4 ms·

This is absurd. Gizmodo owes no apology. They're journalists (however loosely) and a journalist's job is to report the W's, including the who. It's a relevant f

This is absurd. Gizmodo owes no apology. They're journalists (however loosely) and a journalist's job is to report the W's, including the who. It's a relevant fact, and one of great interest, how an iPhone prototype wound up lost at a bar. They've been pretty clear the whole time that it was an honest mistake on the guy's part. Could happen to anyone. They most certainly did not smear the guy at all. I don't think they were rude about it at all, they were reporting the facts. In fact I'd say they were overly generous. Why the hell was he carrying a top secret iPhone prototype to a place that exists solely to get you drunk? He was careless, and it was his fault. If I were Apple, I wouldn't fire him, as I'm sure he won't do that again, and I generally don't believe in firing people for making mistakes. That's how you learn, and we all do it. But he'd not be taking any prototypes off-campus for a long time. I mean, the guy left an iPhone prototype at a bar. That's like a CIA agent leaving a map to Osama Bin Laden's hideout at a McDonalds. A large part of his job is to not lose the prototype iPhone, and he failed. To blame it on a bar-goer is absolutely ridiculous. The guy who found the thing allegedly tried to give it back. He's a better guy than me, I would have called up Microsoft, Engadget, and PC Magazine and had an auction. Apple's institutionalized dickishness (further proof that corporate culture comes directly from it's leaders' personalities) actually prevented him from being honest. They deserved what they got on this one.

ubernostrum 17y ago
They're journalists (however loosely) If by "loosely" you mean "not at all", then I'd agree. and a journalist's job is to report the W's, including the who. It's a relevant fact, and one of great interest, how an iPhone prototype wound up lost at a bar. It's a relevant fact that it was lost at a bar. Publicly shaming the individual, though? Doesn't add a damn thing to the story. In fact I'd say they were overly generous. I'd say they ought to be reading up on laws governing receipt of stolen property. They deserved what they got on this one. Yes, as we all know: two wrongs will always make a right.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Gizmodo is much closer to journalism than anything else in the Gawker network, though that's obviously a "skinniest kid at fat camp" compliment. I won't say I'm a fan, but they do some good work on occasion. Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. They didn't go out of their way to shame him. They didn't say "he check out what this donkey did, I sure hope he gets fired for it". They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. It's quite relevant who did it because it gives you a picture of how it happened. It's also a great look into Apple's closely-guarded secrecy. Who would have suspected that engineers are taking next-gen phones to bars? It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. The reaction against this is nothing more than "there but for the grace of God go I" which is not a valid reason to call for an apology. It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. (Perhaps buying the phone crossed a legal or ethical line, but that was clearly not OP's problem.)
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The story in this case was that an iPhone prototype was found after being lost. The key thing here was the prototype itself, not the person who lost it. Contrast with the Plame case, where the central question was who leaked the information and why; your assertion simply doesn't hold up. They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. Which supports the thesis that the identity of the specific person it happened to is irrelevant to the story. It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. When it's relevant or adds to the understanding of the story, yes. You've not explained how it meets either of those criteria, though. So I'll lay out the question clearly: what do we gain, in terms of understanding this story, from having the guy's name repeatedly tossed out for ridicule, that we wouldn't have without it? And what do we gain from stories like this? http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. It's quite clear that they did several things wrong. This wasn't good journalism; it wasn't ethical; parts of it quite probably weren't legal. If you can't see the problems here, I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain.

ubernostrum 17y ago

They're journalists (however loosely) If by "loosely" you mean "not at all", then I'd agree. and a journalist's job is to report the W's, including the who. It's a relevant fact, and one of great interest, how an iPhone prototype wound up lost at a bar. It's a relevant fact that it was lost at a bar. Publicly shaming the individual, though? Doesn't add a damn thing to the story. In fact I'd say they were overly generous. I'd say they ought to be reading up on laws governing receipt of stolen property. They deserved what they got on this one. Yes, as we all know: two wrongs will always make a right.

mattmaroon 17y ago
Gizmodo is much closer to journalism than anything else in the Gawker network, though that's obviously a "skinniest kid at fat camp" compliment. I won't say I'm a fan, but they do some good work on occasion. Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. They didn't go out of their way to shame him. They didn't say "he check out what this donkey did, I sure hope he gets fired for it". They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. It's quite relevant who did it because it gives you a picture of how it happened. It's also a great look into Apple's closely-guarded secrecy. Who would have suspected that engineers are taking next-gen phones to bars? It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. The reaction against this is nothing more than "there but for the grace of God go I" which is not a valid reason to call for an apology. It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. (Perhaps buying the phone crossed a legal or ethical line, but that was clearly not OP's problem.)
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The story in this case was that an iPhone prototype was found after being lost. The key thing here was the prototype itself, not the person who lost it. Contrast with the Plame case, where the central question was who leaked the information and why; your assertion simply doesn't hold up. They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. Which supports the thesis that the identity of the specific person it happened to is irrelevant to the story. It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. When it's relevant or adds to the understanding of the story, yes. You've not explained how it meets either of those criteria, though. So I'll lay out the question clearly: what do we gain, in terms of understanding this story, from having the guy's name repeatedly tossed out for ridicule, that we wouldn't have without it? And what do we gain from stories like this? http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. It's quite clear that they did several things wrong. This wasn't good journalism; it wasn't ethical; parts of it quite probably weren't legal. If you can't see the problems here, I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain.