New York Times gets Gizmodo treatment from Apple after negative reports - Page 2

so is a BLOGGER opinion based (editoral) or journalist based?... one is, well just thoughts, and the other has protections(and rights) ... one is off-the-top-of-your-head, the other requires work.

how-a-about championing accuracy in your blog posts? (or are you going to say "it is my opinion, and it is my choice to distort the facts). or if you are going too "the truth hurts" ... well journalistic principles are well known.... SO USE THEM.

the New York Times is get burned because they are practicing BLOGGER journalism, Not Journalism, and are being treated as a BLOGGER.

on the contrary, i'm glad to see that this sort of thing still goes on under Cook's reign.

Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away

Nice one. +1

Apple doesn't need the NY Times. How long has Apple been assembling stuff in China? How long have they been contracting with Foxconn? Yet the NY Times doesn't seem to care until Apple becomes the most valuable company in the world. Does anyone here really believe the NY Times gives a s**t about Chinese workers? No they want hits on their site, people to buy their paper so they stick Apple on page 1. And of course in the DC/NY media axis anything reported in the NY Times gets picked up and reported everywhere else.

Apple is not objecting to public scrutiny. They're objecting to bad journalism, with NYT publishing inflammatory half-truths and singling them out in an area (factory work conditions) where they're far more progressive than their competitors. The article made it seem as if Apple is either the only or the worst offender when in fact the problem is endemic to all of China, and if anything Apple is on the leading edge of US companies pressuring Chinese factories to establish safer and fairer workplace policies.

The NYT could have written a piece about Chinese work conditions in general and pointed out that a large majority of the products Americans buy are made overseas, but instead they chose to single out Apple as the bad guys in order to get more traffic.

BTW, considering "Oleia's" profile shows she just joined the forum and this is his/her only post, it wouldn't surprise me if he/she works for the New York Times.

When it comes to public opinion and perceptions of integrity, it would be amusing to see how the New York Times stacks up against Apple. The myth of journalism being an honorable profession died about 20 or 30 years ago. Let's not forget we live in a time when a couple of back to back comedy shows provide better news coverage than all of the "news" channels combined.

Try reading before offering your opinion.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...p-electronics/

Seems the New York Times has decided to declare war on Apple. Seems an odd choice, but so be it.

Look at all these poor bastards without a life.

This is a crack-up.

The industry innovators of the past three decades are terrified of what the dying newspaper industry thinks of them. Absolutely quaking in their boots.

Look at everything that has been thrown at Apple recently.

And what has it done?

Their share-price soars!

Their war-chest is bursting!

Store after crowded store opens, great product after product is released, the updates flow regularly, as do the kick-ass reviews, and the consumers love them!

Post all you want, guys.

Hell, post more.

Because every post is a big 'self-pwn' as the big, bad, Apple wastes more of your lives. And the rest of us know you've got nothing better to do.

And in ten years time, when you look back, you are going to be utterly crushed by the fact that they were just getting started.

And there was absolutely nothing that you could do to do to stop it.

So what were, exactly, the falsehoods in the article?

Apple can do whatever it wants, but the Times is not Gizmodo and Apple is seriously confused if it thinks it is. If the Times publishes something, it's reproduced all over the world, and will continue to be regardless of access given to Tim Cook.

Before it was published, Apple had a chance to review the article and render false any false statements in it, thus preventing their publication, but chose to make no comment.

That's what they got for pissing off their rich popular friend. Booted out of the circle.

Just like the NYT to do a hit job on Apple and then complain they do not get an exclusive from them a week later.

I read the whole piece and the Times made no claim that Apple was the worst offender. Apple is notable because it is very large and very profitable. And yes, a company making a lot of money will be held to higher standards for working conditions of the people contributing to make that profit happen. That some of you are shocked, shocked that this might be the case is frankly amazing. Apple is not the worst offender, but it is the most important one.

Success is great, but its sister is scrutiny, and Apple better get used to that.

Guys like Gruber depend on Apple to make a living. I read Daring Fireball, and its a fine blog to get insight into Apple's thinking, but when it comes to things Apple would rather not talk about, the Upton Sinclair rule applies: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. That's why we have so many problems in this country in the first place.

Concerning the article, good for Apple. Why help them out if they're going to print false things about your company? When a company has more money than our government and you piss them off with bad journalism then you will deal with the consequences for that.

Institutions called the Press have the historic image of informing the readership. That was never really true. They have always been the arm of one or more wealthy individuals whose morals ultimately determine the content, which determines how and if the content has any correlation with something that might be deemed Truth.

Mark Twain once defined the difference between Man and the other animals. "Man is the only animal with the true religion -- several of them".

You are screwed if you believe the real Truth comes from any entity, or that you can rely on one source for Truth. None are honest, competent, or knowledgable all the time, some never, and many don't care. Ultimately all are self-serving. Many readers are similarly biased, lazy, incompetent, and believe they have the source of truth without doing the homework themselves.

But sometimes it's easy to tell bias without learning the truth. The NYT article was clearly biased, and purposefully so, because it focused exclusively on Apple, and wanted to make Apple look as bad as possible. No context, no comparison, no contrasts. The article was not journalism, it was propaganda.

Few items that I have purchased in the past five years was not made in the Far East, and most such items were not Apple products. Working conditions for clothing, tennis shoes, various components, chemicals, food and food stuffs, construction materials are made there, and were not covered.

An honest appraisal of working conditions requires that, as does working and environmental conditions for goods we receive from this side of the Pacific, and in our own country.

The NYT Apple article was not part of a series looking at these issues, but a diatribe against Apple only, and therefore can and should be interpreted as the flotsam that it is and was meant to be.

In the end, however, we still don't know the Truth.

Wait, so now an article needs to proclaim itself as yellow journalism to be considered as such?

Lets not confuse rights with privileges, the right to publish what you want is enshrined in the constitution, but the right to be invited to have a secret first look at a new OS is not. Apple can choose to punish news organizations if they want, it has no impact on freedom of speech.

What an utterly useless thread this is. The animus, personal biases and mischaracterizations in these comments exponentially outweigh any of the shortcomings of Apple's China manufacturing, NYT's reporting or Apple's media relations.

Apple can invite or not invite anyone they want just like you can invite/not invite anyone you want. I didn't read the article, but did the NYT get quotes from current Apple officials?

CR reviews were based on a small minority of iphones. Remember they did recommend the iphone prior to Antenna-gate. And when VZ got the iphone4, they questioned why anyone would get it when they can wait 4 months (incorrectly) to get the "iphone5". I don't recall CR stating you can get a newer 'flagship' android device every 2-3 months so why buy Android X phone now.

This is exactly what Apple has done with the current independent audits going on with the FLA.
The NYT is a rag that publishes "entertainment" and should not be confused with a news provider. There are very few news providers left in the US and none of them are for-profit organizations. They are entertainment engines only incapable of publishing a story for the information itself without "juicing it up" to increase its entertainment value.

the truth is that these workers make 5 times the average salary in China and if they didn't work in a factory the only thing they would do is work on a farm.

they grew up with little to no education and aren't qualified to do anything else

The New York Times does not qualify as legitimate news media. Thank you for ignoring them!!!

Peter

Well Said!!!

Here's the bigger, more fair question. If Walt Mossberg ever had anything genuinely negative to say about Apple, would he print it? I mean they invited John Gruber over the New York Times, who has millions more readers as a company.

Regardless of who you are, I prefer honest reviews about products instead of paid ones, which is why unless a journalist is willing to put down their own money for a product without any special access, I already consider it tainted. But to each their own.

People are gonna assume Apple's the worst offender and here's why. Quarter after quarter Apple posts record sales while all other tech companies post dismal sales. So what's easier to believe? That the workers building iPads are forced to work long grueling hours or the workers building Xooms are? A great many of Apples customers are vegans, don't wear leather/fur, ride bicycles to reduce their carbon footprint, and will protest if there's an allegation if their precious Apple products are built under harsh conditions. They don't care if another company's product is built under the same conditions, just like you wouldn't care if the neighbors kid is failing in school but will raise hell if your kid is. Every once in awhile the king needs to be reminded that he's just a man.

Predicatable responses. Apple is dissed and the hoards decend upon the evil offender. Add another to the fanboi hitlist! LOL

I cancelled my subscription with NYT right after that stupid article. How could they publish such lies and blame it all on Apple! It is obvious they are just trying to generate some traffic to their dying newspaper business! Anyways, it's about time to stop killing trees!

I think SJ would disagree with you, he held the NYT in high regard.

Dogpile on the rabbit!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcqdz...e_gdata_player

Then why do you defend NYT when the article was written for one thing and one thing only: click bait? If you have a bit of knowledge about the background of all of this Chinese workers things you would know the article was anything but honest.

The point is that people accusing the Times of invention should not do the same thing they claim to be against, assuming they care about their credibility.

Other than vague accusations of stating "half truths", making "straw men", or being "yellow journalism", I have yet to see a specific claim of the Times falsified.

Whoa, whoa, easy there partner...

I agree with most of your post except for the customers parts. Apple needs every single customer it can get.

I think the New York Times should really focus on fixing their iPad app instead of trying to bash Apple Inc. I actually told them just that this morning as I cancelled my iPad subscription. The paper on the iPad is not like the printed paper. It's more like bits and pieces of the printed paper with no clear separation between the today's paper and yesterday's and no back-issues.

I hope the NYT can get its act together on the iPad soon.

The New York Times is the worst Apple hating rag on the planet. Good riddance!

And that's the problem. Apple isn't treated like everyone else. Apple is frequently singled out, and subject to accusations based on half (or completely unfounded) truths, no doubt because 1) their significant public profile makes for great click-bait (or paper sales), and 2) Apple has a history of not playing the "journalism publicity game" and pandering to the media.

Case in point, these altruistic "journalists" report workers at an "Apple" factory being driven to suicide because of the working conditions. Here's the problem; the alleged incident happened at a Foxconn factory that assembled XBox units, not even Apple products. Apple is just one of many Foxconn clients, and ironically makes the some of the greatest demands of it's suppliers (including Foxconn) for workplace standards where Apple products are assembled, but somehow Apple is responsible for this? Why didn't the journalist point at Microsoft? Better yet, why didn't they point out that the Chinese government allows this at all? Why didn't they point out the irony that Foxconn has some of the best working environments in China (enough so that people flock to Foxconn offices in droves whenever a job is made available), and that Apple has been at the head of the vanguard that's been pushing Chinese suppliers to improve working conditions further? Frankly, compared to "everyone else", Apple is pretty damned squeaky-clean.


1) "real investigative journalism" requires investigation, and unbiased journalistic integrity. Neither was observed in the NYT article.

2) All other considerations aside, why should Apple invite the NYT to a press conference if Apple thinks they won't get positive press from their attendance? Regardless of accuracy, if you call me nasty names, why would I want to invite you to play in my sandbox? Or, using a more "adult" metaphor, if I sponsor an event, why would I invite a party who I don't believe would contribute positively to the outcome of the event?


And Apple was doing the same thing before the NYT article - so it achieved nothing - other than increasing NYT circulation.


Definition:
"bully: use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants"

Not being invited to a press conference is not "bullying". Since the NYT and Apple have no other conflicting interests, and no competitive activities, if anything Apple is trying to avoid NYT media "bullying", since the NYT has much greater media strength/influence (being of the media itself).

Take a look at this article for example! What frame of reference is it reported from? Not the frame of the workers that's for sure. There are many other companies that use the same manufactures but are only touched on in the article. Apple is singled out as the "villan". Is that truly impartial journalism? or sensationalism to roast the "hot selling" company to seel papers. That's an easy answer!
I use to hold them in high regard as well but have seen them stray from their moral duty as a news provider much more in the past 5-10 years. It's happening a lot lately.

I agree that there isn't much to admire in the NYT's articles on this subject...
Still, this seems kind of snotty and juvenile on Apple's part.

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies, closer."

The NYT is one of "the" publications of the ruling elite, along with WSJ. Remember how the Times served as a conduit for the war propaganda leading up to Bush's invasion of Iraq? The Times gave Judith Miller carte blanche to report all sorts of lies about the supposed threats posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, never mind giving William Safire a column on the Op-Ed to do his part to get us cranked up for war. Leading a country to war based upon lies is not what a "liberal" publication would do.

It's clear the Times has become anti-Apple, but let's not call them liberal - they're anything but.

Put Gruber on the market, I'll wager Apple's market cap he'd be snatched up by either Google or the NYT within a 'breathalyzer test' time frame. Although chances are, for the sake of amoral continuity, they'd figure out coming together on a joint bidding exercise.

Gruber, I'm convinced, would turn them down, ...for the sake of moral continuity.

I hope that the NYT does not get emotionally involved with the subject matter. I think that they should be dispassionate, and call the facts as they lay.

IMO, all the media outlets want people to buy their product.