Jobs asks author: "Are you a nut case?"

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
On Friday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs lashed out at an author who wrote an article about the untold story of Jobs' biological father, reports the New York Daily News.



Fredric Alan Maxwell last week emailed Jobs a 4,000-word article he wrote for Fast Company magazine about Jobs' biological father, reportedly a Syrian immigrant and political science professor named Abdulfattah Jandali.



"Are you a nut case?" Jobs replied, signing the oneliner "Steve."



Maxwell reportedly fired back: "Are you?"



According to the Daily News, the Montana-based author has been pushing Jobs' buttons for a while, even conducting 18 months of research for the unauthorized biography. He finally sent Jobs the piece after Fast Company decided not to run with it.



In January, Maxwell was reportedly stripped of his press credentials when he tried to enter Jobs' keynote speech at the MacWorld event in San Francisco.



This isn't the first time that an unauthorized biography has drawn the ire of Jobs.



In April, Jobs had Apple pull all books published by John Wiley & Sons from its retail stores in protest of an unauthorized biography titled "iCon Steve Jobs : The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business" which the publisher had agreed to release.



But Jobs' reaction to the biography did nothing but bolster sales and interest in the book, causing Wiley & Sons to double the book's initial press run of nearly 50,000 and to race it to stores a few weeks ahead of its original publication date.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 102
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider

    This isn't the first time that an unauthorized biography has drawn the ire of Jobs, who often responds irrationally.



    *snip*



    But Jobs' overblown reaction to the biography...




    AppleInsider stories: Journalism at its finest.
  • Reply 2 of 102
    The less discussion people like this are given in any press the less likely they they will stoop to this soft harassment and racism. There shouldn't even be any discussion of the man or his article.



    IN FACT the best thing AppleInsider could do is just remove this article and never mention it or the author again. Just like radio stations in my are will never name the person who killed John Lennon, so as not to give him an publicity or notoriety, Appleinsider should do the same.
  • Reply 3 of 102
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    Yes, but when does not reporting somthing become censorship?
  • Reply 4 of 102
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,584member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by eAi

    Yes, but when does not reporting somthing become censorship?



    That is like the chicken and the egg...and is not a good arguement.



    I would assume that people know where lines should be drawn. This guy is a freekn' nut case.
  • Reply 5 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,471member
    Censorship can only be applied to government action. It has nothing to do with private interests.



    When Yahoo gives into the Chinese government so that it will be allowed to do business there, that's censorship.



    If a publishing house decides not to run a piece because they think that either it's unfair, or poorly researched, or simply in poor taste, it's not censorship.



    If AppleInsider decides not to publish this info. it's not censorship either. If they do, it's not approval.



    Every time a decision is made, something that someone somewhere does not like, occurs. That person may think that it's censorship, but it's not.
  • Reply 6 of 102
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    has anyone actually read that seconds act book?



    is it any good?
  • Reply 7 of 102
    I don't want to hear about Steve Jobs biological father, Eric Schmidt's auntie, or Steve Ballmer's dog. This is gossip, not news.
  • Reply 8 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Censorship can only be applied to government action. It has nothing to do with private interests.



    When Yahoo gives into the Chinese government so that it will be allowed to do business there, that's censorship.



    If a publishing house decides not to run a piece because they think that either it's unfair, or poorly researched, or simply in poor taste, it's not censorship.



    If AppleInsider decides not to publish this info. it's not censorship either. If they do, it's not approval.



    Every time a decision is made, something that someone somewhere does not like, occurs. That person may think that it's censorship, but it's not.




    Thank you! Someone who understands. It's obvious you don't really belong here.
  • Reply 9 of 102
    This is of course Aple and Jobs not just Jobs.

    They are a "public" company and he is therefore a public figure and subject to the scrutiny that comes with that. Besides any one person who makes more than 40 million a year should be publicly critisized for something. You don't make that much money without screwing someone over.
  • Reply 10 of 102
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    So... hate the rich pre-emptively, eh?



    What's that called... oh yeah, prejudice.



    Nice.



    Here's an idea... since everyone has, at some point in there life, screwed over someone else, I say we ditch *ALL* privacy laws, and make *everyone's* life an open book to be peered through and pored through by anyone who wants to.



    I mean, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind, right?



    And yes, that means you too.



    'Public figure' my sweet patootie. The only people who should care at all are the shareholders.
  • Reply 11 of 102
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    'Public figure' my sweet patootie. The only people who should care at all are the shareholders.



    When Jobs stops appearing on the cover of TIME, then you might have an arguement. Until then...
  • Reply 12 of 102
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Censorship can only be applied to government action. It has nothing to do with private interests.



    Where does this definition come from exactly?
  • Reply 13 of 102
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Put yourself in Steves position, you are in your office, minding your own business, hurting no one, and you get this rediculous email claiming that...well you know, you read the same story I did...I have to think that a response like "are you nuts?" is a lot cleaner and more professional than my responce would have been...
  • Reply 14 of 102
    Maxwell wrote that article probably with the idea of directing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment against Steve Jobs. He probably thinks he can embarass Jobs by claiming that he is of Syrian descent, especially after the UN claimed that Syria was responsible for the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Maxwell clearly is nuts. Who knows, he may even be dangerous and turn violent.
  • Reply 15 of 102
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    In the same vein, think a moment and put yourself in Steve J.'s shoes.



    Running Apple, AND Pixar, a ton of things on his mind.



    Now, someone writes him an e-mail about his biological father and some kooky theory.



    He actually responds.



    6 words too many.
  • Reply 16 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinney57

    Where does this definition come from exactly?



    You are right. The man knows now of what he speaks. He is confusing the abridging an American's right of free speech with censorship. What he means to say the right only applies to the government not private interests. And he is correct there. But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship.
  • Reply 17 of 102
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wilco

    When Jobs stops appearing on the cover of TIME, then you might have an arguement. Until then...



    Sorry, I don't think that 'public figures' should include anyone but government officials, and even then I think they deserve basic human decency.



    I don't give a rat's ass about anyone's private life outside of how they perform their job, and I think those that *thrive* on such crap are bottom feeders who really need to get a life.



    In my perfect world, people would mind their own damned business, and stop using 'journalism' as a way of pulling down other people who are arguably more successful, just to make themselves feel better about themselves. It's juvenile, asinine, and immature.



    Trash 'journalism' is just that... trash. And why these idiots can claim to have the same protection as people who actually report *news* is beyond me.
  • Reply 18 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Norman Terry

    This is of course Aple and Jobs not just Jobs.

    They are a "public" company and he is therefore a public figure and subject to the scrutiny that comes with that. Besides any one person who makes more than 40 million a year should be publicly critisized for something. You don't make that much money without screwing someone over.




    Envy doesn't become you.
  • Reply 19 of 102
    meromero Posts: 27member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Norman Terry

    This is of course Aple and Jobs not just Jobs.

    They are a "public" company and he is therefore a public figure and subject to the scrutiny that comes with that. Besides any one person who makes more than 40 million a year should be publicly critisized for something. You don't make that much money without screwing someone over.




    Wow um..that makes no sense in context.



    You do of course realize that the people who he wrote the article for refused to publish it right? You gathered that much from the article I hope. Can you think of reasons why they might do that? As a student of mass media law, I will tell you:



    In this country we can publish whatever we want without being stopped. No prior restraint against us. Government cant stop of from publishing anything except rare things related to imminent danger or national secruity. However, if after articles are published they are found to hold lies, defamation, or malice, then a libel case can be made.



    For a public figure such as Steve Jobs he has to prove actual malice. Actual intent and actual knowing of lies to harm. CLEARLY this "nut case" didn't do a good job and his publisher thought it crossed the line. If it had been published, he and his publisher would surely have wanted to hold libel insuriance because they would have payed through their teeth.



    And I agree, this is dissapointing of Appleinsider to report on. It is a pretty sleezy story, in the future I hope you keep to your normal level of journalistic integrity or I will have to go somewhere else. I just don't see how it is news worthy.



    I also don't think the term "lashed out" is valid based off the 5 words Steve used. I would imagine the people close to Steve would say that on a scale of frustration "Are you a nut case?" is toward the gentle side of his vocabulary.
  • Reply 20 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rtamesis

    Maxwell wrote that article probably with the idea of directing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment against Steve Jobs. He probably thinks he can embarass Jobs by claiming that he is of Syrian descent, especially after the UN claimed that Syria was responsible for the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Maxwell clearly is nuts. Who knows, he may even be dangerous and turn violent.



    Ah. Ya. You know your world politics well, and like you i jumped to the same conclusion until i did more research. Vanity Fair is also reporting it.
Sign In or Register to comment.