Opinion
Did Gizmodo Editor Jason Chen Traffic In Stolen Goods?
By Matt Mernagh at 3:38 pm on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 // Post a Comment
That’s the question at the heart of a recent police action involving an iPhone prototype Gizmodo acquired for five grand, took apart and posted photos of. By now you’ve heard the story of an Apple engineer who left his still in development iPhone G4 at a Redwood, CA bar. No that’s not a punch-line or the start of a mobile phone joke. Instead of using beta development technology to magically have the phone walk back to Apple labs, the corporation had charges pressed against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen. Police used a warrant to storm Chen’s home and take a slew of computer equipment not related to a stolen iphone.
Gizmodo promptly invoked journalism shield laws, creating a public relations nightmare for Apple.
We learned blogs are protected form of freedom of speech. As such bloggers should take this fundamental right seriously. But Gizmodo did not use credible journalism methods to acquire their story.
The iPhone prototype was purchased.
Clearly contradicting journalism standards of not paying sources. Imagine legendary journalist Bob Woodward doling out money in a parking garage to Deep Throat for information on disgraced president Richard Nixon. Information is tainted when paid for. Reporters aren’t allowed to break into someone’s office to acquire a story. They could have paid for exclusive images and time to take apart or play with the iphone prototype. Instead Gizmodo opted to purchase it so other bloggers and news agencies couldn’t have any access. Possibly this point irked Apple.
A leaked story is great for advance hype. But gaining control of a leak is something every corporation takes very seriously. There’s a difference between breaking an exclusive story and trying to hold onto that exclusivity. Gizmodo could have had their journalism day or two in the sun. Gotten the incredible swell of website traffic. Then had other new agencies and bloggers follow it up.
Information is a protected right, but trafficking in stolen goods IS NOT.
