3 ms·

When Tim Cook came out against the story, I did the same thing. It just didn't seem plausible that he would be lying. Then add to that Joe Fitzpatrick's (one of

When Tim Cook came out against the story, I did the same thing. It just didn't seem plausible that he would be lying. Then add to that Joe Fitzpatrick's (one of the named sources) discomfort about the story, and something seemed wrong. Time seems to have validated this idea somewhat, but it is interesting that Bloomberg has stood by the story.

derefr 7y ago
> it is interesting that Bloomberg has stood by the story My guess as to why: one of their reporters was misled by a trusted source, or multiple trusted sources (who were maybe actually catspaws of some-group-or-other who would benefit from getting this story out.) So now, although Bloomberg would like to speak truth by issuing a retraction, such a move would likely severely damage the original reporter's career; and they don't want to do that for something that wasn't that reporter's fault. Having some corporation or government agency with tons of resources come along and force or trick a reporter into running a story, would be the journalism equivalent of an insurance agency's "act of God" waiver clause. I would guess that every major news outlet has a policy for protecting and defending reporters who—by hook or by crook—get used as patsies by forces out of the news outlet's control.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  In that scenario, the obvious solution is to publish a new story and name names of all the people who lied to get the story published. If you lie to a newspaper to get fake news published, you no longer have any right to remain off the record. That's what a newspaper with integrity would do.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    That requires having a degree of certainty supporting any attempt to name names. If you're not certain they lied to you, then your new story is potentially libel. For example, let's say they were given information they were certain was correct, and they handed it to a journalist in confidence. They're a trusted source. You both got duped. What's the value in burning them publicly, especially if you're going to do it by calling them a liar and exposing yourself to risk? There are cases where the press really needs to take people to task but the amount of secrecy and ambiguity in this story makes it seem like a case where it can't (or shouldn't) be done.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      They claimed to have something like over a dozen sources. Some of those were lying outright. >If you're not certain they lied to you, then your new story is potentially libel. No, you report the truth that they said X to you, and your opinion that it isn't true, along with any verifiable facts supporting that opinion.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Two scenarios: Cynical scenario: the trusted-source catspaws have been reliable sources in the past, and will seemingly continue to be reliable sources in the future. This is their “price” for giving up reliable information for free—the ability to be used as a mouthpiece by their organization. Bloomberg accepts this deal, because they’re so useful otherwise. Noble scenario: the sources didn’t want to transmit this information any more than Bloomberg wanted to receive it, but they were forced to (by, perhaps, a National Security Letter; or just generic “we’ll hurt your family” coercion); Bloomberg knows this, and doesn’t want to hurt the sources either, when it isn’t their fault (and either don’t know who coerced them; or do know, but know that it’s an actor powerful enough that they know that reporting the source’s coercion would just mean the source’s untimely death. It’s not like a newspaper is a government that can offer witness protection.)
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      Cynical version rings truer to me. But the number of different sources they claimed is surprising.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      The flip side is that on a story this big, they shouldn't publish if they won't be able to burn their sources if it turns out they're being played. If a source is too valuable to challenge, they're not worth enough to publish. Spin is one thing, outright lies is another.
- ssnistfajen 7y ago
  I'm leaning towards that something did happen at SuperMicro, but the FBI agents who were interviewed by Bloomberg lacked the technical knowledge to understand what happened or how it happened and thus did not convey an accurate view of the incident(s). Bloomberg decides to give the go-ahead on publishing this story despite providing zero provable evidence, which is still a poor demonstration of journalism integrity on their part. However I don't believe Bloomberg will use completely fabricated stories to smear anyone despite how suspect such acts seem. If they realize that they've been misled, the proper reaction should be making a disclaimer regarding the story containing misinfo. Apple/Amazon/SuperMicro also could have sued Bloomberg for defamation but none of them did, which means they don't have a strong enough case on hand. I have this view because FBI agents have acted upon information they could not fully understand or analyze before, only to be proven wrong later e.g. the arrest and subsequent exoneration of Dr. Xi Xiaoxing.
ksec 7y ago
Tim Cook lies about there were no settlement talk between Qualcomm and Apple. Although one could argue he spoke of it in January and the Settlement were in April, so may be they did all that negotiation in three months. Although I highly doubt it, I am siding with Steve Mollenkopf on this one, out of all the evidence given in court I think Qualcomm were extremely professional. There were bunch of other things where I caught Tim Cook lying. Steve Jobs uses to be very deceptive when he needs to, his wording weren't clear cut and leads you to wrong assumption. Tim Cook doesn't have that talent. And once you have been caught lying, you lose trust. While I do have doubt on Bloomberg story, I am not going to trust sold on Tim Cook's word.

derefr 7y ago

> it is interesting that Bloomberg has stood by the story My guess as to why: one of their reporters was misled by a trusted source, or multiple trusted sources (who were maybe actually catspaws of some-group-or-other who would benefit from getting this story out.) So now, although Bloomberg would like to speak truth by issuing a retraction, such a move would likely severely damage the original reporter's career; and they don't want to do that for something that wasn't that reporter's fault. Having some corporation or government agency with tons of resources come along and force or trick a reporter into running a story, would be the journalism equivalent of an insurance agency's "act of God" waiver clause. I would guess that every major news outlet has a policy for protecting and defending reporters who—by hook or by crook—get used as patsies by forces out of the news outlet's control.

ikeboy 7y ago
In that scenario, the obvious solution is to publish a new story and name names of all the people who lied to get the story published. If you lie to a newspaper to get fake news published, you no longer have any right to remain off the record. That's what a newspaper with integrity would do.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  That requires having a degree of certainty supporting any attempt to name names. If you're not certain they lied to you, then your new story is potentially libel. For example, let's say they were given information they were certain was correct, and they handed it to a journalist in confidence. They're a trusted source. You both got duped. What's the value in burning them publicly, especially if you're going to do it by calling them a liar and exposing yourself to risk? There are cases where the press really needs to take people to task but the amount of secrecy and ambiguity in this story makes it seem like a case where it can't (or shouldn't) be done.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    They claimed to have something like over a dozen sources. Some of those were lying outright. >If you're not certain they lied to you, then your new story is potentially libel. No, you report the truth that they said X to you, and your opinion that it isn't true, along with any verifiable facts supporting that opinion.
- derefr 7y ago
  Two scenarios: Cynical scenario: the trusted-source catspaws have been reliable sources in the past, and will seemingly continue to be reliable sources in the future. This is their “price” for giving up reliable information for free—the ability to be used as a mouthpiece by their organization. Bloomberg accepts this deal, because they’re so useful otherwise. Noble scenario: the sources didn’t want to transmit this information any more than Bloomberg wanted to receive it, but they were forced to (by, perhaps, a National Security Letter; or just generic “we’ll hurt your family” coercion); Bloomberg knows this, and doesn’t want to hurt the sources either, when it isn’t their fault (and either don’t know who coerced them; or do know, but know that it’s an actor powerful enough that they know that reporting the source’s coercion would just mean the source’s untimely death. It’s not like a newspaper is a government that can offer witness protection.)
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Cynical version rings truer to me. But the number of different sources they claimed is surprising.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    The flip side is that on a story this big, they shouldn't publish if they won't be able to burn their sources if it turns out they're being played. If a source is too valuable to challenge, they're not worth enough to publish. Spin is one thing, outright lies is another.
ssnistfajen 7y ago
I'm leaning towards that something did happen at SuperMicro, but the FBI agents who were interviewed by Bloomberg lacked the technical knowledge to understand what happened or how it happened and thus did not convey an accurate view of the incident(s). Bloomberg decides to give the go-ahead on publishing this story despite providing zero provable evidence, which is still a poor demonstration of journalism integrity on their part. However I don't believe Bloomberg will use completely fabricated stories to smear anyone despite how suspect such acts seem. If they realize that they've been misled, the proper reaction should be making a disclaimer regarding the story containing misinfo. Apple/Amazon/SuperMicro also could have sued Bloomberg for defamation but none of them did, which means they don't have a strong enough case on hand. I have this view because FBI agents have acted upon information they could not fully understand or analyze before, only to be proven wrong later e.g. the arrest and subsequent exoneration of Dr. Xi Xiaoxing.

ksec 7y ago

Tim Cook lies about there were no settlement talk between Qualcomm and Apple. Although one could argue he spoke of it in January and the Settlement were in April, so may be they did all that negotiation in three months. Although I highly doubt it, I am siding with Steve Mollenkopf on this one, out of all the evidence given in court I think Qualcomm were extremely professional. There were bunch of other things where I caught Tim Cook lying. Steve Jobs uses to be very deceptive when he needs to, his wording weren't clear cut and leads you to wrong assumption. Tim Cook doesn't have that talent. And once you have been caught lying, you lose trust. While I do have doubt on Bloomberg story, I am not going to trust sold on Tim Cook's word.