I'm a blogger, not a journalist...



The world of Apple Mac fandom is in a tizzy over lawsuits brought by Apple against certain rumor sites for revealing trade secrets. This really has been going on for weeks, so I'm swooping in to comment very late in the game. Since it's my blog, I give myself permission to do so, though...

What's the deal? In January, Apple file suit against ThinkSecret, AppleInsider and PowerPage ( Macintosh rumor sites) for revealing trade secrets. Specifically, they revealed pretty detailed product specs of products that were announced at the MacWorld conference on January 11, 2005, but they revealed this information weeks before the event. Apple actually sued before the event, which tended to make the rumors more credible, in fact.

Apple has long had a love/hate relationship with rumor sites in general, but particularly hates Think Secret, which has a record of being right quite often. (They've also been spectacularly wrong, on occasion: they predicted an iPod mini with a color screen, which has not materialized). This time, ThinkSecret spilled the beans on the Mac mini, the iPod shuffle, and a few other items as well. They were accurate enough that Apple simply could not ignore the damage any longer. The worst damage, perhaps, was caused by a prediction that did not come true, but had Mac music fans salivating: the Asteroid MIDI breakout box. Disappointment over the non-appearance of this product (which evidently either was killed or at least delayed by Steve Jobs' noted perfectionism) possibly damaged Apple. Earlier ThinkSecret "scoops" that almost certainly damaged Apple include a price prediction for the iPod mini that was $50 too low, and led to expectations that were disappointed (and possibly to sales lost, certainly to quite a bit of negative press).

So, it's not hard to see why Apple is wishing to throttle ThinkSecret down a bit. It's OK to print rumors, but Think Secret was clearly getting information from inside sources at Apple. Apple is merely seeking information on who those sources were, not seeking damages from ThinkSecret or the other sites.

The conventional response on the part of the Mac press, best expressed by Dan Gillmor, is that Apple is on a fishing expedition against some small-fry journalistic sites to get information that they should seek in other ways; perhaps through use of private investigators, for example. Dan defends Nick Ciarelli, the 19-year-old proprietor of ThinkSecret, as a journalist deserving of the right to protect his sources under state and federal laws.

Representing the other side is John Gruber, of the Daringfireball blog, who points out that the argument that Apple wouldn't have gone after, say, the New York Times (or any other news organization with deep pockets) if the NYT had published the same material is a nonstarter, since the NYT never would have published rumors or trade secrets as news to start with. The NYT publishes news, and is concerned with accuracy to the point of retracting anything found later to be false. ThinkSecret publishes rumors as fact, and plays fast and loose with the truth. ThinkSecret's track record is not perfect, and when they are wrong, they hedge rather than retract.

An editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News give ThinkSecret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage the benefit of believing they are journalistic endeavors. So: actual journalists extend the label to the Apple rumor sites, but nonjournalists like John Gruber do not.

This is a tricky issue. I think we perhaps need to err on the side of caution in removing safeguards for journalistic endeavors. On the other hand, the argument of "the public's need to know" extends to a corporation's trade secrets and plans rings a bit hollow. I obviously want to know what Apple is planning, but the republic does not stand or fall on whether I am informed ahead of time about Apple's plans. I don't pretend to have the answers to this conflict. Smarter people than I are clearly in disagreement over this issue.

This one thing I do know, though: I am a blogger, and not a journalist. What I publish is not news (it's usually not even timely, as in the present instance!). I'm careful what I publish, and I don't expect to be sued for any of it. But I don't claim any journalistic shields for my work.

Posted: Thu - March 10, 2005 at 08:32 AM        

©