always worried about (a) the company pulling their ad dollars, (b) the company pulling product support away, or (c) the company launching some frivolous lawsuit just to burn up cash.
Remember the Kane & Lynch Eidos/Gamespot fiasco? Ever watched Farhad Manjoo at Slate change his tune to whatever Apple/Google want him to say on a given day, even if they were saying the opposite last week?
How about Rockstar's bullshit recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
The apparent snub has left the tech blog in a bit of a predicament—according to Editorial Director Brian Lam, Gizmodo is going to use the liveblogging of a number of other sources to construct its own, well, liveblog, of the WWDC keynote instead of its planned, "we're actually there" coverage.
All of the Gizmodo sources can start this concerted effort to make something up. Have one guy write that Steve showed up Naked. One the Steve had a pink faux turtle neck. Steve came out. Steve introduces the iWall for the very wealthy who want a touch screen wall for their internet a movie viewing pleasure..
This could be really fun!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
There seems to be a real lack of editorial power at Gawker Media. Gawker itself is factually wrong rather often. Gizmodo has a real bad habit of doing things they just shouldn't be doing. Paying for play with the iPhone prototype was really disgraceful, then hiding behind being "journalists" as an excuse. The remote incident. Then there's Kotaku, which seems to be run by immature 18 year olds who have yet to touch a boob in their life before. Jalopnik can't keep their mouth shut about Top Gear spoilers. It's frustrating.
I'm through with the entire Gawker Media network. Engadget and Destructoid are much better blogs than Giz and Kotaku. Really haven't had a need for celeb gossip or car news, but when I do, it's not going to be Gawker.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If Gizmodo pissed in my Cherios - I wouldn't invite them to my party either.
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Every fucking day they had an article summarizing the iPhone 4 coverage. Even if there was no actual new content. There were only ever two articles. The first one breaking the news, and then a second on where they showed a tear-down. But what do you expect from a firm that destroys presentations and displays at trade shows with TV-B-gone.
It's interesting how their tone changed. They used to sit around and wax and masturbate at great lengths about anything Apple. Now, not so much. Though it seems they all but forgot that computex was on this week.
I've pretty much abandoned them for Engadget.
PLEASE never call these narcissistic twits journalists again. Journalism is based on research, fact finding, source checking and has a goal to keep a check and balance on the democratic process. Agreed, much of the media today fails this. But in a spectrum of "news" Gizmodo "stories" are on par with Bat Boy in the Enquirer. Their usage of the English language is barely a step above txt speak while their maturity is nowhere above that of a third grade child.
I agree in general that a journalistic site should not fear biting the hand that feeds them, for the sake of integrity.
But Gizmodo has already proven that they do not have integrity. They fenced stolen property and then attempted blackmail/extortion on Apple, very very recently. It's not some 10 year old grudge, the fallout of this shit is still happening. This sort of behaviour really should not be condoned, and nobody should expect it to be.
Rockstar and Eidos just didn't like the reviews, though. Gizmodo actually committed a felony.
It's not that Apple didn't like the press, it's that Gizmodo stole their property.
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
This ain't rocket surgery.
They are welcome, they just don't get their tickets gratis. If they bought a ticket they would be at the keynote. You can construct whatever narrative you like. Either this is apple imposing their iron fist on dissent or this is Gizmodo getting their comeuppance for buying stolen property and attempting to extort apple for it. In both cases apple (presumably) has the right to refuse to extend a welcome to a press organization. That may be unseemly, but it is true.
I don't think either party comes out looking good, but Gizmodo is really milking it. You bought a leaked phone, attempted to get confirmation that the phone was real to get a scoop, and you got burnt. Oh well. that shit happens. If you don't want to get burnt, don't play with fire. This isn't the pentagon or the white house, where some public service is gained through continued access by all parties--Apple is not a government agency. They are a private company. We may feel (As I do) that Apple SHOULD allow press to attend regardless of their orientation, but apple is under no mandate to do so. If we feel strongly enough, we should refuse to buy the products and/or own the stock on the basis of our reservations. Beyond that, we don't have much sway.
And then wouldn't give it back without an "official confirmation" by apple. They were trying to hold the prototype hostage for an inside scoop.
I read the article as news about Apple and Gizmodo, and it was brought to me by PCMag (through slashdot). Your reality distortion field must be turned up to 11 today.
I haven't eaten Cheerios in years; can we please stick to the car analogies?
Heck, I'll start:
Steve Jobs left the keys in his Mercedes SL55 AMG after parking it in the usual handicapped space. A Good Samaritan quickly discovered this abandoned vehicle and yelled out "Finders keepers!" before driving it straight home.
It then took more than a month of negotiations before Steve Jobs finally got his car back, but not before the Good Samaritan disassembled the vehicle and put it back together again.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Sure they do. They even pay worse criminals and occasionally keep their identities secret from the authorities, preventing justice.
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
cat
Oregon law obviously doesn't apply, but California law. California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft. The important one in this case is that when you find someone's lost property, and take it, and then neither return it to the owner nor hand it over to the police, then California law calls this theft.
The way this is written always causes confusion among the feeble-minded. For example, unlike other cases where the theft happens right when you take something that you shouldn't take, in the case of lost property it is absolutely fine to pick up lost property, then you can take some time looking for the owner, and it's not theft. When you finally keep it instead of handing it over to the police, that is when it becomes theft. In this case, when the finder sold the phone to Gizmodo it was obvious that he wasn't returning it to the owner or giving it to the police, so at that point it became a theft and the sale was a sale of stolen goods. Some people ask why Apple only called it a theft when pictures appeared on the internet and not earlier - obviously Apple didn't _know_ it was theft up to that point; for all they knew someone could be knocking on every door in Cupertino to find the owner.
In Oregon, you would likely have to look for crimes related to lost property. For example, in New York you must give lost property to the police within ten days of finding or receiving it, otherwise it is a misdemeanour punishable with jail up to six months (they don't give that misdemeanour any name, so apparently it is not theft, but you go to jail anyway). According to New York law, not only the finder, but also Gizmodo committed a misdemeanour - they should have given the phone to the police within ten days from buying it.
But don't concentrate too much on the word "theft". "Theft" is what it is called in California, but I can guarantee that not returning lost property will be some kind of crime, often under a different name, in any civilised and many uncivilised countries.
The "news" outfit that's willing to pay for an iPhone prototype of murky origins is whining because they don't want to pay for a WWDC ticket?
Yeah, imagine wanting to verify the owner before handing it over.
Under California law, you mustgive the phone to the bartender for safekeeping. Return it to its owner - or surrender it to the police.
Under California laww, you are legally a caretaker of the phone - you hold it in trust for its owner.
You cannot disassemble the prototype on your workbench.
You cannot call in a professional photographer for a commercial photo session.
Demanding money or services from the owner for its return is extortion, plain and simple.
I think anyone who reads my comments, and no I'm not vain enough to think that people do, knows I'm not a fan of Apple's business practices or attitude, but you have to have a World Heavy Weight Championship Belt in Officially Missing the Point to bring up a "journalistic ethics" complaint against Apple in this particular soap opera.
If Jason Chen or the Gawker media group had even a smattering of "Journalistic ethic" in them, they wouldn't have purchased a stolen phone off someone, written an article about ripping the phone apart, followed up by an article humiliating the Apple engineer that lost it to 'prove its real', then attempt to make Apple publicly announce it's their phone before giving it back.
From both personal experience and anecdotal evidence I lost my faith in Gizmodo a long time ago. Their policy of banning commenters for disagreeing with their contributors is just one of the ways they ensure their opinion is always reflected as the truth on Gizmodo.
I'd prefer to get trolled by 100 /b/tards than see a site with just pure arsekissing & cocksucking by commenters.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Uh...that would be fine, except that particular reviewer didn't like it, and it's his right to have an opinion, and his job to write about it. However, Rockstar responded by trying to get him to write a more favorable review. That's incredibly unethical, and it seems to me that if the game is as great as you say, they could afford some critics disliking it and survive it just fine. When the reviewer in question pointed out Rockstar's unethical behavior by publishing their e-mail, he got fired. So I guess the people he works for don't want to end whatever perks they get from Rockstar by exposing their tactics. Which is again, bullshit.
It might very well be that you're right, and the rave reviews are there because the game is awesome. The point is that when Rockstar pulls this shit, there's no way to tell if that's true because you can't tell if any one positive review is being honest or dishonest.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Given that Gizmodo knew the name of the actual Apple engineer who was the keeper of the device, why would you day they needed paper confirmation from Apple?
I mean we know from the email that Gizmodo sent to Apple the fact that they only wanted that confirmation "for journalistic purposes". But it would be fun to find out what sort of nonsense you've managed to cook up to convince yourself that Gizmodo was in the right.
It seems like an odd moral system that allows purchasing stolen property, but avoids participation in marketing.
Then again it seems like an odd moral system of so many on slashdot that support the thief rather than the victim.
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.
As a reviewer you don't go around posting emails sent by the game publishers that are intended to be private, that reflects badly both on you and your employer. Some of the circumstantial information we got on him suggests he might just be a self-centered douche-bag.
The private e-mail in question is as follows, according to the article Moryath linked to:
This is the biggest game we’ve done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.
Can you please ensure Toby’s article reflects this – he needs to respect the huge achievement he’s writing about here.
Exposing that is the ethical responsibility of anyone who reads it.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Remember when some tool from Gizmodo went around CES turning off all the TVs and displays with a master IR remote? Legit news organization my ass. I wouldn't want them around my event either. They're the sort of immature douchebags that would set off a fire alarm in the middle of the presentation just so they could get some hits by posting about it.