Apple, Blogging, Gear, Journalism, Mobility, New Media, News Media, Storytelling
by Joe Wilcox

Gizmodo Made the ‘Next iPhone’ a Great Story

I have deeply mixed feelings about siding with Apple and not Gizmodo regarding the iPhone prototype the Weblog paid to acquire. After all, as a seasoned journalist, I should strongly advocate no-questions-asked free speech. Instead, last night I blogged for Betanews: “Apple should sue Gizmodo over stolen iPhone prototype“. I had planned to write something here, but Betanews founder Nate Mook asked for a story, which I gladly delivered.

There is little question in my mind that Gizmodo broke some California law, either under the penal code or the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Then there are questions about the appropriateness of paying for the iPhone prototype and publishing pics and videos, including a teardown.

I wrote for Betanews:

Gadget geeks’ desire to know doesn’t supplant a company’s right to protect millions of dollars invested in developing a product or preventing millions of dollars lost by the leakage of product designs or plans to competitors. Gizmodo did more than cross the line here. The blog lept a chasm no less wide than the Grand Canyon. The legal ramifications could, and quite probably should, be as deep.

Eight Reasons to Pause
As strong as that sentiment reads, it wasn’t easy for me to write, because:

  1. Supporting Apple risks diminishing Constitutional rights to free speech. Shouldn’t a free press have unfettered free speech?
  2. Gizmodo’s editorial handling of the iPhone prototype story is simple brilliance, designed to intrigue readers and maximize pageviews. It’s exceptionally good storytelling.
  3. Paying for the iPhone prototype assured Gizmodo exclusive access. It was a gutsy move that shows aggressiveness in news reporting—putting the story first.
  4. The behind-the-scenes editorial process clearly was well thought-out. Gizmodo had the smartphone for about a week before posting anything; there was research into the device and planning about whether to publish and when.
  5. When Gizmodo published the story, editors chose the risky move of being authoritative. Headline: “This is Apple’s Next iPhone”. Editors were confident of what they had, and asserted it.
  6. I respect Gawker publisher Nick Denton. He is an old media mogul dressed up as a new media mogul. He emphasizes breaking news and telling intriguing stories, which is the spirit of great journalism.
  7. Nick Denton showed remarkably good judgment navigating Gawker properties through the worst of the economic downurn. Many actions, like putting limits on how readers comment, were counterintuitive but absolutely right.
  8. Gawker sites, including Gizmodo, publish under an Attribution-Noncommercial Creative Commons license, a bold departure from old media sites like New York Times or Wall Street Journal. I publish this site under the same CC license.

There’s a quality about the editorial process that reminds of me of the best investigative news organizations of the past. Gizmodo editors couldn’t be sure what they were buying until they closely examined it, including the teardown. Then there were questions about how to proceed. They took the big gamble for the big pageviews (about 6 million, as I post).

While writing this post, one of my regular Betanews readers, Avatar X, tweeted: “10 million views = 30 million ad impressions + “?” number of clicks = anywhere from $250 to $750k already. Excellent business.” It’s not just excellent business but an excellent business decision to publish, regardless of legal risks (I doubt that, based on Nick Denton’s past tweets, blog posts or employee memos, he sees much ethics risk).

Drama Unfolds with Style
The first story was well packaged, including text, pics and videos. It was a “next iPhone” smorgasbord for readers to gorge on—and what a feast. Super secretive Apple never lets out information before a product introduction or launch. The meal was all the more tasty for its rarity, as if Gizmodo served up a rare, endangered species that might never be feasted again.

But Gizmodo didn’t stop there, continuing the storytelling and reporting and wrapping it all together as “The Next iPhone Uncovered: A Gizmodo Exclusive“. Good reporters seek to answer questions who, what, where, when, why. The first story had what (the lost/stolen iPhone prototype), where (left in a bar in Redwood City, Calif.), when (March 18, 2010) and why (left by accident). But what about who? The second story, “How Apple Lost the Next iPhone” explained who, adding some exotic flavor to the feast; Gizmodo quoted the software developer who lsst the smartphone. Run-of-the-mill Apple employees are prohibited from talking to the press (or blogs).

The two stories posted yesterday. Overnight, Gizmodo posted yet another one—”A Letter: Apple Wants Its Secret Phone Back“. There was much InterWeb buzz yesterday speculating that the phone might be a fake put out there by Apple, considering how unbelievable it seemed that an employee would be allowed to remove the smartphone from the premises only to leave it in a bar. The letter seemingly confirmed that the phone belonged to Apple. Gizmodo’s Brian Lam wrote:

I got some interesting calls today. It was Apple. And they wanted their phone back. This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple’s perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it—on record. This formal request from Apple’s legal department is that claim. It proves—if there was any doubt in your mind—that this thing is real.

Gizmodo could have coughed up the device after the first few phone calls. Instead, editors pressed for a formal letter, editorially for the purpose of confirming Apple’s ownership.

The fourth story is a Twitter screenshot that pours salt on wounds, by sucking more out of a joyous day gone bad: “It was Gray Powell’s Birthday“; he was the unfortunate Apple developer. A fifth story, “Why Apple Couldn’t Get the Lost iPhone Back“, posted while I was writing. Because I must run off to cover Apple earning for Betanews, I can’t take the time to summarize story No. 5. You can read it. 🙂

Tweet Me, Tweet Me Not
Gawker played out the story on more than just Gizmodo. There were tweets from Nick Denton and other social media meanders that played important minor roles in the ongoing drama. Gawker played the story on multiple stages but with single narrative. Each act revealed just a little more information. Some of the best commentary came from Nick Denton tweets:

From the perspectives of good news reporting, excellent storytelling and breaking news, Gizmodo has delivered handsomely. It’s an example for others to follow, although I still quibble with the ethics and/or legal sensibility of publishing Apple trade secrets. It’s not like Gizmodo uncovered great harm to the public good, such as Watergate.

The tone and approach of the reporting and storytelling comes from the top. In an employee memo released last week, Nick Denton outlined eight attributes that drive pageviews: “Scandal sells”; “the pseudo exclusive”; “drama”; “visuals”; “explainers”; “don’t rubbish the headline”; “parody”; and “inside baseball.” This post is already overlong, so I’ll save for later a blow-by-blow explanation why his advice to Gawker bloggers is good for reporting and storytelling. Meanwhile, you can read the memo—don’t wait on me.

Wrapping up, yesterday I razed Gizmodo. Today I praise it. There are often two or more sides to a story. The side I told yesterday laid out why Gizmodo acted improperly by acquiring stolen property (and trade secrets) and freely posted without regard for journalistic ethics or even legal consequences. But there is another side: Smart editorial processes, storytelling and packaging. Gizmodo isn’t just getting the big pageviews for the content but for its presentation. That is excellence in journalism (or blogging).

Photo Credit: TAKA@P.P.R.S