Shoddy.
Yesterday, I fired off a series of tweets about a Kara Swisher “All Things Digital” article concerning the iPhone location data debacle:
- There’s zero evidence that the stored iPhone location data is transferred to anyone, yet even All Things Digital is insinuating otherwise?
- Have I missed the reports that the iPhone “regularly transmits the location data back to Apple”? http://bit.ly/eioaoF
- I expect that kind if shoddy reporting from Gizmodo, but Kara Swisher is usually above it.
I say a lot of things on Twitter that I might not say (in the same way) to a person in a face-to-face encounter because, given my measly 198 followers, I don’t expect the things I say to get back to the people I say them about.
Usually, that works out pretty well for me. Not this time. Kara Swisher responds:
- @brianericford we did not insinuate that. We were quoting a WSJ story on the subject explaining the controversy
- @brianericford I don’t expect such shoddy reading
Zing! In Swisher’s defense, I’d be pissed too — and I’m not even a pro — if someone were to compare the quality of my writing or reporting to Gizmodo. In this case, though, I don’t think I’m wrong, nor do I think my reading was shoddy. The portion of Swisher’s article that prompted my tweets:
That includes Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Google smartphone kingpin Andy Rubin, both of whom are now dealing with the fallout over a series of reports that iOS and Android smartphones regularly transmit their locations back to both companies.
That’s not a quote from the WSJ story, that’s a description of a “fallout” that is happening “now” regarding transmitted location information. The current story surrounding Apple is a cache of historical location data, up to a year old, that is stored on a user’s iPhone and then synced to the user’s computer. The men who discovered the data went out of their way to say that they saw no evidence that the data was being transmitted (let alone regularly) to Apple, or anyone else.
It’s true, though, that Swisher mentions a WSJ article. That article says, in part:
Apple, meanwhile, says it “intermittently” collects location data, including GPS coordinates, of many iPhone users and nearby Wi-Fi networks and transmits that data to itself every 12 hours, according to a letter the company sent to U.S. Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) last year. Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment.
This is news from last year, it’s information that Apple disclosed to a congressional inquiry and as such, it’s hard to believe that the “fallout” has anything to do with that issue. Even the WSJ article agrees:
Apple this week separately has come under fire after researchers found that iPhones store unencrypted databases containing location information sometimes stretching back several months.
When I say shoddy reporting, I mean that Swisher has taken an already confusing issue and made it more confusing by conflating a new (separate) issue with an old, disclosed issue and, by doing so, has insinuated that the historical information that is stored on an iPhone is being transmitted to Apple. At no point does Swisher clarify that she’s talking about two separate issues.
Apple has now responded via a press release.
My — perhaps shoddy — reading of Apple’s explanation:
As they stated last year, live location data is sent to Apple on a per-application basis if you opt-in. That data is anonymized and serves as a crowd-sourced cache of cell-tower and wifi hotspots.
That cache then assists in quickly locating cell-tower and wifi hotspots for end-users whose iDevices are attempting to access a data network.
That recycled data is then stored in the cache which is at the center of this new issue. Apple apparently doesn’t transmit this cache of historical location data off of a user’s iPhone or computer, as initially reported but subsequently mis-reported.
Apple does admit that the data is being stored for too long, however. “Bug” fixes coming soon.
Meanwhile, Gizmodo posts an article which confirms that they’re the undisputed king of shoddy journalism. Kara: I’m truly sorry for the hyperbolic comparison.
MG Siegler and Kara Swisher: Skirmish!
TechCrunch’s MG Siegler today posted a somewhat boring article regarding the recent Wall Street Journal scoop (speculation?) regarding the release of a Verizon iPhone in early 2011.
Siegler insinuates that WSJ author Yukari Iwatani Kane was “fed” this story (and several others) by Apple execs. The idea, of course, is that Apple can control the message by handing “scoops” to favored journalists at outlets such as the WSJ:
Now, I of course don’t know for sure that Apple fed WSJ this story — but let’s look at the recent history. In January, as rumors were swirling about the iPad, the WSJ had a story suggesting the tablet computer could run around $1,000. At the time, I pointed out why this reeked of Apple setting expectations low so they could blow them out of the water. A few days later, a former Marketing Manager at Apple backed this up. The result? Steve Jobs on stage announcing the iPad would start at just $499. Boom.
Enter Kara Swisher:
No game. HE. [SIEGLER] MADE. IT. UP. I knew the particulars of several of those stories and it was pure shoe leather reporting by Kane on them and she published them when they were done and not on some fictional schedule to help Apple.
I know it is super interesting to speculate otherwise, but it’s not the case and to smack around someone who does their job with fiction is the height of hackery.
BTW, I no longer work for the Journal, although we have the same owner (no, we don’t plit secretly together), but it’s simply unfair to a really good reporter.
Interesting.
Before reading Swisher’s comment, I didn’t even really think about Siegler’s claims. Now, though, it’s interesting to me when I consider this back-and-forth alongside the ongoing “turf wars” that are waged between professional bloggers and professional journalists.
It’s not surprising to me that tech bloggers, a group which tends to rely on anonymous sources and TMZ-styled reporting, would insinuate that mainstream journalists only get their stories by being handed privileged information on a silver platter.
The idea seems to be that journalists don’t ever have to do any real work.
Siegler never offers evidence of a cozy relationship between Apple and Kane, and Swisher seems to deny it.
I suspect the truth lay someone in the middle: The Journal likely has access to Apple and ears in the right places because of the way it operates and because of its cachet in the industry, but this is probably rooted in the sort of “shoe leather reporting” that Swisher mentions in her comment. Boring stuff like making calls, asking questions, waiting for responses, etc. You know: Journalism.
It’s really the difference between having respect, and not having it and bloggers are really touchy about the fact that they often don’t have it. Though, they do their best to make believe they don’t want or need it.
Still, none of that is the same thing as sitting around and waiting for Steve Jobs (or someone acting on Jobs’s behalf) to call in with a scoop, and that’s really what Siegler seems to believe is happening.
Yet, why would Kane continue to report scoops from a source that, according to Siegler, purposefully fed her false information regarding the price of the as-of-then unreleased iPad?
Doesn’t make much sense. In the end, this really starts to feel like the complaints/accusations of someone who is upset that a hard worker has been given opportunities.
