4 ms·

Gizmodo doesn't get to have it both ways. If they want the perqs afforded to journalists - things like press passes - they need to follow the established ethics

Gizmodo doesn't get to have it both ways. If they want the perqs afforded to journalists - things like press passes - they need to follow the established ethics of that profession. If they want to be outsiders and invent their own ethics, they need to be willing to forgo the perqs.

briansmith 16y ago
> the established ethics of that profession a.k.a. access journalism.
- younata 16y ago
  but not known as "theft".
gojomo 16y ago
The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate in a domain where they have control -- their own conferences. But it's not like Apple is defending the honor of all 'journalists' with this move.
- pkulak 16y ago
  Apple isn't banning them because they didn't suck up. In fact, they seemed to speak very highly of the stolen phone they illegally bought!
- masklinn 16y ago
  > The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. Uh no the ethical issue is that they broke the law themselves by buying stolen property. And they acted like dicks. Not sucking up is irrelevant and fine, buying stolen shit and flouting that fact isn't.
- jacobian 16y ago
  Wow, you could teach a class on rhetorical fallacies from your comment alone. Let's try to unpack it here. First, you've tried to claim access journalism as part of accepted journalistic ethics. In fact, access journalism is not part of any accepted journalistic ethic, and is in fact the subject of great consternation among journalists themselves. Second, you've implied that I'm somehow proud of the practice of access journalism. Once again, the fact is that I, like you, find the practice repugnant. Third, you've tried to use this supposed anti-ethic to thus dismiss the entire ethical foundation of journalism via some sort of guilt by association. Of course, even if some aspect of journalistic ethics were to be found suspect, that still wouldn't negate the rest of the practice. In fact, like all ethical pursuits, the whole is greater than the parts: journalists, like lawyers and doctors, bind themselves to ethical practice. There are always those willing to violate those ethics, but an access journalist no more discredits his entire profession than a negligent doctor. Fourth, you've made a false appeal to common ground ("It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate") which mischaracterizes my argument -- you'll note I didn't once mention "Apple" in my comment -- and sets up a false equivalency where Apple's behavior somehow excuses Gizmodo's. In fact, I think Apple's actions are clearly retaliatory, but that wasn't the argument I made, and is still unrelated to Gizmodo's unethical behavior. Fifth, you've argued against the claim that Apple "is defending the honor of all journalists." That's indeed a specious claim, and one worth arguing against. Except that I didn't make it. In fact, you've again mischaracterized my argument which, for the record, was simply that Gizmodo needs to choose which side of the fence they sit on. Finally, you've enclosed the word "journalists" in air quotes as a sort of argument-by-ridicule: you've tried to assert stylistically that journalism is something to scoff at, and thus that anyone -- like me -- who defends journalism is similarly subject to ridicule. In fact, journalism is generally accepted as being a requirement for democracy -- see, for example, the Bill of Rights.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Your grandparent comment defended Apple's decision, on the grounds that Gizmodo has abandoned conventional journalistic ethics, and has thus received their just deserts. I suggest that's still arguable; Gizmodo may have just been very aggressive (and ethical) getting a story about a powerful agent -- Apple -- that otherwise manipulates the press very effectively. Time will tell. If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story. Your comment seemed to endorse that sort of competition for Apple's favor -- bad press, no press "perqs"! If that wasn't your intent, you might have chosen your wording more carefully. Note that I wasn't the only respondent who saw your comment as a defense of access-for-favors journalism. I'm queasy that Gizmodo may have rewarded theft with its actions -- but I'm also glad that some outlets don't play Apple's game. I'm similarly glad that some outlets don't play the federal government's access-for-warm-coverage game. Most outlets do play that game, sadly, and that's why I mocked it as an 'ethic' of traditional journalism.
- halostatue 16y ago
  This has nothing to do with warm or cold coverage and access. Gizmodo (probably) broke the law when it bought the prototype. Gizmodo were complete douchebags about Gray Powell (who's "outing" was completely unnecessary to the story). To top it all off, they tried to extort better access to Apple events in return for returning the prototype. I'd pretty much decline requests for access to ANY news organization that did that.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    If Apple wants to deny access to Gizmodo because Gizmodo is a bunch of douchebags, great. Just don't tell us, as Jacobian did, that Apple is defending journalistic ethics by doing so. Apple is just playing the same tit-for-tat access game they always do. Apple is an admirable company in many ways, but they're not a consistent champion of free speech, a free press, or high journalistic standards. Apple shouldn't be defended on the basis of their press-policing.
vrode 16y ago
I would not call it ethics, rather a good old quid pro quo, dancing to Apple's tune.

briansmith 16y ago

> the established ethics of that profession a.k.a. access journalism.

younata 16y ago
but not known as "theft".

gojomo 16y ago

The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate in a domain where they have control -- their own conferences. But it's not like Apple is defending the honor of all 'journalists' with this move.

pkulak 16y ago
Apple isn't banning them because they didn't suck up. In fact, they seemed to speak very highly of the stolen phone they illegally bought!
masklinn 16y ago
> The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. Uh no the ethical issue is that they broke the law themselves by buying stolen property. And they acted like dicks. Not sucking up is irrelevant and fine, buying stolen shit and flouting that fact isn't.
jacobian 16y ago
Wow, you could teach a class on rhetorical fallacies from your comment alone. Let's try to unpack it here. First, you've tried to claim access journalism as part of accepted journalistic ethics. In fact, access journalism is not part of any accepted journalistic ethic, and is in fact the subject of great consternation among journalists themselves. Second, you've implied that I'm somehow proud of the practice of access journalism. Once again, the fact is that I, like you, find the practice repugnant. Third, you've tried to use this supposed anti-ethic to thus dismiss the entire ethical foundation of journalism via some sort of guilt by association. Of course, even if some aspect of journalistic ethics were to be found suspect, that still wouldn't negate the rest of the practice. In fact, like all ethical pursuits, the whole is greater than the parts: journalists, like lawyers and doctors, bind themselves to ethical practice. There are always those willing to violate those ethics, but an access journalist no more discredits his entire profession than a negligent doctor. Fourth, you've made a false appeal to common ground ("It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate") which mischaracterizes my argument -- you'll note I didn't once mention "Apple" in my comment -- and sets up a false equivalency where Apple's behavior somehow excuses Gizmodo's. In fact, I think Apple's actions are clearly retaliatory, but that wasn't the argument I made, and is still unrelated to Gizmodo's unethical behavior. Fifth, you've argued against the claim that Apple "is defending the honor of all journalists." That's indeed a specious claim, and one worth arguing against. Except that I didn't make it. In fact, you've again mischaracterized my argument which, for the record, was simply that Gizmodo needs to choose which side of the fence they sit on. Finally, you've enclosed the word "journalists" in air quotes as a sort of argument-by-ridicule: you've tried to assert stylistically that journalism is something to scoff at, and thus that anyone -- like me -- who defends journalism is similarly subject to ridicule. In fact, journalism is generally accepted as being a requirement for democracy -- see, for example, the Bill of Rights.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Your grandparent comment defended Apple's decision, on the grounds that Gizmodo has abandoned conventional journalistic ethics, and has thus received their just deserts. I suggest that's still arguable; Gizmodo may have just been very aggressive (and ethical) getting a story about a powerful agent -- Apple -- that otherwise manipulates the press very effectively. Time will tell. If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story. Your comment seemed to endorse that sort of competition for Apple's favor -- bad press, no press "perqs"! If that wasn't your intent, you might have chosen your wording more carefully. Note that I wasn't the only respondent who saw your comment as a defense of access-for-favors journalism. I'm queasy that Gizmodo may have rewarded theft with its actions -- but I'm also glad that some outlets don't play Apple's game. I'm similarly glad that some outlets don't play the federal government's access-for-warm-coverage game. Most outlets do play that game, sadly, and that's why I mocked it as an 'ethic' of traditional journalism.
halostatue 16y ago
This has nothing to do with warm or cold coverage and access. Gizmodo (probably) broke the law when it bought the prototype. Gizmodo were complete douchebags about Gray Powell (who's "outing" was completely unnecessary to the story). To top it all off, they tried to extort better access to Apple events in return for returning the prototype. I'd pretty much decline requests for access to ANY news organization that did that.
- gojomo 16y ago
  If Apple wants to deny access to Gizmodo because Gizmodo is a bunch of douchebags, great. Just don't tell us, as Jacobian did, that Apple is defending journalistic ethics by doing so. Apple is just playing the same tit-for-tat access game they always do. Apple is an admirable company in many ways, but they're not a consistent champion of free speech, a free press, or high journalistic standards. Apple shouldn't be defended on the basis of their press-policing.

vrode 16y ago

I would not call it ethics, rather a good old quid pro quo, dancing to Apple's tune.