Apple blogger dominates shareholder meeting
Correction 11:45 a.m. PST: This blog initially misstated the day of the week Apple held its shareholder meeting. It was Tuesday. Updated at 12:45pm with link to Roughly Drafted.
A wide range of questioners, from grandparents to children, stepped up to the microphone to ask questions of Apple CEO Steve Jobs during Tuesday's shareholder meeting. They included a prolific Apple blogger who, taking advantage of his apparent status as a shareholder, asked repeated questions of Jobs.
Daniel Eran Dilger was the first person to approach the microphone following the close of official business during the Apple meeting, where a nonbinding proposal to give shareholders more input into executive pay was approved. He identified himself by name, but failed to note that he is the author of Roughly Drafted, an Apple blog that covers the company and the media who follow it very extensively. He proceeded to ask Jobs perhaps a half dozen questions, returning to wait in line for the microphone several times.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs, flanked by Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller, takes questions at Thursday's iPhone event in Cupertino.
(Credit: Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks) Apple, like many companies, does not allow the press nonshareholders to ask direct questions of company executives during shareholder meetings. Some companies don't even allow the press into the building, but Apple admits the press into an overflow room near its main Town Hall auditorium as observers.
Shareholders, of course, are free to enter the main auditorium and pose questions of Jobs and other executives. At the meeting, shareholders were required to register in one line, while press members who didn't hold shares were directed to a different sign-in sheet, and escorted to the overflow room.
Dilger did not respond to multiple e-mail requests for comment, but unless Apple's security fell down on the job, he must have been a shareholder to enter the auditorium. The thing is, he does not disclose that he is an Apple shareholder anywhere on his site, which is notoriously pro-Apple. I've been on the receiving end of one of Dilger's blasts on at least one occasion.
I'm fully aware it's a brave new world out there in the journalism industry, but holding stock in a company you cover is still a big no-no in many quarters. The standard among some of the other major bloggers seems to be disclosure, disclosure, disclosure: make readers aware of any potential conflicts of interest you may have and let them decide whether those conflicts are influencing what you write. It seems to me if you hold stock in a company that you passionately defend against any perceived attacks, and make money doing so, perhaps you should disclose that defense might just be influenced by your financial portfolio.
Roughly Drafted runs ads on the site, and Dilger says he had 4.3 million page views over the first two quarters of 2007. He has posted extensive coverage of Apple's iPhone event this week, although nothing from the six or so questions he asked of Jobs on Tuesday.
UPDATED 12:45pm - A commenter below kindly posts a link to a Roughly Drafted post from Wednesday, where Dilger mentions that he owns Apple stock. Prior to Wednesday, and prior to at least one e-mail inquiry sent by me to Dilger on Tuesday, that information had not been disclosed. As of this update, Dilger has still not responded to multiple requests for clarification on the issue.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
days ago in fact.
From Roughly Drafted: Mar 5, 2008
"For the record, I do own some shares of companies including
Apple. . ."
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/05/fresh-from-
cupertino-daniel-eran-dilger-does-dallas/
Google site search let you down?
Thanks, however, for bringing that post to my attention, and I will update my post with that link.
"For the record, I do own some shares of companies including
Apple, but the majority of my personal wealth derives from the
business of collecting settlements from drivers who plow into
me."
Report on meeting
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/04/investors-probe-
apples-jobs-on-successor-games-future-products/
Unfortunately none of the news organs official or unofficial
follow the tenets of fair reporting anymore, and most are guided,
influenced or plain out bought by the dollars of advertisers and
other more subtle monetary influence.
Bloggers, quite frankly, are not journalists. It used to be true
that the power of the press belonged to those who owned one.
Today, that power is ubiquitous?anyone with a computer can
publish. That means there isn't even a shred of journalistic ethics
showing in the bloggers' world?most bloggers don't even know
what the term means.
So, for the record, yes, full disclosure of anything that produces
a conflict of interest in reporting is mandatory to be considered
an ethical reporter. But beyond that, the rule is also true that no
one should be reporting on a field in which he or she has a
conflict of interest?real or perceived?and certainly not on a
company in which he or she is a part owner.
In the old days, news involving the newspaper or its associated
companies was either not reported at all, or reported with a
simple announcement of fact in the back pages. Any further
reporting was done by your competitors, who could be at least
*partially* objective (competition is its own conflict, of course).
Unfortunately, journalistic ethics have about as much chance of
again becoming the rule as a snowball in Death Valley.
10? What if you own a tech heavy mutual fund? can you not
report on tech?
These are not simple questions and should be left up to the
reader given that there is disclosure.
If a substantial (subjective again) part of you wealth is based on
a given company, maybe you shouldn't report but then again
you might have the best information. Again, disclosure is
sufficient.
it, but I've known for quite some time now, and I would bet that
most regular readers of RoughlyDrafted also are aware that Dan
holds apple stock and asks questions at shareholder meetings.
There are other blogs of his where he specifically talks about
these meetings and the exact questions he asks and responses
he gets. Perhaps it would only be acceptable if he emblazoned
his shareholder status in a banner across the top of the page.
Tom, this article only serves to make you look like you're A)
going after Dan because he has criticized your prior reporting,
as you mention in the article, and B) to highlight the fact that
you are occasionally sloppy in your reporting, by making false
statements in this article and by blindly embracing the views of
so-called analysts who have trouble keeping track of 1 million
iPhones.
Fortunately, my guess is that all this article will do is serve to
increase RoughlyDrafted's viewership. I hope it does, he
provides more insightful analysis of the CE world that can be
found in the pages of CNET. Perhaps if you actually read his
stuff before accusing him, rather than trying to blame him for
your sloppy journalism, you would understand that.
I don't have a problem with him criticizing me for a one-off story reporting what a respected financial analyst said in a research note. That story by no means represents the sum total of what I've written on iPhone unlocking, and if he has fault with the specific numbers, he should take them up with the analyst. Don't shoot the messenger.
His readers will have to decide for themselves whether or not his ownership of stock in the company, combined with his refusal to ever find fault with anything Apple does, is important to them. I just thought people should know.
(1) had hundreds or thousands of shares and
(2) was known as an ardently pro-Apple blogger and
(3) wrote an ardently anti-Apple story in an effort to depress share value . . .
. . . then you might have a 'story' here.
There is no doubt that Daniel believes in Apple and its products. Maybe some bloggers blog to get free laptops from Microsoft (ACER Ferrari) or pretend to hate Apple in order to enrage fanbois and drive up hit counts on their blogs (Dvorak), but I've not seen any evidence of this kind of behavior from Daniel in the past, and his blog is intelligent and funny.
Therefore I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The "issue" of his stock ownership is a non-issue from my perspective.
Roughly Drafted, why don't you also disclose the real
relationship between CNet, ZDNET, and Microsoft. I can't speak
for Daniel, but I wouldn't defend myself from the accusations of
someone I considered to be a professional Microsoft shill. There
is no way you can win, especially since CNet probably has 100
time the readership. If Daniel owns Apple stock, then as far as
I'm concerned he's just putting his money where his mouth is.
Or he owns the stock so that he can get into the shareholder
meetings and ask questions, which is probably the real reason.
presently owns three, I find myself in uneasy alliance with a lot of
rapid Apple sycophants who care little about integrity. It reminds
me of the attitude of Indiana basketball fans toward former coach
Bobby Knight. He could break the rules and be as abusive as he
wanted, so long as he produced wins. It's a sad part of human
nature.
He writes opinions, which is not considered journalism (and IMHO never should be).
Don't get me wrong, I love reading his articles because they do dig deep, but I have always read them like I would any op-ed.
Journalism OTOH is supposed to be news - factual, concise, true, and without propaganda or opinion.
So before we see a ton of flames and crap about what is essentially an opinion, and confuse it with journalism? Well...
/P
By and large blogging is part of journalism
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/02/digging_deeperdistinction_betw.html gives a good run down on the state of the situation. The discussion is very interesting.
So while this discussion might not apply to your sister's livejournal I do believe the case has been fairly made that bloggers need to adopted at least some of the journalist's ethics.
writing opinion pieces, albeit heavily researched ones (I would
argue far more heavily researched than Mr. Krazit's own articles,
and Krazit is himself a blogger, though not an independent one).
Dilger also writes news releases on AppleInsider under the
name Prince McLean. Maybe Krazit should write another terrific
'expose' on that bit of journalistic sloppiness - my gosh, a writer
with a fake name on an Apple rumors website!
Again, Krazit here is just trying to get back at Dilger for
criticizing him. He'd rather go after Dilger's credibility, I guess
because that's easier than questioning his analysis, which is far
more substantial and insightful than Krazit's.
Otherwise, I agree that anyone wanting to identify themselves as
such should adhere to the same standards, or come up with and
adhere to stronger ones.
[i]" By and large blogging is part of journalism "[/i]
I disagree - the majority of it is opinion/op-ed, which is nothing
like journalism.
/P
A shareholder asking questions at a shareholder meeting - duh.
So ***, besides CNet's apparent jealousy (and inability to actually find NEWS), is the issue here?
- When do you need to declare share ownership?
- by Urban Terrorist March 10, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
- I'm not certain that this really qualifies as news. Daniel is an Apple fan. He owns a lot of Apple equipment, and loves it - so what he writes in his blog is his opinion based on the technology that he uses daily. Does he need to declare share ownership to do this?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)Now if he was recommending investments he would have a duty to make his stock ownership known.
I do a lot of writing on ecological issues. Hell, I voted green last election. Should I have declared this in my writing? Would it make a difference if I were to join the Green Party?
Ethical issues often come in shades of gray. In this particular case I think that Daniel is in the clear. He has written other times about attending Apple shareholder meetings - without actually stating that he owned Apple shares, however the implication was that he did, or he wouldn't have been able to attend the meeting.
My suggestion is that you buy some shares and attend the next meeting as a shareholder. It will no doubt give you a different viewpoint, and you can always sell the shares later if you want. Or keep them if they are a good investment.