"aka DNC Poster Boy"

Sorry iChick, I think you mean RNC. Its common knowledge that Lauer is a hard core Bush supporter. Its a shame that no one stopped Lauer 2.5 years ago with "Let's cut the 'invade-Iraq-to-save-the-world-from-the WMD' commercial here right now, okay?"

Greenberg is going to slam the next Apple product, no matter how good it is, as a means of restoring credibility.

Fact.

There's nothing wrong with flacks flacking, nor even product placement (how many times have you seen Apple products on TV and in movies, even if they had the Apple logo covered up?), as long as it's clear that that's what you're watching.

To me its not a problem of flacks or product placement (everyone realizes they're paid to stick a Mac in the middle of the set, right?), its when supposed 'journalists' take outside contracts to basically talk about products, which leads to a calvacade of conflicts of interests. If you take $10,000 from Apple to talk up the iPod somewhere, are we supposed to believe that when you go to your "real" journalist job, you're going to be unconflicted? Would you trust someone who takes $10K and shills any product, then hear him praise it elsewhere? And would you trust someone who takes $10K and shills any product, then hear him bash it elsewhere? This is why they used to have ethics rules with journalists. Ah, the good ol' days. h***, I remember reading all the hoopla over some sportscenter anchors doing Coors commercials, how it ruins their credibility. And there you KNEW they were getting paid by Coors.

If informercials have to have crawls identifying them as such, why not the same for paid flacks and product placements for which the vendor paid? That would be truth in advertising, right? ".... Mr. Greenberg is paid by Apple Computer to make favorable remarks about their consumer products...." "....The game console shown here is produced by the corporate entity that owns this network...." Kind of like pop-up videos.

Well, the studios don't want those pop-ups saying "iMac placed here for compensation" because no one would be able to pay attention to the show with all those notices (h***, I have trouble paying attention with all those "Coming up next" pop-ups everytime you come out of commercial, let alone those freakin "Weather alert! In case you haven't looked outside, its snowing! Stay tuned for the news for more info!")

Before some of you get your knickers in a knot over this story, take a deep breath, re-read it and you will see that nobody is blaming Apple over this (the article also mentions Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Seiko Epson, Creative Technology and Energizer Holdings). It is this so-called technology guru, Corey Greenberg who is the target of any criticism. People expect that corporations will use whatever opportunity they can to promote their products. What they don't, or at least shouldn't, expect is that the various "experts" appearing on "news" shows may be paid shills. There is a major difference between product placements in the entertainment world (TV, movies, music, etc.) and stealth product placements and endorsements in what we perceive to be news and information programming.

Who cares if a TV show does it? It's fiction.

It's not OK for "news" to condone this type of behavior for its employees. Apple, the White House, the State Dept., NBC, MSN, any of them.

Can anyone on the NBC report anything derogatory about Microsoft? Probably not. And that is why I never watch them. I don't even give them the opportunity to serve me teh Kool-Aid.

"It's not OK for "news" to condone this type of behavior for its employees"

Guess what folks. It's not like the old days. The "news" is no longer a public service, its entertainment, it's a commercial, it's a propganda arm of the government. Take everything reported on the news and put it in the proper perspective, seek out other opinions and facts. The news cannot be trusted. It is swayed by monetary and political influences.

whether the Bush regime pays commentators to push their policies without disclosing the payola (Armstrong Williams never wrote about Leave No Child Behind until he got a quarter-mill... after that, he wrote five times about it in glowing terms), or whether Apple pays a 'guru' to tout the iPod on the "Today" show.(why???? it practically sells itself!).

I think the payola was in order to gain access to "Today" in order to push iPod to relatively unhip soccer moms.

BTW I recently flew Lufthansa from FRA to LAX... amazing how many iPods on board, and what's more, the wide, wide range of users, from the expected young people and older (40) people like me, to seniors! That's what amazed me, if they are selling iPods to 'normals', that's a very good thing and testament to how the iPod has penetrated popular culture and society.

Lauer wishes he had half the credibility that ANY inanimate object has, let alone a stylishly-crafted one in pastel colors.

You guys are living in a dream world if you think only the Republicans engage in pay for publicity. For crying out load, Steve Jobs is the biggest DNC Tech weanie out there and his company is buying off on product placement. You think it stops there and doesn't touch politics? Get off your high horse and take off those rose colored glasses, welcome to politics and business, where both are one and the same. RNC...DNC...it's all human, it's corrupt by nature.

I am disappointed that Apple would stoop to such measures.

I gave up on the ethics of the conservatively-biased media a loooong time ago, but I had hoped that Apple was above that sort of thing. Now people are going to look askance at opinions by genuine fans like Mossberg and Cringely and say "are they bought off too?"

This sort of thing ALWAYS backfires. This country is in the throes of a ethical crisis the likes of which I've never seen, and I've been around for more than my share of ethical lapses.

"People expect that corporations will use whatever opportunity they can to promote their products. What they don't, or at least shouldn't, expect is that the various "experts" appearing on "news" shows may be paid shills."

I expect that corporations will use whatever means necessary, but I don't think that they should. Apple and any other business that engages in this activity should be condemned along with the shill. I agree that our "news" venues have not be reliable sources for a long time, but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be. All around, I think this is disappointing but unsurprising. Apple is, after all, a corporation...

Ill talk about your products for 5k .. Thats a bargain !

Gurman, you might be onto something there. I like that idea. I think the trend of paying "journalists" (they shouldn't call themselves that) for saying nice things is deplorable. But it's also not going to stop any time soon, sadly. Full disclosure can never be a bad thing.

Product placement is sometimes annoying, but less troubling (the Will & Grace example seems to go a bit too far, I think, but I guess that's why I don't run a major network).

Oh, and regarding the "g**" MSN butterfly logo -- Mousketter, grow up. If you mean "stupid," say so. The common use of "g**" as a pejorative needs to die a quick death.

No I really did mean g**.. like you know two guys or two girls... dude the colors are the g** flag.

Put your Mac enthusiasm in check for one second and think different. When companies "hire" journalists and other "experts" to appear on TV as unbiased voices and give (a sadly increasing more gullible society) nothing more than a sales pitch it undermines some pretty basic principles like honesty, fairness and disclosure.

This is bad for all of us who can't recognize journalists for being corporate mouthpieces first and journalists second.

As I remember the "g**" flag was originally representative of the "Rainbow Coalation" and Jessie Jackson's run for president fits into the picture somewhere. It was about inclusion of all races, religions, etc.. including I guess "lifestyle" a bad term for non heterosexual oriented citizens. For some reason this flag has become symbolic of g** rights movement, a poor choice considering the stlyle conscious group it is meant to represent. That last line is a bit of humor for anyone able to appreciate it.

mouseketter - being sarcastic or not, be more tolerent. Remember Apple supports their g** employees (one of the best companies a homo could work for) ....

kerryb - yeah, i agree entirely... i mean at least the guys have choice of color and aren't stuck with that gaudy pink and purple thing the lesbians use ... yuck! ;)

Clearly macnn must be run out of someone's basement.

This is standard operating procedure.

I'm not sure how it is you think all that stuff gets on television, reviewed in WSJ, Time magazine. M-o-n-e-y

So, the next time you think G2 or (insert favorite media here) gets the stuff they review, manufacturers PAY FOR IT.

Unless of course, you are a website attempting to be legitimate media. Then you have to ask.

Amateurs.