As a further example, Sol of what bullshit your sweeping assertions are about journalistic ethics and the behavior of the trade press, I offer you this cite written by Michael S. Malone. His credentials:
"…once called “the Boswell of Silicon Valley,” most recently was editor-at-large of Forbes ASAP magazine. He has covered the Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 20 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury-News as the nation’s first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He has hosted two national PBS shows: “Malone,” a half-hour interview program that ran for nine years, and in 2001, a 16-part interview series called “Betting It All: The Entrepreneurs.” Malone is best known as the author of a dozen books. His latest book, a collection of his best newspaper and magazine writings, is called “The Valley of Heart’s Delight.”
What the “Boswell” has to say:
"Apple’s legal strategy in the Think Secret case seems straightforward. First, it will take advantage of a gray area in the law: the question of whether a blog site can actually represent itself as a true member of the press and thus be covered by the First Amendment (Of course it can; lately, the blogosphere has been more professional than the mainstream media). Given the current state of judicial activism, that may actually work.
But if it fails, Apple will likely just crush Think Secret with the sheer weight, and cost, of its legal attack…
Unless … Apple begins to spring leaks from every modem, telephone line and doorway. If the press was awash in Apple product leaks, then the company’s case against Think Secret would be immaterial. The little guy — the woman in the Big Brother commercial who shatters the image of Big Brother — would win.
What I’m saying is that if you are an employee, supplier or distributor for Apple Computer, and you care more about the First Amendment than the Little People’s Republic, you might think about dropping a dime on Apple."
You don’t know shit about how the press regards “legitimate” journalism. If you have a contrary claim, please provide me a cite that better characterizes the attitudes of the trade mags, which Think Secret is in every capacity but the name you and Apple refuse to dignify it with. “Blogosphere” is a stupid term, but it’s the common parlance for this huge soup of new media, and much of it is thoroughly legit. It needs, and should have, FA protections just like any other form of journalism.
Loopydude, call me a hopeless optimist, but I have confidence that one day you’ll realize that your total failure to string together a logical and cogent argument does not constitute a lack of comprehension on everyone else’s part.
Before you lapse into another of your dramatic “oh, nobody understands me and everyone’s an idiot!” episodes, I invite you for hopefully the last time to read your own fucking OP, my first response, and your responses to that. While it’s good that you’ve apparently finally decided exactly what it is you’re trying to argue, I suggest you back the fuck up and drop all your whiny bullshit about how you’re being perfectly clear and it’s nobody else who gets it.
I did read your “fucking cites,” you twat. I got me an internets too, and I’m up to speed on what’s going on with Apple.
I just don’t agree with your conclusions. Do you get that? While there are parts that we do agree on: a) Steve Jobs is by all acounts a total asshole, b) it sucks that a corporation has to resort to legal action to gain access to private information from an individual, and c) freedom of speech is a good thing; I don’t feel good about that agreement because you’re being such a total fucking choad about it.
So let’s review.
Point 1: Apple stores aren’t going to sell books from a publisher that presented a book with inflammatory material against their chief executive. So fucking what. Call it “petty” all you want; it’s not a free speech issue by any stretch of the imagination. That is what I said in my first response. So fuck you.
Point 2: Ethics and legal issues associated with redefining the legal status of a blog, in order to bypass legal protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and gain information about leaked trade secrets. If you want to “debate” the legal issues, then you’re going to have to find a legal expert and then call him names when he doesn’t agree with you. As for ethics, I got ethics.
How? How is it of public interest? That’s what you have yet to explain, but apparently it’s “simple.” As rjung already pointed out in this thread (and he provided a cite!), “interest by the public does not constitute public interest.”
An environmental organization revealing the amount of lead content in iPods: public interest.
A public health organization revealing that studies show nicotine is addictive and tobacco companies are withholding this information: public interest.
A financial journalist revealing that Apple is engaging in insider trading and lying about its financial forecast: public interest.
Look at these leaked pictures of Tiger OS!: bzzzzt! NOT public interest.
It was going to be revealed anyway, so it’s fine for me to undermine non-disclosure agreements to release it now? That constitutes a valid ethical argument, as far as you’re concerned? Sweet.
People have been doing it for years, and besides, they ain’t hurtin’ nothin’. Another rock-solid ethical argument. Why isn’t it up to Apple to decide which trade secrets remain trade secrets? Do you yet have any cogent response to that?
Well gee, dick, you know the URL for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the BBC. That makes you a very special boy, but it doesn’t constitute an ethical argument. Hey look, I know where CNN and the New York Times are! So does that qualify me as an expert on journalistic integrity.
Maybe if you had a single fucking response for my “bullshit hypotheticals” that wasn’t just “look at this opinion piece, they agree with me!” then I’d be able to take you seriously.
I simply cannot understand where I’m changing my argument or misstating facts. I made mention of the blogger lawsuits. I made mention of the boycot of the publisher. I characterized both as an attack on free speech. One is clearly being argued on the definition of “journalist”, which I thought sucked, the other is exacting financial revenge because someone painted an unflattering personal portrait, which also sucks. To attempt to drive home why I think the latter sucks, a complete reiteration of the content of my cites, is that even if one could argue literary expression deserves financial retribution whenever it suits people, that retribution is being meted out on all parties who do business with the publisher. I disagree that the offense against the author of the bio. is unethical, but I concede that is at least debateable; I cannot see how the collateral damage is defensible at all however. Pointing that out after the OP is hardly moving the goalpost. Frankly, I’m amazed I had to point it out, given it’s both implicit and explicit in the cites.
The entire point of the amicus curae I cited is a refutation of the CA judge’s assertion that “interest by the public does not constitute public interest.” The entire fucking point of that effort was to demonstrate to you, you fucking bonehead, that the judges oppinion (should the bloggers even get the opportunity to argue they’re protected by the FA) quite possibly will run afoul of the US Constitution, and that even if it is consistent with the CA Constitution (which I clearly alluded to in the OP), that does not make it alright to violate the defendants’ FA rights! You could spew bullshit hypotetical after bullshit hypothetical at me forever. I’m arguing actual legal precedents that are relevant to the case I mentioned in the fucking OP! Why should I waste my time on your hypotheticals when you cannot offer a single authoritative oppinion or view, beyond the very one I take issue with in the OP?? Why do you bridle under relevance? Nothing to say? Nothing to add but your own oppinion? If I provide a slew of opposing oppinions from major news sources not named as plaintifs in the case, their legal representation plus their amicus curae the premier nonprofit foundation concerned with protecting civil liberties in the digital sphere, and a trade journalist with intimate knowledge of the industry (who also happens to recommend Apple insiders spring more leaks, and, like me, uses silly terms like “blogosphere”, that’s irrelevant and selective argumentativeness? You provide me nothing of substance to persuade me but shit I and rjung (of all partisans) already fucking know, because the content of the objection is spelled out or alluded to in nearly every fucking cite I provided, I’m the one who can’t make a cogent or substantive argument? I’m the one who lacks brains and ethics?
You are truly out of line on this. If that isn’t plain as day, nothing is. Your assertion all along have been I’ve changed my arugment, and have no grounds to make them in the first place. If the above (plus the entire content of my contribution to this thread, which you have made a butchery of, as far as comprehension goes) does not constitute in your mind a tenable bullshit call on your entire position, I don’t know what does. Nobody should be persuaded by our oppinions on the issue alone. I’ve provided beyond plenty of others, each authoritative, in addition to my assertion that Apple is behaving attrociously on this issue. That’s the entire purpose of providing cites. Mocking me for doing so is beyond low, and about as dirty and bereft a tactic as I can think of.
SolGrundy: If it’s any consolation to you, I understand what LoopyDude is saying and I also think you’re an idiot with poor reading comprehension skills.
And while Steve Jobs is not restricting people’s ability to say whatever they want about him, he is also not facillitating their ability to do so and he is affecting a lot of people who are uninvolved with the whole process, and that makes him an ‘asshole’.
Both issues are a free speech issue. One of them involves the constitution the other does not.
The constant harping on the definition of journalism is sick to me as well. A writer from the New York times does not have more rights than I do as far as I am concerned. Did ThinkSecret sign an NDA? If they can’t find the leak with their own internal investigation, it certainly isn’t anyone externally who is responsible for cleaning up the mess it caused them. It certainly doesn’t give them the right to violate the privacy of every single person who sent correspondence through the servers in question.
I don’t like this elitist idea of freedom of speech or freedom from harassment. It’s not relevant whether or not bloggers are actual journalists. The constitution doesn’t use the word blogger or journalist as far as I know. It talks about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I think bloggers certainly count as the press, as the press has always been the people who own the machines capable of publication.
And I think you’re a fucking nut-job with a conspiracy-theorists’ level of understanding of ethical behavior and a bizarre hard-on for Steve Jobs, which you’ve established in this thread and others, which is why I was completely ignoring you. I may think Loopydude is a belligerent, pompous ass, but at least he’s making attempts to argue a point on sane people’s terms.
I also don’t understand the assertions of the bloggers’ shoddy ethics, or mine for supporting them. Anyway, arguing that citing others’ support support of that oppinion besides myself amounts to an even more egregious ethical violation by seeking strength in numbers, that cuts both ways. Haven’t arguments to the effect of “well IBM and GM did it, so it’s OK” been made as well? Could I not take issue with those cases and then lambaste everyone for their shitty ethics in turn? Would we have made much of a point? I’m trying to talk about the bloggers’ ethics, not everyone who agrees or disagrees with them or their defenders. And again, I don’t find them wanting. Think Secret especially is a well-designed, well-written, highly reliable source of news and gossip about Apple that has garnered raves from plenty of “legitimate” news sources. I don’t agree they’re just a bunch of hacks who get off on hit counts, any more than any other trade journalist, at least. And what journalist doesn’t want a scoop to increase their notoriety?
I fail to see anything malicious or damaging in what they did, and I really think (should they be treated appropriately, and afforded the FA protections they deserve), that ought to be the minimum standard for denying them their constitutional rights. It’s bad enough all web-based journalists who happen to lack connection with a “real” newspaper or TV station might be automatically denied the status of “journalist”, regardless of the integrity of their work, and despite their desire for the freedom of new media. That’s the usual route of corporate obstruction to changing technology when it threatens their control. See VCRs, recordable CDs, DVD-Rs, mpegs, advertisers vs. TeVo, and on and on. I’m for supporting the freedoms and benefits these technologies afford, and I’ve yet to see them hurt the bottom line of any of the corporate interests that fought to deny us the opportunity to even have them. The internet means rapid and virtually unstoppable dissemination of info, and that obviously scares the pants off of hypersecretive interests like Apple. Too fucking bad, I say. Evolve.
Hell, everybody bitches about u$oft laying out their vaporware roadmaps ten years too early, but it sure as hell hasn’t hurt their bottom line. Apple has taken the exact opposite approach by keeping everything secret to the point you don’t know what they will do next until the product is on the shelves. As I could argue u$oft fucks up my purchasing decisions by making me promises they can’t keep, I could make similar arguments that Apple denies me virtually any ability to make an informed decision about expensive technology purchases by telling me virtually nothing about their harware roadmap. What if I’m willing to wait a month for the next iteration of PowerBook, especially if it includes a new technology lacking in the current offering? ThinkSecret can help me with my decision to buy now or wait as long as I can. Apple wants to keep me in the dark so I won’t wait, and buy a model now that I don’t really want, and clear their inventory. So I have no legitimate interest? It’s secret, so tough shit? Apple gets my money how they want to, not how I want to?
That is, so far as I know, the only thing ThinkSecret is doing to Apple that they have even the slightest cause to complain over. And quite frankly, Apple’s objections are at their consumer’s expense. That’s the only justification for the secrecy that I can see, and so, in the oppinion of many, it’s catch as catch can if they want to play that game. The leaks have all been for products which were being released imminently. That’s exactly the kind of news the trade mags (and folks like Mac The Knife) have sought to provide PC consumers for years. That’s exactly why it’s not just idle curiosity to some, and those sorts of judgements should not be dictated by the industry. If they get that discretion, they get discretion to keep secret behaviors that could be to any consumer’s detriment just that, secret. That would be wrong, IMO. It’s that assault on civil rights that bugs me. The small pain in the ass this causes Apple is far worth averting the damage that could be done if they get their way.
Yes of course. Apple wants to read these people’s e-mail because they are incredibly nosy. They’ve also filed suit to be allowed to rummage through their rubbish and rifle through their frilly underthings. :rolleyes:
The bloggers posted leaked information that they had no business knowing in the first place. Apple has every right to find out who leaked it so that they can punish those who leaked it. Right to privacy has nothing to do with it.
To correct your wildly inaccurate statement, I think the right to privacy shouldn’t apply to a narrow group of people that are only claiming it because they fucked up and don’t want to get in trouble.
cite where I implied prurient interest was their motivation please.
Did those bloggers sign a NDA with Apple? So you’re saying Apple has the right to read e-mails relevant or not because they couldn’t keep a handle on their own people?
You didn’t correct my statement in any way shape or form.
I was referring to the narrow definition of “journalist” and whether or not blogger falls under that category. Then I stated that it is actually irrelevant whether or not a blogger is a journalist, because the language of the constitution talks about ‘the press’ not about ‘the journalists’. So anyone that HAS a press (in this case a computer and internet connection) is protected.
“All bloggers” is not a narrow group by any stretch of the imagination. It’s anyone putting information up on the internet.
Information technology does nothing new, it merely does things we’ve been doing for all of human history at a faster rate. To revamp the protections merely as a question of quantity is ludicrous. Journalists AREN’T special and shouldn’t receive any special protections that the average person does not receive.
The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just an educated elite. The spirit of the Bill of Rights is a set of protections that applies to all people, not just a few.
Now if they want to subpoena ThinkSecret and take that case as an individual case that’s fine. I am simply arguing with the semantic argument seperating journalists from bloggers. One of the horrible things about our legal system is that it is based off of precedents. If Apple wins because bloggers are not protected as journalists, that’s bad for everyone. If Apple wins because ThinkSecret legitimately did something wrong, then that’s bad for ThinkSecret. However, I don’t think that ThinkSecret has ANY obligation NOT to print Apple’s proprietary secrets if someone else provided them.
Just for clarification, I am not for Apple or for ThinkSecret in this case. I am against the overly broad casting of bloggers as “not journalists” and therefore not covered by the same protections.
As people on this board are known to be pretty thick, I’ll put in another clarification. I am arguing with people on this board, and not with the people actually trying the case, and am ONLY arguing with people on this board who have expressed a particular viewpoint.
Now that you have seen an example of an actual correction, please feel free to correct me.
Erek
P.S.
SolGrundy: The only other case where I can see that I had it in for Steve Jobs in recent memory was a thread about this very same subject. I don’t really think about Steve Jobs on a regular basis.
Corrected in that you were guessing what I thought. I told you what I really thought. Feel free to stand corrected.
Right to privacy really has as much place here as the first amendment. None. If Thinksecret would turn over the names or even just the e-mails of those who leaked the information, no other e-mails would need to be read. It’s not as if Apple wants to just root through all of their e-mails (thusly my incredibly exaggerated statement about rubbish and underthings).
All they want is the identity of the leak. How does the right to privacy or free speech fit into that?
Do you think that NY Times writers have the right to protect their sources?
If you do, why should they be special, what is it inherently that seperates them from ThinkSecret?
What obligation does ThinkSecret have to reveal it’s sources?
This is both a speech and privacy issue, in fact it’s not another kind of issue. Trying to eliminate those two things from the issue is just doublespeak.
And I didn’t correct what you said, I corrected your misrepresentation of what I said.
So what you are saying is that if ThinkSecret would just kowtow to the big corporate interests all of the hubbub would be over? I’m sorry if I am reading you wrong, but that seems like what you’re saying.
And I didn’t say Apple WANTED to read their e-mails only that it would be necessary to find out who their source was.
I actually think if Apple catches the leakers, they’ve every right let the leakers have it. And I certainly think they’ve every right to do whatever they can to find the leaks, so long as they do so legally. The leakers violated an NDA, however trivial or serious the nature of the leak, and those are simply the conditions they agreed to be bound to.
But if the process of gathering amounts to setting legal precedents with such far-reaching implications, I personally think Apple’s pique doesn’t warrant weakening the FA rights of journalists to do their jobs. ThinkSecret et al. did nothing illegal, period. I can see no rational reason not to call them journalists. Walks like a duck, and all that. I guess their ethical status depends on whether you think journalists should feel free to decide on their own what is newsworthy, when operating within the bounds of the law, and acting without demonstrable harm or malice. I think they should. Some of us may find the news sleazy at times, but the alternative is censorship of the very industry that helps inform us of, and sometimes protect us from, corporate interests that do affect our lives. I think the appropriate way to dissent is to publically criticise and stop supporting them with your readership. I do not think the appropriate way to dissent is to weaken civil liberties to benefit only corporate interests, when clearly the interests of private citizens are not harmful to accomodate.
Well, I was talking about this “discussion” with a friend at lunch today, and his response: “You’re both idiots, for the same reason that Apple is. The issue isn’t whether blogs are legitimate journalism, but whether trade secrets are protected under the journalistic right not to reveal sources. That’s what Apple should be arguing, because there’s an established precedent for that. You [ SolGrundy ] shouldn’t have derailed it by talking about the New York Times’ legitimacy, because it’s the information that’s under question, not who’s spreading it.” And of course, he’s got a point.
As for “cites”: providing someone who agrees with your opinion doesn’t automatically elevate it in status over my opinion. And when you talk about ethics, you’re talking about opinions. I’m not going to make any claims that I know the technicalities of the law, and I don’t believe I ever have. But if I explain the logical reasoning that led to my opinion of an ethical issue, then that should be sufficient cite.
People want to know what’s going on inside Apple. Journalists want to gain notoriety and attract readers. Want is not the same thing as need or deserve. The motivations of someone posting unethically-leaked information are the same as the motivations of someone posting a responsibly researched and fact-checked article. The ethical difference is in the method. Even “legitimate” news sources like the NYT and CBS have gotten called on this, so the legitimacy of the forum isn’t in question, it’s how they got the information they’re spreading.
What about Apple’s right to privacy? What about Apple stockholders’ right to have their investment protected instead of undercut by corporate espionage? What about Apple developers and designers’ right to have all of their work and innovation managed responsibly by their company to get the maximum value out of it before it’s released into the public domain? What about everyone’s responsibility to stay true to signed contracts?
Take it to the most extreme case: Do you believe that I’m entitled to hack into your personal copy of TurboTax, find out your yearly salary, and post that information on my website? It’s not like it’s damaging to you. But I imagine you’d see it as a gross invasion of your privacy.
Or: Do you believe it would’ve been fine for one of these websites to release the technical specs of the iPod a month or so before it were released? Is Apple not entitled to decide how long it’s going to be the innovator and take advantage of having the best unit available on the market? Or is it just fine that Dell and Creative would’ve had a couple of months’ head start to release their competing products?
You believe your “right” to know the inner workings of a company supercede their right to keep that information private? Too fucking bad, I say. What about all the people who work for Apple, whose livelihood is based on their being a solvent company, and whose hard work is being protected by that company?
Your “information should be free, no matter what” mentality doesn’t account for the fact that Apple can’t “evolve” if their trade secrets, the value of their company, are leaked and undercut by people who can just capitalize on Apple’s innovation and make money off of someone else’s work. Apple doesn’t make money just off of products; they make money by the fact that their products are innovative. And they’re more friendly to Open Source than other companies of their size.
Oh, come on. You don’t need to buy a PowerBook in the first place. It’s a luxury item. Even if you use it for work, it’s a luxury item. Don’t act like they’ve got power over your wallet. If you don’t want to buy one based on the information that’s legitimately available, then it’s simple: just don’t buy one. Or get a Dell or something. You’re not going to die if you end up paying too much for a damn laptop computer. Or even if they release one that’s better for the same price, a week after you get yours. So fucking what. You go in knowing that technology is constantly updated so there’s always a risk of obsolescence, you analyze what you really need right now, and you play the odds.
I mean, seriously. I’m as big an Apple whore as anybody, but even I can recognize the difference between wanting to buy a Mac mini and having to get one. I wanted to get one, so I went on gossip sites and looked for gossip and speculation and opinions about when the new OS X would be released, and whether it was likely for a newer version to be released soon. They could very well come out with a faster one the day after I get mine. Big fucking deal. I knew that going in. If I were to buy stock, I wouldn’t whine that the price went down right after I got it, and therefore I should be entitled to insider information.
No, no, no. This is nothing more than a “slippery slope” non-argument. Because Apple’s “hiding” product release dates from the public, they could be hiding their secret baby-mulching factory in Nepal!
Tell you what: if and when an employee violates a non-disclosure agreement to reveal to the public that Apple is doing something that’s genuinely harming the public, then I’ll be right there with you in defense of the whistle-blower and the journalists who bring that information to light. The stuff that those blogs were posting, as far as I can tell, were far from being need-to-know information.
The stupidest part of the whole thing: even if one of those blogs did get genuine trade secrets from some disgruntled Apple employee, and knew that the information was breaking a non-disclosure agreement or employee contract, they could’ve avoided the whole situation and still gotten their scoop. Just by saying that it was gossip instead of real insider information, and withholding some minor details, enough to keep it in the realm of “rumor” and “gossip.”
mwas, I have this nagging suspicion that we are talking past each other in the correction area so I’m just going to move on.
To an extent, I think that NY Times writers have the right to protect their sources. In criminal cases they should have to come forward and I think that federal grand juries are not protected but that is neither here nor there.
As I’ve stated, I do not consider bloggers to be journalists. There are no editors or other powers that be to answer to, approve stories, etc. They simply write what they want to write when they want to write it. They are so unreliable content wise that if you cite most blogs in great debates you will get badgered out of a thread moreso than if you cite fox news.
Free speech and privacy do not apply because in this case thinksecret posted information that they should not have. posted and shouldn’t even have had access to. They should feel obliged to provide the e-mails from their sources and let apple handle the matter.
There is no privacy violation as they only want the e-mails pertaining to the leak. There is no free speech violation because they aren’t preventing them from posting anything.
I wasn’t born yesterday, and I didn’t come up with the idea to pit Jobs in five minutes. I read every one of those cites before I ranted, and made some effort to actually think about the grounds for objection before posting. So you decide to dismiss with sarcasm and ridiculous hyperbole, in an attempt to make my argument seem totally absurd. You call me fatuous for providing numerous substantive cite that, of all things, happen to support my position. Meanwhile, for my efforts, to make a compelling argument based on something other than an absurd fantasy, you give me no evidence you have anything more to add but your own smug oppinion on the matter, and can’t be bothered to provide a single cite to make it even seem worth it to consider your hypothetical arguments. Sure, it’s not a direct way of telling me I’ve got a worthless point of view, but you know damn well that’s what you’re doing.
Not a problem, really! It’s the pit after all. But what do you want from me in return? You implying if I argued in a different tone you’d be less of a smartass with nothing to say? I’ll give you this: Unlike my insults, you really must think I’m that stupid. Great. I care about the idea, not one’s mere oppinion of my intellect, which won’t be better or worse for what anyone thinks of it. You shat on my idea without, apparently, giving it a thought. I think I offered a hell of a lot more in the way of real information than I got back for all this, which fucking pisses me off. A well-researched rant, totally wasted.
Oh fuck. Fucking fuck. That was a simulpost. Prior to your last post, Sol, it held, but I’d be remiss in not rethinking without fully reading your latest. I can’t reply today because I have to go home and then out. I spoke too soon in this instance, and for that I was wrong. I should use preview, but my habit is not to.
While I don’t know (or care) much about the specifics of the situation, I think there’s a more subtle and important connection between business, money and free speech than some of you are giving credit for.
When a member of the public reads a story in a legitimate news outlet, it is in their best interest (and the best interest of the nation as a whole) that they can trust that the story is being reported objectively, was chosen objectively, and is generally journalistically objective. If someone at the New York Times finds a fact which someone who owns a corporation which owns the NYT would find embarassing, that reporter’s (and the editor’s) decision whether or not to print that story should not be influenced by how embarassing that corporation owner mind find it. That’s why media monopolies are so dangerous.
Now, how does that affect other corporations? Well, suppose there’s a story in the NYT that is embarassing to Barnes and Noble. Should Barnes and Noble be able to refuse to carry the NYT because of that story? What if Barnes and Noble is far and away the largest distributor of the NYT? Once Barnes and Noble wields enough influence on the NYT, we can’t trust the NYT to report objectively on B&N.
I don’t have a clearcut answer to this whole issue, but I think there are definitely some truly worrisome issues when free speech becomes tied to commercial and corporate interests. Granted, I don’t quite see how to avoid some connections, since most media outlets are businesses, but I don’t think such worries should be laughed off or dismissed with “if he owns the magazine/printing press/network, why shouldn’t he get to decide what’s on it?”
I would think that’s a problem if and when one media outlet has enough marketshare to effectively intimidate its suppliers into toeing the line (ClearChannel, maybe?). If Barnes & Noble doesn’t have a dominating distribution system, then they can choose to stop carrying the NYT, and the NYT could simply get distributed elsewhere without problems.
Yes, the tying of corporate interests to news/free speech concerns is something to be worried about (I wonder why ABC never does exposes on Disney-backed sweatshops?), but that’s a concern that’s neither new nor exclusive to this case.
Yeah, but that’s an issue of being a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly, they don’t even have a large market share in their niche market. They are a franchised specialty boutique that has been able to convince their customers that they are some kind of rebellious entity. They managed to make their computers seem sexy (almost).
These issues are Apple vs two companies. It should remain that. What scares me is the idea of it being ‘precedent setting’. This shouldn’t be Apple vs Bloggers rights.
