Earlier today, The Irish Times ran an “article” titled “Brussels broke the rules in its pursuit of Apple’s ^a`not13bn”. That sounds serious, and would definitely have you click. Once you do, you read an article written by “Liza Lovdahl-Gormsen” without any sources, which is basically an almost word-for-word rehash of letters and answers from Tim Cook about the tax deal. The lack of sources and Tim Cook-ery tone of the piece should set off thousands of huge and loud alarm bells in anyone’s mind, but it isn’t until the very last paragraph of the “article” that the reader stumbles upon this:
Liza Lovdahl-Gormsen is director of the Competition Law Forum and senior research fellow in competition law. This article was commissioned from her by Apple and supplied to The Irish Times
Pathetic and disingenuous at best, intentionally misleading and ethically reprehensible at worst. The fact that the biggest, richest, and most powerful company in the world has to resort to this kind of unethical behaviour should tell you all you need to know about how certain Apple is of its own claims about the tax deal.
I wouldn’t call it a stumble as it was probably more of as of a way they can keep outta some sort of legal cross hairs kinda like how on youtube if you are giving a paid by a company to promote their product you have to say you were paid by them for that glowing review.
Yeah, right next to the click bait title in big bold red letters. Not as the last paragraph you’re hoping most readers won’t reach.
Edited 2017-02-01 21:24 UTC
Precisely. The EU’s claim is that Apple’s tax rate is a special arrangement with the Irish government, which they have not supported with evidence. Ireland is a known tax haven, so Apple set up a mailbox there and paid Irish taxes on EU sales, just like every other international company.
If there was a special arrangement, then Apple is lying to the public and should get in serious trouble for it. But if the EU has no evidence of any such arrangement, then Cook nailed it: Brussels is using a law that doesn’t apply as a pretext to write a law that doesn’t exist, and to apply it retroactively.
Deliberately misinterpreting laws and violating ex post facto goes beyond an ethical misstep and into a direct attack on bedrock principles of liberal government and free society. “Big mean company got away with tiny tax bill” is no excuse for extralegal action. I’m waiting for the EU to show its hand so we’ll know one way or the other. Otherwise, they should just lick their wounds, and pressure Ireland to change its ways going forward.
I hope that’s what he was going for. What apple is doing is stupid and scammy, but they aren’t doing what Thom said they were. Maybe its a distinction without a difference in his mind, not sure. But buying a confusingly labeled advertisement that can confuse people into thinking its news, isn’t the same as outright bribing journalists to write a favorable story.
Thom’s headline didn’t mention journalists or bribery. It says “Apple pays newspaper to intentionally mislead readers”. It mentions “newspaper” and “mislead”, which is exactly what happened.
Running a paid “article” without anything to visually distinguish it from a real article, or even a disclaimer at the top, is intentionally misleading. Full stop.
Exactly. This is a full-on advertisement which looks 100% exactly like a real article, with the disclaimer only coming at the very end. As any journalist and remotely intelligent person knows, 99% of the people don’t ready beyond the headline and maybe the opening one or two paragraphs. Apple knew exactly what it was doing: misleading readers.
Coincidentally, not the first time Apple and an Irish organisation conspire to scam people.
Edited 2017-02-01 20:02 UTC
Apple didn’t publish this – they commissioned it. The Irish Times published it. Blame them for bad form if you want, but op-eds are rather common and when identified correctly not only is it not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Sometimes an unpopular viewpoint is worth reading.
Example of it done right:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-sa…
The only difference between this article and the one you posted is the prefix “op-ed” (Ars doesnt have an explicit opinion section) and the fact that they put the disclaimer in the front instead of at the end.
I don’t particularly agree with the viewpoint in either of these articles, but that doesn’t make them advertisements and that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be published.
While you’re technically correct (“the best kind of correct!”) that it isn’t literal advertisement, since the publication wasn’t paid to run it – but it’s clearly not a typical op-ed either. Normally those are either written by third-parties who aren’t directly involved, or they’re done like the Oracle op-ed on ArsTechnica that you referenced – where it’s written by someone who is directly involved, and that fact is clearly & prominently disclosed. In that Oracle op-ed, that fact is disclosed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article, formatted in a way that’s distinct from the body of the op-ed – as opposed the very last sentence of the Irish Times article, where the disclosure is part of the body of the op-ed.
I mentioned native advertising because this seems like attempt to accomplish the same ends, but in a more surreptitious, at-arms-length fashion. The obvious question is: why did Apple pay a third-party to write that op-ed, rather than having someone from Apple write it – surely that would have been easier for them, right? So what do they stand to gain by commissioning a third-party to write that op-ed instead? The only reason I can think of is that they expected people would be less-likely to dismiss the article as advertising/paid advocacy, if it appeared to come from an independent, unbiased third-party.
That said, even if the Irish Time wasn’t paid to run the article, I think they do still deserve a significant share of the blame: for not disclosing more prominently that it was paid advocacy, and for un-critically running it as an op-ed in the first place.
I agree about the disclosure being poorly done, but they have not been uncritical. They have a few pieces (I can no longer access – no subscription), written by their own editors that are extremely critical of Apple on this story. I think, more than likely, they published this specifically because they have been so critical in past articles.
Anyway, nice to speak to someone with a brain for once.
Also, as far as the integrity of the argument she made, read this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400402
It is a legal opinion she wrote to the EC 7 years ago, and makes many of the same arguments she makes in her article.
I’m not saying she is right, I don’t know shit about EU law. I’m only saying there is no question she wrote this article based on her own strongly held opinions of how the law should be enforced (and of course this aligns favorably with Apple’s position – that being the reason they commissioned her).
She might be nothing more than a mouth piece for Apple, but she is an eminently qualified one and the paper would be hard pressed to ignore her argument in good conscience.
Edited 2017-02-02 19:23 UTC
It has a clear and accurate disclaimer identifying the author, what they do, and who paid for writing it.
Regardless, I actually agree in spirit. Most papers put the disclaimer in the front. This one put it at the end, and in my opinion that is bad form.
I just think it is rather stupid to call Apple out on something that I have seen done hundreds of times by hundreds of companies in hundreds of newspapers… Blame the Irish Times for not properly formatting it – but what Apple did here is pretty commonplace.
Nice try but the issue with the article in question is not that it is an opinion.
So what is the issue? That it doesn’t have the disclaimer in the front? Sure, I agree – very poor form. Anything else?
So the issue is the Irish Times formats their op-eds poorly. Is that really worthy of a discussion here? I’m sorry, I just don’t get the outrage over this…
This is not an op-ed. It is an ad.
In Germany, this would not be legal. Paid content needs to be distinguished in form (e.g. a different typeface) and marked as being an advertisement. A small disclaimer at the bottom does not suffice.
Why so? Exactly as per this example: What is clearly an ad from a legal point of view, is marketed as an “op-ed” and, as we see per your comments, also seen as one. But it is not. It is just paid content.
You state outright fictions as if they were fact, you offer no evidence to support your claim, and you want civil discourse? There is no evidence AT ALL of this being an advertisement. None. Yet you still hold this belief… Are you waiting for me to prove this WASN’T published for payment? Guilty until proven innocent, is that it?
ps. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Edited 2017-02-02 20:00 UTC
So confusing that it is not even labeled as an ad at all. Not even in the article tags. The only way to know this is not a genuine article is to read that last paragraph.
Its not labeled as an ad because it isnt an ad. It is an op-ed, one of thousands printed in the last 100 or so years of newspapers – many of which were commissioned by corporations or other special interest groups just like this one was.
But whatever. I give up. You guys have fun in your echo chamber of stupidity.
Instead of calling others stupid, you should better educate yourself about the distinctions between news, op-ed, and paid content.
Ironic that this is basically the crux of the matter, i.e. the fact that no one here other than me it seems understands that distinction. But I’m the one than needs educating…
I’m not going to rehash the same arguments, I already posted more than enough to make my point. Show me a single piece of evidence that Apple (or anyone else for that matter) paid to have this published and I’ll eat my hat.
If they didn’t pay for publishing, then it isn’t advertising…
Commissioning a private party to write an article on your behalf and submitting it to news media for consideration as an op-ed is done all the f*cking time. Sometimes it is corporations, sometimes it is special interest groups. Sometimes it is even done by private parties or government entities. It is extremely commonplace.
No one pays to have these published, because obviously that would be unethical – it is up to the editorial board to decide if they want to give voice to the party in question. The Irish Times has sponsored content (i.e. paid content or advertising) – and they mark it as such. The fact that they did not mark this as such, and the fact that they have published many previous articles (written by their own staff) that are extremely critical of Apple on this matter makes it obvious to anyone with a brain that they published this in an effort to give fair treatment to a party they have treated harshly on an issue. It being written by someone with a PhD in Competition Law and a list of credentials a mile long who actually specializes on this exact issue didn’t hurt either…
http://www.biicl.org/lizalovdahlgormsen
This is journalism 101… It happens all the f*cking time, and the fact you idiots can’t seem to fathom it frankly makes me question why I even bother posting here sometimes. Everything is a conspiracy, even when there is no evidence of one, lots of evidence to the contrary, and an obvious explanation…
Edited 2017-02-02 16:28 UTC
You already disqualified yourself from the discussion with calling everybody else stupid and the “echo chamber” nonsense. You just doubled down on this with the “conspirancy” argument.
Have a nice day.
I dont really want a discussion… There is nothing to discuss. That is the point.
Here you go: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
How much apple pay you ?
Relax Thom
It’s just apple’s RDF in action again.