For Position Only: Apple, Adobe Take Aim at the Rumor Mill
Warning: This column may leave you bristling. Still, I think (hope) you’ll appreciate the topic I’m going to discuss, because it has ruffled the feathers of many Mac-based design professionals: the recent brouhaha over vendors’ attempts to control the publishing of product information and to stem the propagation of rumors in tech news reporting.
The most recent debacle erupted last month, when ZDNet News reported that ad agency TBWA/Chiat/Day contacted several publications that carry Apple advertising and requested written statements from each that they don’t publish rumors or speculation about Apple or Mac products. The implication was that anyone who publishes rumors risks losing Apple’s advertising business. (Neither Apple nor Chiat/Day was quoted in the story, though in a follow-up Chiat/Day said no pressure was asserted.) And reports of Apple clamping down on reporting of pre-released information are nothing new.
Apple isn’t the only company trying to grind the rumor mill to a halt these days; so is Adobe. This summer, Adobe Systems filed a lawsuit against Macintosh Network News charging that MacNN misappropriated trade secrets and compromised the company’s competitive position. MacNN’s offense: It published sections of an unauthorized copy of the then-unreleased Photoshop 6.0 and ImageReady 3.0 feature guide.
Given that Apple and Adobe are the major hardware and software vendors, respectively, for creative professionals, you’d be right to be concerned about how the news from these companies is reported. Judging by the ongoing online discussions on these events, many of you have strong opinions on these topics, so humor me by reading one more.
Take a Chill Pill
Let me start by assuring you that there’s nothing I hate more than journalists going on about their inalienable rights as granted in the First Amendment and the separation of church (editorial) and state (advertising). Such rants strike me as incredibly defensive, egocentric, and, frankly, boring.
So let’s get some perspective, folks. Journalism, especially tech journalism, is a business. Pubs and sites such as creativepro.com and all others are in business to 1) make money, and 2) offer a service to consumers by helping them make intelligent decisions about buying and using technology. For the former to occur the latter must be of the highest quality, which means offering more than parroted press releases. Sound product reviews and “shootouts” add value, as do insightful analyses and commentaries about technology trends and issues. If the content is good, the sales folks can sell advertising and the circulation folks can sell subscriptions and everyone is happy.
Now unfortunately in our ever-so-litigious society (not just the high-tech world), lawsuits are a routine business tactic. It would be foolish to expect a company like Apple or Adobe to do anything less than pull out all the stops to try to maintain its competitive position; they sue each other, why shouldn’t they sue the press (please don’t call us “the media”)? But lawsuits or threats of lawsuits shouldn’t and don’t stop the reporting of the news. It’s telling, also, that Adobe chose to sue a niche site instead of an organization with deeper pockets, such as ZDNet, which also published Photoshop 6.0 features in a “sources said” story long before the product’s release.
And like it or not, companies have the right to advertise where and when they want. As any parent of a toddler will tell you, it’s human nature to test our limits, including in business. Remember three years ago when Chrysler pulled advertising from ABC for Ellen Degeneres’ coming-out episode? Chrysler had the constitutional right to pull its advertising just as ABC had the constitutional right to air the comedienne’s outing. And guess what? Other advertisers stepped in to fill the void. The sky didn’t fall in; the First Amendment didn’t collapse — and it won’t now. In fact, I’m probably not going too far out on a limb in suggesting that Apple and Chiat/Day have been making advertising decisions all along at least partially based on the integrity of the publication’s content (as they see it). It’s just their bad luck that ZDNet’s Matthew Rothenberg found out that Chiat/Day may have been asking publications for a written statement that the publications don’t propagate rumors.
Business As Usual
Notice that I’ve skillfully avoided voicing an opinion about the ethics of actually publishing rumors. That’s because I’m on the fence about it. I draw the line at violating NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) — revealing information after you’ve signed an agreement saying you wouldn’t — and I insist that every story provide tangible value to readers. One thing I learned in journalism school from film and drama critic Judith Crist, who taught the class Personal and Professional Style, is this: There are comedies and there are dramas, and there is room for both, but don’t judge one against the other.
Similarly, there’s a place for features, breaking news, rumors, and more in technology journalism, and readers should accept each for what it brings to the table — no more, no less. And just as I expect Apple, Adobe, and other companies to do business by lording their lawyers and their advertising dollars over publications, I also expect news organizations — in the trade or otherwise — to report the news aggressively and ethically. Because that’s how we do business.
This article was last modified on January 18, 2023
This article was first published on October 12, 2000
Commenting is easier and faster when you're logged in!
