5 ms·

So which of those stories weren't true? You are implying bias, where I see a troubled company. Can you name another instance where the WSJ wrote negatively ab

So which of those stories weren't true? You are implying bias, where I see a troubled company. Can you name another instance where the WSJ wrote negatively about a company and it turned out to be false? As a subscriber, why the sudden skepticism?

rory096 8y ago
Andy Pasztor published unfounded speculation that the highly classified Zuma mission was a SpaceX failure.[0] It certainly was not and is believed to be a Northrop Grumman failure.[1] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500 https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumma...
ryanhuff 8y ago
You don't have to be factually incorrect to be biased in your writing.
perl4ever 8y ago
There was a time when the WSJ wrote over and over articles with a negative slant about Apple, before Jobs came back. They would always describe them as "beleaguered" and similar terms. For some reason the "party line" changed, and it was quite striking to me. While it's undeniable that Apple was turned around, the sense of a manipulated narrative never left me. And while I don't trust Rupert Murdoch, this was before his involvement.
- jonknee 8y ago
  Apple was beleaguered before Steve came back. That's why he came back! They very nearly went out of business, you can't get much more beleaguered than that.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Apple wasn't levered though. To this day, many people will tell you they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The "beleaguered" stuff was self-reinforcing judgement of their product line and its prospects. It is possible to be extremely biased against an entity that has real issues, just like a paranoid can have real enemies.
    - rwc 8y ago
      Yes, many people will tell you that, including Jobs: https://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-90-days/ https://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-90-days/
      - perl4ever 8y ago
        I'm coming from the perspective of having read Apple's annual SEC filings back in the day and noted what a huge amount of cash they had stockpiled even in their doldrums. Apple would never have survived if they had not been run so conservatively, which speaks to the efforts of people other than Jobs and Gates. At the end of 1997 their 10-K says they had around $1.4B dollars in cash, and around $900M in long term debt. The 2000 10-K shows they had $4 billion in cash and short term investments compared to $300 million in long term debt.

rory096 8y ago

Andy Pasztor published unfounded speculation that the highly classified Zuma mission was a SpaceX failure.[0] It certainly was not and is believed to be a Northrop Grumman failure.[1] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500 https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumma...

ryanhuff 8y ago

You don't have to be factually incorrect to be biased in your writing.

perl4ever 8y ago

There was a time when the WSJ wrote over and over articles with a negative slant about Apple, before Jobs came back. They would always describe them as "beleaguered" and similar terms. For some reason the "party line" changed, and it was quite striking to me. While it's undeniable that Apple was turned around, the sense of a manipulated narrative never left me. And while I don't trust Rupert Murdoch, this was before his involvement.

jonknee 8y ago
Apple was beleaguered before Steve came back. That's why he came back! They very nearly went out of business, you can't get much more beleaguered than that.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  Apple wasn't levered though. To this day, many people will tell you they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The "beleaguered" stuff was self-reinforcing judgement of their product line and its prospects. It is possible to be extremely biased against an entity that has real issues, just like a paranoid can have real enemies.
  - rwc 8y ago
    Yes, many people will tell you that, including Jobs: https://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-90-days/ https://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-90-days/
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      I'm coming from the perspective of having read Apple's annual SEC filings back in the day and noted what a huge amount of cash they had stockpiled even in their doldrums. Apple would never have survived if they had not been run so conservatively, which speaks to the efforts of people other than Jobs and Gates. At the end of 1997 their 10-K says they had around $1.4B dollars in cash, and around $900M in long term debt. The 2000 10-K shows they had $4 billion in cash and short term investments compared to $300 million in long term debt.