Originally posted by wnurse
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Your problem can be seen very quickly. "the mighty Jobs", the "rock star of technology", There's some jealousy there no doubt, some anger as well.
To me, Jobs is a neutral character. I don't care one way or the other about his personal life, except to point out to my daughter, who is adopted, that here's another person for whom adoption wasn't a detriment (she likes to see people who were adopted).
This was a very difficult aspect to some people's lives. But I have nothing against him writing the article.
The point I made about it being rejected was that if it weren't, he most likely would never have sent it to Jobs in the first place. It was a publicity stunt on his part. He was hoping for a reaction from Jobs, who is known to be mercurial about discussion of his past personal life. As he has a right to be.
The author had to know, since he had researched him, that Job's response would be something like that. He was, if anything, hoping for it. So his response in turn, was childish.
The whole point to his sending this to Jobs was to rev up interest in it by some other publisher after it had been rejected by his own. It was a very cynical stunt. He should have come away from it, if anything, satisfied that he had gotten what he wanted out of it. His publicizing it, which he didn't have to do, shows that it was a stunt. his reaction, therefore, was strange, to say the least. He saw how sales of "iCon" rose after Jobs banned it from his stores. He was counting on this reaction to help hin as well.
Should Appleinsider have reported it? I don't know. Should the Star and The Enquirer, and People magazine, plus a hundred other publications, as well as Entertainment Tonight, and other TV shows like it, as well as gossip columns exist? I don't know that either.
But as long as people show an interest in what the "Rich and the Famous" do and think, they will.