Apple denies CNN iReport of Steve Jobs heart attack



  • Reply 61 of 69
    Anyone who gets their news from CNN is a fool. Anyone who then ACTS on it is an idiot!
  • Reply 62 of 69
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    I have no problem with things like iReports as alternative news, as long as it's clearly portrayed as that and it's clear where these stories are coming from. CNN typically has about 20 headlines listed under "Latest News" at the top of their home page. In the past, I've seen iReports headlines making up over a quarter of the headlines! Between that and the number of pop-culture headlines, video headlines, and the lastest trend of "contributor" op-ed headlines (Navarrette, Rosen, etc) you begin to think there is no real news going on in the world.

    As of right now, those 20 headlines consist of:

    - 2 mortgage human interest stories, one linked to Time asking if God wanted you to have a mortgage

    - 2 op-ed pieces which are usually extremely biased and intentionally inflammatory

    - 4 video segements, 2 of which have titilating headlines clearly aimed at suggesting immoral/pornographic content

    - 1 on car maintenance

    - 1 on a "space elevator" that will never be built

    - 4 on the Biden-Palin debate

    There are only 3 stories that I'd consider "news" and that a newspaper editor would put on the front page.
  • Reply 63 of 69
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post

    So you're saying that, unless you are allowed to snoop through every single health record that Jobs possesses, you're entitled to spread crap around that you don't know is true? You're a disgusting creep. Ever heard of the right to privacy? Aside from a general statement about the state of the CEO's health, a corporation owes you no such thing. You can make the case that a presidential candidate like John McCain, who's had four occurrences of melanoma, should release all his records for inspection, but that's for president of the United States. Jobs is the head of Apple. He's done an epic job of lifting Apple up since he came back. He will not live forever. But until he does, he has every right to keep his health situation to himself and to his Board of Directors. Rumor-mongers like yourself are, frankly, beneath contempt.

    Does Apple set a mandatory retirement age for its executives, like some other corporations do? If so, are they required to make that age known to the public?
  • Reply 64 of 69
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

    I get my info now from non-advertising-dominated news outlets which means primarily print and non-American outlets.

    Exactly what print news outlets are not advertising dominated?

    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

    I'd encourage you to do the same.

    Silly person. The content of web sites do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
  • Reply 65 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Originally Posted by breeze View Post

    from ALL news reporting entities. They should all be made to triple verify ALL sources for credibility and proof before publishing.

    All they have to do is, unlike YouTube, verify the "iPoster"'s name, etc. before allowing them to post anything. That way CNN would be covered for almost all liabilities arising from false reporting.
  • Reply 66 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

    You mean all the AMERICAN ones, right?

    CBC and BBC have really good 24 hr news channels. Not just better international coverage, but better coverage of news in the US too. Actual news too, not "what's Brittney doing today?"

    One quirk in BBC reporting I've noticed is that they tend to present a dire view of every story and they usually end on an unresolved note... there's no "story resolution". I get uneasy watching BBC News and feel like I need the "three act" structure we are usually spoon-fed with American news.
  • Reply 67 of 69
    SEC has banned the naked shorting of 800 financial stocks for about a month. It seems to me that most high profile tech companies are drawing attention of these hedge fund manipulators. This is so true for Apple as someone else pointed out too - just in the first half hour of trading, about 30 million shares changed hands, and the stock fell like a rock. The "iReport" was just another attempt by someone to consolidate their gains.

    In my opinion "Naked shorting" should be a crime punishable by law. I fail to understand how the SEC allows it. These hedgies are ganging up on stocks, selling them without owing a single share, and the weak hands have no option but to sell. That is so true in times like these when the financial markets are totally roiled. The same thing happened on Monday when the stock dropped 23 bucks. In the absence of any regulation, it should take another 2 weeks (it has already been going on for atleast 2 weeks) for the selling to slow down, and the stock should start recovering at that point.
  • Reply 68 of 69
    Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

    How many times do people have to be so ridiculous in thinking that Apple does not have a clear plan for the time that Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple Inc. is out of the company?

    Where do you people get the idea that there is not a clear, solid plan in place?

    So many people revere Steve Jobs as a genius, and yet think that he is so stupid as to build up "his" company the way he has, and not have a plan for when he passes away or retires?

    Are you all crazy?

    So what is Apple's clear plan for when Jobs leaves? If Steve Jobs leaves, who would take his place? Nobody can answer that. People thing that it would be Tim Cook, but as far as most people looking in, he doesn't measure up to Jobs. Secondly, rumours of Jobs getting sick results in a fairly massive hit to Apple's stock, so if there is a clear plan for succession, why don't the investors - the people funding Apple; the people who own Apple - know what it is?

    The thing is, Jobs is a genius, and he is well aware of this. He has done amazing things for Apple, and it's pretty safe to say that Apple wouldn't be where it is today were it not for his return. The flaw of people like this is that they often can't see past themselves. As evidence, Jobs gave up on Apple when he was kicked out by Sculley - he tried to create a competitor. Now I imagine that he's matured since then, but I still am not entirely sure that he has a plan for where Apple will be 10, 20, 50 years after he leaves. If he does, nobody knows it.

    Suppose you knew that Jobs was going to leave Apple suddenly and unannounced in 3 months - you couldn't tell anyone, but you knew. Would you buy Apple stock, or would you short it? Of course, you'd be stupid to do anything but short it. But if Buffet, Gates, Paige, Bezios were going to leave their respective companies, I don't think that their stocks would take a severe hit. With companies like GE or 3M, most people don't even notice a CEO change.

    Of course, Apple will not disappear with Jobs, but I am not convinced that it will maintain its high level of success without him.
  • Reply 69 of 69
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

    Except that the charges against Thomas were not ill-founded. The Republicans were in control of the Senate, and they suckered Democrats into a deal where Anita Hill would be the only woman allowed to testify about sexual harassment by Thomas. There were at least two or three other women who were ready to testify. That would have changed the outcome - if there's only one accuser, it's easy to demonize her. Harder if there are more.

    Do you remember which president was in office when Clarence Thomas was tapped for the high court? George H.W. Bush. Tell me, if neither the House or the Senate were EVER controlled by Republicans (who had lost majority status in the Senate in Reagan's first term and didn't get it back until the Republican "Contract with America" in 1994 under CLINTON), how could any Supreme Court hearings be controlled by Republicans?

    This will come as a huge shock to you, I'm sure, but maybe--just maybe--Anita Hill was the only example Thomas' accusers could trump up because there wasn't enough truth to the allegation that anyone else was willing trashing their reputations for it.

    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

    "3. Gulf war on the scene. CNN reporters in Bagdad at the start of the Gulf War were so eager to appease Saddam that it was nauseating."

    You can't be serious. While the Pentagon was restricting reporters and lying to them, there were only a few who were able to get out and try to find out what was really going on. Remember the whoe staged tearing down of the Saddam statue? Torn down by American soldiers, but made to look like it was a spontaneous Iraqi demonstration.

    Citations, please. Just don't use CNN. This is the FIRST time I've EVER heard that American soldiers were pulling down that statue, and that isn't because "I must not read the news." More likely we've got a budding iReporter here.

    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

    Of course, those stories never made it to right-wing cheerleaders Fox, so you probably never saw them.

    Maybe that's because these stories are not factual. But you stay in your own little conspiracy theory world while the rest of us stay in the real one.

    Now, what say we all get back to Jobs--is he dead, or isn't he?
Sign In or Register to comment.