Mercury News says Apple's lawsuit is 'misguided'
updated 02:55 pm EST, Thu March 10, 2005
Apple is 'misguided'
The San Jose Mercury News weighs in on against three Mac rumor websites. At the center of Apple's case is the question of whether the writers and publishers of these publications are legally definable as journalists. "Yes, they're still journalists ... The debate is not about who gets bragging rights to ink-stained wretchdom. It is about who is shielded under an important law that allows journalists to keep their sources confidential ... The Web sites -- AppleInsider, PowerPage and ThinkSecret -- have been writing about Apple for some time. The people behind them collect information that is of interest to the public and publish it for the consumption, primarily, of a throng of avid Macintosh fans. In other words, they perform a function that is little different from that of scores of trade publications, or even the business sections of major newspapers. The fact that they publish online and not in print is irrelevant. After all, no one would argue that online publications such as Salon.com, Slate and CNET -- not to mention MercuryNews.com or WashingtonPost.com -- are not journalism."
in a high shrill voice
03/10, 03:13pm reply
oh pleeeassssee.....pleaseeee won't someone think of the children
Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 2004
Not journalism?
03/10, 03:21pm reply
Real journalists don't actively and publically solicit their readers to break the law.
And actually, I wouldn't necessarily consider salon.com or cnet to be real journalists. They're just web sites that became popular. But I guess that raises the point - should there be certification and liability for journalists?
hayesk
Professional Poster
Joined: Sep 1999
"Im surrounded by idiots
03/10, 03:36pm reply
Quote: "Real journalists don't actively and publically solicit their readers to break the law."
You're right. Their readers submit tips to the pubs on their own (because theyhave 100X more readers, they have no need to solicit). You are also commenting under the assumption that Think Secret and AppleInsider solicit people to 'break the law.' I can only assume why you haven't backed this up with any facts for a reason....
Quote: "And actually, I wouldn't necessarily consider salon.com or cnet to be real journalists. They're just web sites that became popular. "
Then you are an idiot. I'm sorry. If you do not consider CNet News.com journalism then you are living in a deep dark hole and I'll be the first to bid on a shovel for you on eBay. They are journalists. They break the news just like print publications. If I had a california roll right now, I'd shove it right up..... Bah, I'd eat it. Sushi is real good. In fact, I'm going to get some right now because I'm not going to sit here and argue your meritless claims.
TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2005
Cert. and liability?
03/10, 03:41pm reply
Journalists are already liable for a multitude of things (including libel, defamation, etc.), so I don't know what hayesk means by that. Major publications have lawyers to vet controversial stories to make sure they are legal. Notice that Bush hasn't sued Dan Rather or CBS.
As far as certification goes, if you're talking about having the government license journalists, that sounds like a great idea, Comrade. In fact, instead of just licensing them, maybe the government could employ them as well. It could be called the Ministry of Truth or something.
Sarcasm aside, to receive Constitutional protection as a journalist, all one needs to do is share one's written thoughts with another person. The question after that is whether any ancillary laws were broken.
vander
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 2000
nonetheless
03/10, 03:51pm reply
online publications such as Salon.com, Slate and CNet -- not to mention MercuryNews.com or WashingtonPost.com would never publish an article about a product that was under NDA in the manner that thinksecret did, as if it were preannounced.
just because someone has a method of disseminating information does not make them a journalist.
just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004
Mercury News?
03/10, 04:10pm reply
Well, I had thought that Apple was in the right, but now that the Mercury News has said otherwise obviously I was wrong. I mean, it's the Mercury News! They *can't* be wrong!
jmonty12
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2003
journalists,
03/10, 04:18pm reply
real or fake, would do well to keep their mouths shut (except when it comes to reporting on the ethical or social problems of a particular product) so that technology can progress. That's the real test of a journalistic standard: not a preannouncement of a product under NDA.
Thinksecret, powerpage and appleinsider can bite my a**. Find something useful to report or leave their web page unaltered. *ssholes. If apple has had to cancel the project because these idiots preannounced it, they deserve even more than what's coming to them.
just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004
Spy photos
03/10, 04:26pm reply
Ever look at a car magazine and see a spy photo of a vehicle that has not been aannounced publicly? You know the ones, where the car is covered in black and white panels in an attempt to make it difficult to see what it really looks like?
How would that compare?
burger
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
No one gets it
03/10, 04:28pm reply
Whether they are journalists or not is irrelevant. Of course they are journalists. The issue is whether what they posted is journalism.
Think of it this way: If the New York Times published a list of stolen credit card numbers, should the police be able to force them to say who gave them the information? Of course they should. Not because they are not journalists, but because stolen information is not journalism, it's stealing.
As The Apple Turns summed it up nicely with, "why is what Think Secret did any different than trafficking in stolen goods?"
genevish
Dedicated MacNNer
Joined: Jan 1999
It doesn't compare
03/10, 04:30pm reply
QUOTE: "Ever look at a car magazine and see a spy photo of a vehicle that has not been aannounced publicly? You know the ones, where the car is covered in black and white panels in an attempt to make it difficult to see what it really looks like? How would that compare?"
It doesn't. It's not illegal to take a photo of a car. It's not illegal to publish info on an upcoming product either. But if you know the information/photos/whatever was obtained illegally, then it becomes illegal.
genevish
Dedicated MacNNer
Joined: Jan 1999