Well that puts Bloomberg on the same turd list as the NYT, and Digitimes. They all three of them could not tell what the truth was if it hit them square in the face.
Imagine a report made up a story out of a non story. I am glad to see the CEO to call out the reporter and the media who printed his words. Company need to begin doing what Hollywood is doing any time a rag magazine publish false information about an actor or actress. Company can easily prove the false reports has harmed company values. Imagine if a reporter or Trade Magazine has to pay for lost stock value of a company because they reported false negative information.
You might have something there! Let us not just stop there! Companies should be allowed to sue not just the media company for false reporting and asking them to pay for the lost market value, but they should be able to so the same to all those analyst who have caused the market value down. Make few big examples of that and they all will stop!
What about sites like AppleInsider, that are sometimes quoted in the news? Should they share the blame for spreading false gossip without first checking it out completely?
For that matter, what about forum posts? We constantly see misunderstandings and myths being repeated across the web. The damage they do to someone's or a company's reputation can be considerable.
The real problem is similar to what Winston Churchill said: " A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." In today's world, the problem is that many repeat the lie, but very few repeat the correction... or even change their headlines.
If corrections were as quick and widespread as falsehoods, it would make today's "print it before checking" philosophy.. which we seem stuck with.. more palatable.
It appears like Bloomberg News has Murdoch-ish ethical problems generally. Gruber links to a "serious scandal" developing.
They've lost all credibility.
I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:
The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.
The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:
@[B]Marvin[/B], you are right, writing for page views, never mind the truth, is the new bane of "journalism."
How is it different from the yellow journalism of the last hundred-plus years to drive circulation and thus ad sales? Somehow seems more of a personal betrayal when it's Internet-based.
Maybe because I don't see what [I]The Star[/I] or the [I]NY Post[/I] is doing because I would never buy their papers. What the online liars are doing at the [I]WSJ[/I], [I]Forbes[/I] and now [I]Bloomberg[/I] are doing is in everybody's face now, and it gets spread around by link sharing. Different.
Gruber is in a different class, though. He doesn't twist the truth for page views.
I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:
The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.
The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:
Where did you read that about Digitimes? The chest beating over who has the best phone has always been ridiculous, but what makes you think Digitimes isn't just spinning whatever hints they find in a way that is directly profitable? What specifically makes you suggest shilling?
Where did you read that about Digitimes? The chest beating over who has the best phone has always been ridiculous, but what makes you think Digitimes isn't just spinning whatever hints they find in a way that is directly profitable? What specifically makes you suggest shilling?
Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.
There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.
We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:
Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.
There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.
We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:
Celebrity endorsements are nothing new. Look at RIM's poor choice of creative directors for a recent example. I wasn't aware of those Digitimes changes. Thanks for that.
Comments
Well that puts Bloomberg on the same turd list as the NYT, and Digitimes. They all three of them could not tell what the truth was if it hit them square in the face.
Lol and they give pulitzers out to these monkeys.
See the discussion around Sacto Joe on the first page of comments:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/09/apple-ipad-mini-pegatron-bloomberg/
Also, note that PED says that Culpan is a respected reporter, and that it might have been his editor.
The question becomes, where do you stop?
What about sites like AppleInsider, that are sometimes quoted in the news? Should they share the blame for spreading false gossip without first checking it out completely?
For that matter, what about forum posts? We constantly see misunderstandings and myths being repeated across the web. The damage they do to someone's or a company's reputation can be considerable.
The real problem is similar to what Winston Churchill said: " A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." In today's world, the problem is that many repeat the lie, but very few repeat the correction... or even change their headlines.
If corrections were as quick and widespread as falsehoods, it would make today's "print it before checking" philosophy.. which we seem stuck with.. more palatable.
Pegatron... was not this something in a bad Michael Bay movie or something.
They've lost all credibility.
I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/samsung-stumbles-with-galaxy-s4-phone-rich-jaroslovsky.html
The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.
The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:
http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/20/daring-fireball-money-machine/
How is it different from the yellow journalism of the last hundred-plus years to drive circulation and thus ad sales? Somehow seems more of a personal betrayal when it's Internet-based.
Maybe because I don't see what [I]The Star[/I] or the [I]NY Post[/I] is doing because I would never buy their papers. What the online liars are doing at the [I]WSJ[/I], [I]Forbes[/I] and now [I]Bloomberg[/I] are doing is in everybody's face now, and it gets spread around by link sharing. Different.
Gruber is in a different class, though. He doesn't twist the truth for page views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/samsung-stumbles-with-galaxy-s4-phone-rich-jaroslovsky.html
The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.
The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:
http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/20/daring-fireball-money-machine/
Where did you read that about Digitimes? The chest beating over who has the best phone has always been ridiculous, but what makes you think Digitimes isn't just spinning whatever hints they find in a way that is directly profitable? What specifically makes you suggest shilling?
Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.
There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.
We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/21/apple-samsung-agent-provocateurs/
http://macdailynews.com/2013/04/19/for-apple-the-hits-keep-on-coming-why-does-digitimes-latest-apple-rumor-read-like-a-samsung-ad/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.
There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.
We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/21/apple-samsung-agent-provocateurs/
http://macdailynews.com/2013/04/19/for-apple-the-hits-keep-on-coming-why-does-digitimes-latest-apple-rumor-read-like-a-samsung-ad/
Celebrity endorsements are nothing new. Look at RIM's poor choice of creative directors for a recent example. I wasn't aware of those Digitimes changes. Thanks for that.