4 ms·

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 pa

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.
- younata 16y ago
  > If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story. The full story, in this case, is CLEARLY a new iphone being announced. That kind of story can only work to Apple's (or, for that matter, any other company's) detriment, because it decrease sales of the current generation of products as people decide to wait for the next-gen one that'll be released in a month or two. as for the "I'm ... glad that some outlets don't play the ... game" comment, it's like you're told since childhood, "if you're not willing to play by the rules, then you won't get to play at all." and as for the "may" part, gizmodo has admitted, and they are proud of it, that they paid $10,000 for it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmodo-paid-iphone-4g http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmod...
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Gizmodo proudly paid $10,000 for something. Whether what they did was unethical or illegal depends on whether the prototype was stolen, whether Gizmodo knew it was stolen, and whether Gizmodo was paying to possess the property, or just to view it and shepherd it back to its rightful owner. Yes, some of those interpretations may be strained but we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out.
    - _pius 16y ago
      ... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out. These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the actual flow rate of the Deepwater Horizon oil gusher; they were trying to get exclusive pictures of an iPhone for their gadget blog.
      - gojomo 16y ago
        Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law allows for scoops is to be expected. Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was returned to its owner fairly quickly. Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements, but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship product. So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.

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.

younata 16y ago
> If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story. The full story, in this case, is CLEARLY a new iphone being announced. That kind of story can only work to Apple's (or, for that matter, any other company's) detriment, because it decrease sales of the current generation of products as people decide to wait for the next-gen one that'll be released in a month or two. as for the "I'm ... glad that some outlets don't play the ... game" comment, it's like you're told since childhood, "if you're not willing to play by the rules, then you won't get to play at all." and as for the "may" part, gizmodo has admitted, and they are proud of it, that they paid $10,000 for it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmodo-paid-iphone-4g http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmod...
- gojomo 16y ago
  Gizmodo proudly paid $10,000 for something. Whether what they did was unethical or illegal depends on whether the prototype was stolen, whether Gizmodo knew it was stolen, and whether Gizmodo was paying to possess the property, or just to view it and shepherd it back to its rightful owner. Yes, some of those interpretations may be strained but we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out.
  - _pius 16y ago
    ... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out. These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the actual flow rate of the Deepwater Horizon oil gusher; they were trying to get exclusive pictures of an iPhone for their gadget blog.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law allows for scoops is to be expected. Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was returned to its owner fairly quickly. Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements, but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship product. So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.