alleyinsider.com— The exchange starts at minute 3:33. It's also worth watching the beginning, where Jim somehow argues that his reporting was spot on. (If the video has been removed, Gizmodo has it here).
Jan 15, 2009View in Crawl 4
Given that Dan was right and Jim was wrong, there is still a certain amount of professionalism you should have and a way to conduct your self when on a business news channel. If thats the way you choose to win your battles then you are no different from the O'Rilley.
Like the Gizmodo article said: Apple deliberately lied to investors and the media regarding Jobs' health. Saying "no comment" is one thing, but intentionally deceiving investors and the market is unethical at best, and illegal at worst. It is a universally agreed upon fact that Jobs is a large part of Apple's success since he came back in '97, so intentionally misrepresenting his physical state and ability to do his job is no different then lying about any other internal factor that might hurt Apple's stock if it were made public. As an Apple stock holder, I consider that willful fraud, and I am pissed, both at Apple and "reporters" like Goldman that have no business getting within 50 feet of stories involving companies they are large investors in.
I personally don't get why this is such a big deal, either. Two guys had an argument (about Apple, nonetheless) on a news network. Wow! Call the internets! Buried.
jdh24Jan 15, 2009
What's with this new fad of news stations banning people for life?
prlmeJan 16, 2009
Given that Dan was right and Jim was wrong, there is still a certain amount of professionalism you should have and a way to conduct your self when on a business news channel. If thats the way you choose to win your battles then you are no different from the O'Rilley.
thecashJan 16, 2009
Like the Gizmodo article said: Apple deliberately lied to investors and the media regarding Jobs' health. Saying "no comment" is one thing, but intentionally deceiving investors and the market is unethical at best, and illegal at worst. It is a universally agreed upon fact that Jobs is a large part of Apple's success since he came back in '97, so intentionally misrepresenting his physical state and ability to do his job is no different then lying about any other internal factor that might hurt Apple's stock if it were made public. As an Apple stock holder, I consider that willful fraud, and I am pissed, both at Apple and "reporters" like Goldman that have no business getting within 50 feet of stories involving companies they are large investors in.
znicketJan 16, 2009
"universally agreed upon fact"... yeah - I wouldn't build a case on this.
brundlefly76Jan 16, 2009
Yeah, I mean, the other reporter was reporting what he was being told by sources which he trusted, it wasnt like he was making s**t up.
Closed AccountJan 16, 2009
I personally don't get why this is such a big deal, either. Two guys had an argument (about Apple, nonetheless) on a news network. Wow! Call the internets! Buried.
htomsirveauxJan 16, 2009
It's hard to act professional when bulls**t has a way of pissing people off.