Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Steve Jobs
'Fake Steve' chides CNBC's Goldman in source foofaraw
Dan Lyons, who once wrote the "Fake Steve Jobs" blog, criticized Silicon Valley bureau chief Jim Goldman for withholding information from sources inside Apple about Steve Jobs' health.
The sparks fly in this video around the 3:30 mark.
Lyons, on CNBC Reports, said Goldman had become the kind of reporter that gets "played and punked" by Apple, and that he should have released the information he knew on Monday, before Apple's announcement yesterday. Lyons also demanded that Goldman apologize to Gizmodo, for criticizing their December 30 story about Jobs' declining health.
Goldman said that he had contacted two individuals on Monday who have personal contact with Jobs, but don't know the intimate details about his medical treatment. Goldman wrote yesterday:
What struck me was that both felt compelled to come to me to tell me that they had "serious misgivings" about the state of Jobs' health. One said, based on his contact with Jobs personally, that he was in "serious denial" about just how bad the circumstances had become. The other explained to me that he was "deeply concerned" about Jobs, and the sudden lack of communication, the non-return of emails, ignoring chat requests, unreturned phone calls was a strong indication to him that Jobs was in "dire" shape.
According to Silicon Alley Insider, a source close to the matter said that Lyons had been banned from appearing on CNBC again, though CNBC spokesman Kevin Goldman (no relation) said "Real Dan" had not been banned.
In related news, Joe Nocera, the New York Times journalist who Steve Jobs called a "slime bucket" in an off-the-record phone interview about his health, said that the medical problem Jobs confessed to in the call is different from the "hormone imbalance" mentioned in Apple's press release just before Macworld. Nocera called for greater transparency from Apple about how it discusses Steve's health.
[Via MacDailyNews.]
On a personal and editorial note, I wish Mr. Jobs and his family all the best, and this is the last story I'll be writing about yesterday's announcement for the foreseeable future. I was conflicted about even writing this, because Jobs deserves his time to recuperate, free from the spread of rumors and half-truths. Perhaps the less I write about it, the healthier he'll get. In theory. Maybe. We can hope. - RP
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jeremy said 3:13PM on 1-15-2009
Daniel Lyons just looked like a rabid idiot in that clip. Absolutely *raving* about conspiracy theories etc. I know the thing on US news shows is just to shout and scream lately, but Lyons just showed himself to be the idiotic, screaming, tantrum-obsessed, looser that he is.
It's getting clearer and clearer that he has no other act than "Fake Steve Jobs" and that the whole column was likely based on a pathetic, secret idolisation of Steve jobs and the bad feelings resultant form the fact that he can never actually *be* Steve Jobs.
He's like some kind of crazy "reverse fan" or stalker, he isn't happy unless he is talking about Steve Jobs and Apple and he never has anything good to say about them. Other than a few asides in his columns used to set up an even bigger dig at them in the next sentence he hasn't written a single positive thing about Apple or Jobs.
I don't know why the media doesn't see him for the obsessed stalker he is.
Reply
J said 9:22PM on 1-15-2009
Respectfully, I disagree. Dan Lyons has a great record of pulling up journalists/reporters who simply parrot the press briefings put out by tech companies. Unfortunately, Dan is quite correct in pointing out that Apple has one of the best PR teams on the planet, that is very good at using journalists for their own purposes. Goldman was used, and he knows it - that's why he was ranting before Lyon's correctly ripped into him.
What is also clear, is that whilst I have the greatest respect for Mr Jobs, he hasn't been completely honest with either himself, or the owners of Apple, or both. When you accept the position of CEO, you take on certain fiduciary responsibilities, which it appears that he may well have breached.
To make it clear, I honestly hope (and pray) that he recovers quickly, whether he comes back to Apple or not. I hope he lives to 100.
r said 3:25PM on 1-15-2009
The bottom line problem is Steve Jobs. He is plain stubborn and needs to come clean and be 100% open. He is playing puppets with the 20,000 employees he has. He needs to name a successor permanently and move on. If he does not do this and dies in the next 6 months Apple will be in turmoil and it will look like the mid 90's again.
Reply
Niklas said 3:35PM on 1-15-2009
Only stupid short term investors and knee jerk netzens think that:
A) personal privacy should not be valid for other people and B) apple is one person and not a huge company with thousands of hard working employees.
Jim H said 5:17PM on 1-15-2009
Why should he?
What's clear to me is what a malign presence these Wall Street pikers are on the country. Jobs is a builder. These guys are gamblers who contribute nothing. Let their riverboat sink. The hell with them.
J said 9:33PM on 1-15-2009
@Jim H: Why should he?
Because that's the law. Hiding the truth from the owners of the company is illegal. If Mr Jobs doesn't like it he has two choices:
1. Quit
2. Buy out all the current owners and take the company private. That way he can negotiate whatever terms of disclosure with the private owners as he likes.
Also, you do realise there are alot of people other than "Wall St gambler" types, who own a piece of Apple - for instance, many people's retirement funds are managed by Fidelity, who is Apple's largest shareholder.
mike said 3:35PM on 1-15-2009
The absurdity of this clip is amusing, but what is happening on the screen embodies every reason I can't bring myself to subscribe to cable television: three rolling tickers, five people on screen (three or four talking at once), an ad in the bottom corner, and then a logo over that. I could accidentally come across this when channel surfing and end up in convulsions.
As much as we love Apple and as much as Steve calls the shots, his health is still a private thing and I'm sure the people he trusts are doing everything they can to prepare for "AAS." (Apple After Steve) I'm glad to see the stock gaining back most of its losses as Wall Street backs off the issue.
Reply
J said 9:40PM on 1-15-2009
Completely agree about the ridiculousness of the clip. It's just another reason why we don't have a television at all.
I don't agree though with your assertion that Mr Jobs' health is a private matter. As CEO of a publicly listed company he has certain responsibilities to be open and honest about any developments that might affect the company. Given that he has been such a key part of the success of Apple, and his renowned control, any development relating to his ability to continue as CEO is _definitely_ something he must be frank about.
Aelver said 3:36PM on 1-15-2009
The way I see it Steve should do one of two things:
1). Resign, and deal with his medical issues privately.
or
2). Stay with Apple, and deal with it publicly, openly.
Either way Steve, you should be honest to your employees / investors.
Reply
Josh Burks said 4:26PM on 1-15-2009
MR. JOBS (everyone needs to quit speaking of him as if he is a personal friend, I find it a bit disrespectful of his personal space) absolutely is in no need to have an ultimatum. As a creature of this Earth, Jobs has every right to recluse to the company of his family when his health suffers.
Secondly, it is NO ONE's business what his health situation is. Apple's credibility, or any other cooperation's, should never never rest solely on the CEO.
Jobs is not Apple. He owns it, yes, but should he pass, I'm positive his role can be distributed among these 20,000 employees. He has the most competent staff of developers, writers, designers this world's ever seen, obviously. So in the unfortunate even that the Father of Apple were to pass, the company COULD go on.
Investors? Get real. I'm pretty sure the stock wall reads AAPL as in Apple, not WBSJ- The Well Being of Steven Jobs. I swear some of you people are as bad women that drool over gossip magazines. He is a very popular man, no doubt, from the amazing company he nursed from infancy in a garage. BUT, celebrity status for a CEO is silly. He is no entertainer, but a hard working man, who leads the world's most innovative and fastest growing company. LET HIM BE!!
I wish my most to Jobs and his family. I'm sure the frenzic growth that has consumed Apple over the past few years has been exhausting in itself; some sleep will do him good. I know if I were to lead a company like Apple you would have to force me to leave the place at night for sleep. This 6 month leave is bound to do wonders for his health, and most likely replenish his ever creative mind to tackle some really mind-blowing innovations to come. Good luck!
mike said 3:53PM on 1-15-2009
Your last statement reminds us all of our human-ness rather than "got to get the story" to look good. We all deserve the privacy and decency afforded to living. If it were my health, I wouldn't want it to be someone else's fodder.
I congratulate you on being human and decent.
Reply
Leslie C said 4:21PM on 1-15-2009
I'm surprised we didn't have to order the fight on payperview; I think Dan acted jejune, and any point he may have had was lost amongst his child-like tantrum. While questioning whether or not Apple is "snowing" the consumers is a big deal, perhaps they should be worried about other things like: whether or not Jobs will recover, what's in the best interest of the company/stock holders, what's the future of Apple, etc? The question caused an incendiary, flippant debate; what was accomplished?
Reply
J said 9:52PM on 1-15-2009
Firstly, Lyons was correctly pointing out that Goldman got snowed, not "consumers". Goldman attacked the (correct) Gizmodo report, saying he had inside knowledge that the CEO was fine. Clearly, he was fed a line, which is why Goldman was complaining.
What was accomplished?
A journalist was held to account for doing a crappy job. If you followed the Fake Steve Jobs blog, you'll know that Lyons has a history of holding journalists to account for releasing company press briefings word for word, without using quotes. The accomplishment is that Goldman feels chastised for doing a rubbish job, and sitting on information about the CEO in order to curry favour with Apple's PR team. When journalists do as they're told by companies, or worse, act as an independent "fourth estate" when they might as well be on the payroll, there's something really not right.
You may not care about freedom of the press, but Dan Lyons certainly does.
Rylin said 4:23PM on 1-15-2009
Robert Palmer: Thank you for putting a rest to the stories related to Steve's health. People are getting whipped into a frenzy, and the resulting media circus is simply disrespectful to everyone involved.
Reply
Pete said 4:27PM on 1-15-2009
Things change. Especially when it comes to your health. If problems with Jobs' health are not confirmed or are still under observation they shouldn't do something stupid and make an announcement regarding the worst. Talk about not thinking of your employees and investors! If they made an announcement sooner and what they stated as a major problem was actually minor wouldn't that be more damaging than waiting? Apple relies on their employees and investors. Why needlessly worry them before you have concrete confirmation of a major health issue? It is actually in the employees and investors best interest as well.
Reply
J said 4:32PM on 1-21-2009
Oh, ok - So let me get this straight. You're fine with the idea that people with inside knowledge (about the possibility that AAPL might take a huge dive in the near future) get to dump their shares before others hear?
We're discussing a publicly listed company here. There are quite clear rules about corporate disclosure. The health of the CEO, when that CEO is so closely tied to the success of the company is a material factor.
Tell the company owners (and employees) the truth, and let them decide whether to overreact or not.
Pete said 9:21AM on 1-16-2009
J that is not what I'm saying. This is someone's health. It is not always clear what the problem might be. People are assuming that there was clear evidence before of what we know now regarding Jobs' health. If there was, Apple is wrong for not saying it. If there wasn't, Apple shouldn't give "maybe" updates to stir fear that may not exist. They are not responsible for a "maybe" statement. ie:
Statement 1 (Which sounds like the one everybody thought they should hear): "We believe Steve Jobs might again have cancer due to pains in his stomach. He might die."
Statement 2: "Oops our mistake. After further diagnosis we know now that Jobs' has an intestinal infection. This is easily treatable. Thank you for selling all your stock based on are not-so-accurate first statement. We are sorry for it's irresponsible message but we were worried that you all would get pissed if we just said he was under the weather and not give some jump to the conclusion reason."
J said 4:57PM on 1-21-2009
Pete, I fully I understand what you're saying - that there can be uncertainty about a diagnosis - and that reporting symptoms alone might lead to an overreaction. "Uncertain diagnosis" territory is not where we are though, since it's been clear for quite a while that he has not been well, despite the attempts of Apple PR to hide it.
In addition, as much as I would like Mr Jobs to just be 'someone', he isn't just someone. He chose to accept the position of CEO at a publicly listed company, and is recognised as quite a talismanic CEO as well. As a result, the fact that has been ill for quite some time and has tried to hide it is a clear breach of his fiduciary responsibilities, no matter how much sympathy I feel for him.
I really do hope he gets better though.
+. said 4:31PM on 1-15-2009
Dan Lyons' attempts to remain even the least bit relevant are just sad, at this point.
Reply
J said 10:05PM on 1-15-2009
Remain relevant?
You do realise that by taking the CNBC Valley reporter to task for:
1. crapping on a Gizmodo report, which turned out to be correct
2. witholding relevant information
3. attempting to curry favour with Apple PR
he will probably never be invited back.
I'd call that taking a stand and being principled.
If he wanted to "remain relevant" he could easily revive the Fake Steve Jobs blog, which he voluntarily shut down.