I know the tendency here is to act like AI is a full blown rumors and news site instead of a blog. On occasion I've had to hold feet to fire here for lapses in reportage and disclosures of conflict of interest. If Dilger writes for a living and he now discloses on his own site that he is an AAPL stock owner, it needs to accompany his posts here.
Ordinarily I would agree, but it's been obvious for years that this is a pro-Apple site. It's not like this is a general technology site that claims to be completely unbiased. This site is all about bias as is any fan site.
It's like complaining that a fan site about Disney and/or Star Wars is produced by people who own Disney stock. Big surprise.
Why should DED being an Apple Stockholder be disclosed on his posts, when this site is called "AppleInsider" and is a pro-Apple (at least as far as DED is concerned) rumours and reporting site?
If I was to list all the Apple things that I have before posting, I'll definitely be called out since that is "troll behaviour". So why should DED have to disclose that he is a shareholder? Doesn't make any sense.
Amidst all the crap that is put out by the press about Apple, DED and the Macalope are probably the most refreshing since they take down the crap that others are writing.
Why should DED being an Apple Stockholder be disclosed on his posts, when this site is called "AppleInsider" and is a pro-Apple (at least as far as DED is concerned) rumours and reporting site?
If I was to list all the Apple things that I have before posting, I'll definitely be called out since that is "troll behaviour". So why should DED have to disclose that he is a shareholder? Doesn't make any sense.
Amidst all the crap that is put out by the press about Apple, DED and the Macalope are probably the most refreshing since they take down the crap that others are writing.
The pieces on Techpinions are also great.
Because it's standard for ANY journalist to divulge conflicts of interest in reporting. In fact, most reputable news organizations do not allow journalists to report on companies in which they hold a financial interest.
Do you understand why this is, from an ethical journalism standpoint?
If I tell you that McDonalds makes the best hamburgers and fail to tell you that I own McDonalds stock, that's a conflict of interest and if I was a reporter who did nothing but write up glowing praise for McDonalds in my column, that would be a serious ethical breach if that conflict of interest was never divulged.
Why should DED being an Apple Stockholder be disclosed on his posts, when this site is called "AppleInsider" and is a pro-Apple (at least as far as DED is concerned) rumours and reporting site?
There's a difference between writing a piece because you're a genuine fan and writing a piece because you stand to gain financially. It's dishonest and no better than those who leak anti-Apple rumors to drive the stock price down.
The same goes for Daisey - The Guardian should have disclosed his past record to readers.
Because it's standard for ANY journalist to divulge conflicts of interest in reporting. In fact, most reputable news organizations do not allow journalists to report on companies in which they hold a financial interest.
Do you understand why this is, from an ethical journalism standpoint?
If I tell you that McDonalds makes the best hamburgers and fail to tell you that I own McDonalds stock, that's a conflict of interest and if I was a reporter who did nothing but write up glowing praise for McDonalds in my column, that would be a serious ethical breach if that conflict of interest was never divulged.
I don't think Daniel claims to be a journalist. He's simply a writer of opinion pieces, somewhat akin to an AI version of Al Sharpton or Chris Matthews isn't he? Promoting a point-of-view with supporting facts friendly to his position.
In the days when newspapers were popular he would have appeared on the editorial page, not the front page IMO, and I believe he would agree with that.
There's a difference between writing a piece because you're a genuine fan and writing a piece because you stand to gain financially. It's dishonest and no better than those who leak anti-Apple rumors to drive the stock price down.
The same goes for Daisey - The Guardian should have disclosed his past record to readers.
The difference, however, should be restricted to the focus of the article. Independent of this, I don't see a difference, as both should rely on facts (possible quoting the sources) and logical conclusions. Interpretations, extrapolations and opinions should be clearly marked as such. Therefore, if one follows the rules of journalism I really do not care about a person's track record or history. Or put differently: if this is required it implies different levels of credibility regarding the various authors, and I would strongly question the integrity of media employing people where they admit they have "lesser credibility".
I am aware that subjectiveness and judgement can already be set by the selection of facts for the article. That's not the point.
Now gone even from the US Tech front page. You have to dig through stories tagged "Apple" to find it. Such a sudden disappearance is very unusual: stuff tends to take weeks to shuffle off the front page.
Comments
Ordinarily I would agree, but it's been obvious for years that this is a pro-Apple site. It's not like this is a general technology site that claims to be completely unbiased. This site is all about bias as is any fan site.
It's like complaining that a fan site about Disney and/or Star Wars is produced by people who own Disney stock. Big surprise.
Why should DED being an Apple Stockholder be disclosed on his posts, when this site is called "AppleInsider" and is a pro-Apple (at least as far as DED is concerned) rumours and reporting site?
If I was to list all the Apple things that I have before posting, I'll definitely be called out since that is "troll behaviour". So why should DED have to disclose that he is a shareholder? Doesn't make any sense.
Amidst all the crap that is put out by the press about Apple, DED and the Macalope are probably the most refreshing since they take down the crap that others are writing.
The pieces on Techpinions are also great.
Because it's standard for ANY journalist to divulge conflicts of interest in reporting. In fact, most reputable news organizations do not allow journalists to report on companies in which they hold a financial interest.
Do you understand why this is, from an ethical journalism standpoint?
If I tell you that McDonalds makes the best hamburgers and fail to tell you that I own McDonalds stock, that's a conflict of interest and if I was a reporter who did nothing but write up glowing praise for McDonalds in my column, that would be a serious ethical breach if that conflict of interest was never divulged.
Why should DED being an Apple Stockholder be disclosed on his posts, when this site is called "AppleInsider" and is a pro-Apple (at least as far as DED is concerned) rumours and reporting site?
There's a difference between writing a piece because you're a genuine fan and writing a piece because you stand to gain financially. It's dishonest and no better than those who leak anti-Apple rumors to drive the stock price down.
The same goes for Daisey - The Guardian should have disclosed his past record to readers.
In the days when newspapers were popular he would have appeared on the editorial page, not the front page IMO, and I believe he would agree with that.
The difference, however, should be restricted to the focus of the article. Independent of this, I don't see a difference, as both should rely on facts (possible quoting the sources) and logical conclusions. Interpretations, extrapolations and opinions should be clearly marked as such. Therefore, if one follows the rules of journalism I really do not care about a person's track record or history. Or put differently: if this is required it implies different levels of credibility regarding the various authors, and I would strongly question the integrity of media employing people where they admit they have "lesser credibility".
I am aware that subjectiveness and judgement can already be set by the selection of facts for the article. That's not the point.
Now gone even from the US Tech front page. You have to dig through stories tagged "Apple" to find it. Such a sudden disappearance is very unusual: stuff tends to take weeks to shuffle off the front page.