Comments on: Apple blogger dominates shareholder meeting

Author of passionately pro-Apple blog asks CEO Steve Jobs several questions without disclosing his affiliation--or disclosing stock ownership to his readers.

[sbwinn]

Sorry Tom

Dilger has disclosed that he owns stock in Apple -- just a few
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?

[Tom Krazit]

Funny what a few inquiries will produce

I've sent Daniel three e-mails this week, on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning, and this morning, asking him for clarification on this issue. As you note, he didn't disclose this information until Wednesday. Prior to that post, that info was nowhere to be found, and all of a sudden he's got a full disclosure statement. Funny, that.

Thanks, however, for bringing that post to my attention, and I will update my post with that link.

[dscottbuch]

Disclosed Huh?

Quote from Dilger site RDM

"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/

[Groucho6]

Disclosure isn't enough

Journalistic ethics used to be a credo instead of an oxymoron.
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.

[dscottbuch]

But when is it a conflict?

I owning 1 share of Apple a conflict on reporting on Apple? 2? 5?
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.

[wightca]

prior disclosure

I don't have time to go and find the post where I originally read
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.

[Tom Krazit]

I gave Daniel three chances to respond

Over four days. And he never wrote back, yet found the time to post a lengthy and very broad disclosure statement the day after I inquired.

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.

[vaporland]

Much ado about nothing

If Daniel . . .

(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.

[mjones05]

Disclosure?

Should disclosure include more than stock ownership? How about ad revenue? Noticed a Windows Mobile ad at the bottom of the page. Several more Microsoft ads throughout CNet's web site. Even see a few while reading comments.

[bwvla]

Sycophants

When journalists cease being critical they just become advertisers. Since they aren't getting paid to advertise that makes them simply sycophants.

[zato_3]

no way you can win

Tom, since you are so determined to see "Full disclosure" from
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.

[artman1033]

He is a blogger not a journalist Tommy

Tommy are your panties on too tight. Get a grip

[nicmart]

Apple fanatics are not overly concerned with ethics

Speaking as a person who has owned more than 30 Macs, and who
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.

[AppleSuxLeo]

I screw Apple/Jobs...

everytime I buy music off AmazonMP3.Spread the word...iTunes is a dinosaur !

[Penguinisto]

The diff between opinion and journalism...

To be honest, Dilger doesn't have to disclose anything about what stocks he owns or doesn't, but it's nice to see.

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

[rapier1]

Blogger or Journalist?

This actually a question a lot of people have been trying to answer for a few years now. A good number of bloggers argue that they are journalists and are entitled to all the rights and protections of a journalist. This means they can protect their confidential sources, retraction laws, and so forth. However, if a blogger *wants* to exercise the rights of a journalist then they have to abide by the ethical guidelines of journalism.

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.

[wightca]

fine point but

Certainly it must depend on the "blogger". Dilger is clearly
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.

[Penguinisto]

Here's the trick:

I don't believe Dilger ever identified himself as a "journalist".

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

[M C]

How is this news?

Let's see: a blogger asking questions - duh.

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?

[California Yankee]

M C

"How is this news?" Well, this is obvious to those of us able to think for ourselves. For those who don't know the answer, it is contained within the post. If you still have to ask, you're obviously incapable of understanding the salient points, so you might just want to go crawl back under your rock and leave the thinking and questioning to others.

[Urban Terrorist]

When do you need to declare share ownership?

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?

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.