or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NYT wins Pulitzer for 'iEconomy' investigative series on Apple's supply chain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NYT wins Pulitzer for 'iEconomy' investigative series on Apple's supply chain

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
The nine-part "iEconomy" series, which investigated Asia's technology supply industry with a particular focus on Apple, netted The New York Times a 2013 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting.

The annual Pulitzer Prize awards recognize excellence in journalism and the arts, and the staff of the Times was recognized this year for its Apple-centric "iEconomy" series. In all, the publication won four Pulitzers for reports published in 2012.

Tim Cook at Foxconn
Apple CEO Tim Cook touring an iPhone production line at a Foxconn plant in Zhengzhou, China.


The "iEconomy" stories were recognized for their "penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies." The Pulitzer Prize Board awarded the Times staff for illustrating the "darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers."

The series accused Apple of sidestepping taxes, profiled retail employees who believe they are "short on pay," and also detailed the "human costs" of assembly of Apple's devices in China.

Critics contended that the series placed too much emphasis on Apple, noting that nearly every technology company relies on cheap components and labor from overseas to build and sell electronics.

"Never mind that Apple's competitors all outsource work, sidestep taxes, use patents as weapons and turn an even blinder eye to labor abuses in the Asian supply chain," Philip Elmer-Dewitt of Apple 2.0 wrote in December. "The fact is, Apple ? always a draw for readers ? made a big, fat, easy target."



The "iEconomy" series also included anonymous comments from former Apple executives who claimed that the company has known about "labor abuses" in supplier factories for years without requiring that they be addressed. That story prompted Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook to lash out in an e-mail to employees, in which he said "any suggestion that we don't care is patently false and offensive."

"We will continue to dig deeper, and we will undoubtedly find more issues," Cook wrote. "What we will not do ? and never have done ? is stand still or turn a blind eye to problems in our supply chain. On this you have my word."

All nine parts of the New York Times "iEconomy" series are included below:
post #2 of 35

explanatory or exemplary?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #3 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

explanatory or exemplary?

 

Explanatory, as in: not entirely accurate, but they explained the points they wanted to make very well.

 

A sad day when they give out Pulitzers for simply good writing, regardless of how sloppy the reporting is. I miss the days when the NY Times, and other news organizations, actually had editorial standards.

post #4 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

explanatory or exemplary?

 

Explanatory, exemplary, exploratory -- it's all the same lol.giflol.gif

 

On a more serious note, in before Apple ][ has a hissy fit :)

post #5 of 35
NYT will never win a Pulitzer on a story on Gosnell!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #6 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

explanatory or exemplary?

Or maybe 'inflammatory' would be more apt?
I see nothing exemplary or explanatory in a series of articles that deliberately avoided addressing the wider implications for the most part and if not perhaps outright lied on occasion about Apple, there was enough obfuscation and slant included to paint Apple alone as evil and all others as unfortunate victims of world trade reality.
I hope they choke on their self-serving schadenfreude.
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

 
Or maybe 'inflammatory' would be more apt?

Pulitzer actually does give awards for Explanatory Reporting. It seemed like an odd word usage to me but I not speak the English so very good. Oh well... 

 

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Explanatory-Reporting

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #8 of 35
Of course jumping on the "Apple is evil" bandwagon will win a Pulitzer. All the lives Apple has destroyed... Can't blame Foxconn, it's Apple's fault always Apple.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #9 of 35

No Matter,  story was noticeably slanted-   No doubt Apple media buys in the Times were altered 

after publishing.  Good luck with that business plan.

post #10 of 35

How to win a Pulitzer:

 

- cite a compulsive liar as one of your main sources

- task one of your employees with creating an app to show that nobody can make money from apps; when his app is successful, remove him from the story and publish it without including any details of his project

- write a story about how Apple's retail employees make less money than AT&T and Verizon employees, but neglect to mention that AT&T and Verizon employees make more money because they're paid by manufacturers to mislead customers into buying things they don't want or need

- focus all your efforts on one company because you know it'll cause controversy, ignore all their competitors who are doing far worse things

 

Journalism!

post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

NYT will never win a Pulitzer on a story on Gosnell!

 

Ah, the conservative flavor of the week. Better get your last licks in before the whole Boston "false flag" thing takes all the oxygen out of the room.

 

The surest way to create more Gosnells is by restricting access to legal, safe abortions even more. His despicable kind was commonplace before Roe v Wade.

post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

How to win a Pulitzer:

- cite a compulsive liar as one of your main sources
- task one of your employees with creating an app to show that nobody can make money from apps; when his app is successful, remove him from the story and publish it without including any details of his project
- write a story about how Apple's retail employees make less money than AT&T and Verizon employees, but neglect to mention that AT&T and Verizon employees make more money because they're paid by manufacturers to mislead customers into buying things they don't want or need
- focus all your efforts on one company because you know it'll cause controversy, ignore all their competitors who are doing far worse things

Journalism!

It's funny how the app making part backfired on them. It was originally in the article but it has since been omitted. In defense of AT&T and VZW the act of duping a consumer to buy something they don't want existed long before they started doing it. Uneducated consumers are their own enemy. The biggest name in any industry will always have the spotlight on them, in this case it's Apple and in the past it's been Nike.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #13 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore View Post

No Matter,  story was noticeably slanted-   No doubt Apple media buys in the Times were altered 
after publishing.  Good luck with that business plan.

Look at the other side of the coin. How many more pro-Apple articles have been written in the NYT courtesy of David Pogue? I'd worry more when they're not mentioning Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

- task one of your employees with creating an app to show that nobody can make money from apps; when his app is successful, remove him from the story and publish it without including any details of his project

 

In fairness, he quit... because the app was so successful.

post #15 of 35
Tripe passed off as serious journalism. The Pulitzers have become an agenda-driven joke.
post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore View Post

No Matter,  story was noticeably slanted-   No doubt Apple media buys in the Times were altered 
after publishing.  Good luck with that business plan.

Look at the other side of the coin. How many more pro-Apple articles have been written in the NYT courtesy of David Pogue? I'd worry more when they're not mentioning Apple.

Its not an apt comparison in the least. Pogue's articles are simply those of a tech guy. What else would he do if he didn't review products from companies such as Apple!? And, do you suppose the fact that his reviews are favorable may have something to do with product attributes?
post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Its not an apt comparison in the least. Pogue's articles are simply those of a tech guy. What else would he do if he didn't review products from companies such as Apple!? And, do you suppose the fact that his reviews are favorable may have something to do with product attributes?

 

Unfortunately, Pogue has pretty much lost all credibility lately. He bends over backwards to not give crappy products bad reviews because he's afraid of the backlash. So, his reviews don't mean much one way or the other.

post #18 of 35
Pulitzer Prize going the way of the Nobel Prize I see. What a joke that the NY Slimes gets awarded this for basically a series they did to generate page clicks on their site.
post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post


Or maybe 'inflammatory' would be more apt?
I see nothing exemplary or explanatory in a series of articles that deliberately avoided addressing the wider implications for the most part and if not perhaps outright lied on occasion about Apple, there was enough obfuscation and slant included to paint Apple alone as evil and all others as unfortunate victims of world trade reality.
I hope they choke on their self-serving schadenfreude.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

How to win a Pulitzer:

 

- cite a compulsive liar as one of your main sources

- task one of your employees with creating an app to show that nobody can make money from apps; when his app is successful, remove him from the story and publish it without including any details of his project

- write a story about how Apple's retail employees make less money than AT&T and Verizon employees, but neglect to mention that AT&T and Verizon employees make more money because they're paid by manufacturers to mislead customers into buying things they don't want or need

- focus all your efforts on one company because you know it'll cause controversy, ignore all their competitors who are doing far worse things

 

Journalism!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Pulitzer Prize going the way of the Nobel Prize I see. What a joke that the NY Slimes gets awarded this for basically a series they did to generate page clicks on their site.


At least Apple now knows how anyone to the right of center politically feels about the coverage they get in the Times......  ....and the Pulitzers and Nobels (at least outside of the hard sciences) have long been as agenda-driven as the Times and Academy awards.


"We have no choice but to get our information from interested, and thus biased, sources."
~Michael S. Kochin

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Its not an apt comparison in the least. Pogue's articles are simply those of a tech guy. What else would he do if he didn't review products from companies such as Apple!? And, do you suppose the fact that his reviews are favorable may have something to do with product attributes?

Sure it is. It negates the notion that the NYT has an agenda against Apple. Companies that have a big lead in mind share are held to a higher standard.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Unfortunately, Pogue has pretty much lost all credibility lately. He bends over backwards to not give crappy products bad reviews because he's afraid of the backlash. So, his reviews don't mean much one way or the other.

I disagree but I will say that he does over emphasize what a device or product does well, but will state that it's usually not enough to overcome it's shortcomings. Mossberg isn't much different.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Tripe passed off as serious journalism. The Pulitzers have become an agenda-driven joke.

 

Kind of like the Nobel Peace Prize ?

post #23 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

How to win a Pulitzer:

- steal underpants
- cite a compulsive liar as one of your main sources
- task one of your employees with creating an app to show that nobody can make money from apps; when his app is successful, remove him from the story and publish it without including any details of his project
- write a story about how Apple's retail employees make less money than AT&T and Verizon employees, but neglect to mention that AT&T and Verizon employees make more money because they're paid by manufacturers to mislead customers into buying things they don't want or need
- focus all your efforts on one company because you know it'll cause controversy, ignore all their competitors who are doing far worse things
- make profit!

Fixed that for you.

Otherwise, an EXCELLENT post!
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Sure it is. It negates the notion that the NYT has an agenda against Apple. Companies that have a big lead in mind share are held to a higher standard.

Of course it would be. In the bizarro, self-referential world that you populate.
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson View Post

Kind of like the Nobel Peace Prize ?

The Nobel Peace Prize has never tried to pass off as being particularly objective. It has always been openly agenda-driven.

I am sure you're referring to Obama's (and anyone would agree that was laughable), but perhaps there is a broader dig implied about it being too left-wing. If so, know that there have been equally weird ones on the other side: e.g., deKlerk, Kissinger, Begin, Hull.....

My trouble is with the stuff that tries to pass itself off as something it is not.
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course it would be. In the bizarro, self-referential world that you populate.

Sorry if I don't live in a all Apple world but before Apple there was Nike being raked over the coals, and do you think they were the only ones violating labor practices? No but they were singled out.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Sorry if I don't live in a all Apple world but before Apple there was Nike being raked over the coals, and do you think they were the only ones violating labor practices? No but they were singled out.

 

We all know the New York Times has to make money. They write stuff if it will sell. But people who comment on forums don't have that excuse. I laughed my head off every time I read posts by people vowing to never buy another Apple product until all their products were made in the USA, never mind that the computer they typed that on was probably made in the same terrible working conditions that the NYT article describes. I guess I should commend the New York Time for having sound business sense. They played on people's outright refusal to exercise their grey matter and do some critical thinking. 

post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

We all know the New York Times has to make money. They write stuff if it will sell. But people who comment on forums don't have that excuse. I laughed my head off every time I read posts by people vowing to never buy another Apple product until all their products were made in the USA, never mind that the computer they typed that on was probably made in the same terrible working conditions that the NYT article describes. I guess I should commend the New York Time for having sound business sense. They played on people's outright refusal to exercise their grey matter and do some critical thinking. 

Exactly, who's gonna want to read a exposé on the labor practices of Asus?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Exactly, who's gonna want to read a exposé on the labor practices of Asus?

Who is Asus¿
post #30 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Who is Asus¿

Exactly
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

 

We all know the New York Times has to make money. They write stuff if it will sell. But people who comment on forums don't have that excuse. I laughed my head off every time I read posts by people vowing to never buy another Apple product until all their products were made in the USA, never mind that the computer they typed that on was probably made in the same terrible working conditions that the NYT article describes. I guess I should commend the New York Time for having sound business sense. They played on people's outright refusal to exercise their grey matter and do some critical thinking. 


Except they're not making money - partly because of the onslaught on the internet on traditional journalism, and partly because they've come to beat a number of relentless party lines in various departments. 

I don't know if the Wash Post is making any either - but at least there's still something resembling a curtain between their news and op-ed operations.  With the Times, it all just bleeds together.

 

Still, when you want to bash a tech company, Apple's always click-bait.  That's why Greenpeace went after them when they were more recyclable than some competitors.  And why some hack comedian pretended to have documented Foxconn abuses at plants assembling Apple products.  And there are numerous other examples.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Of course jumping on the "Apple is evil" bandwagon will win a Pulitzer. All the lives Apple has destroyed... Can't blame Foxconn, it's Apple's fault always Apple.
Thanks for the usual hyperbolic drama and staged outrage...
post #33 of 35
im beginning to accept Tim Cook as the next true leader, and first one ever aside from Jobs. so far iv really liked his stands, Steve seems to have succeeded here too!

apple user since 1983..

IIe, IIc, 128k, Plus, Se/30, IIci, LC, SI, LCIII, PPC7100, G3, iMac Bondi

Newton MP2000, iPod 10Gb / Touch 4g, iPhone / 3G

PowerBook 170 / G3 Lombard / G4 17" 1GHz

Reply

apple user since 1983..

IIe, IIc, 128k, Plus, Se/30, IIci, LC, SI, LCIII, PPC7100, G3, iMac Bondi

Newton MP2000, iPod 10Gb / Touch 4g, iPhone / 3G

PowerBook 170 / G3 Lombard / G4 17" 1GHz

Reply
post #34 of 35
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post
Thanks for the usual hyperbolic drama and staged outrage...

 

You realize that's sarcastic, directed at those anti-Apple who would claim the same…

post #35 of 35
Wow, the Pulitzer committee shows their lack of tech savvy to allow such hit pieces by biased people to land on the Gray Lady's pages.

These are the times when I'm glad I got out of the newspaper gig. This is one of them. It's just embarrassing. And it really does a disservice to the great journalism that has been done and won Pulitzers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NYT wins Pulitzer for 'iEconomy' investigative series on Apple's supply chain