Jobs asks author: "Are you a nut case?"
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
is it any good?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.