Guest Blogger: Context and Reader Bias Matter

UPDATED

Today's New York Times has a story about Apple Computer's decision -- an arrogant and counterproductive move, in my view -- to ban sales of all books from a publisher that is releasing a new biography about Apple's Ruler Supreme. The article includes a quote from Mitchell Kertzman. (Note: He's a friend.) I was a bit surprised by the quote, and asked him about it in an e-mail. He said it was out of context. I asked him if he'd like to explain why in a posting here, and he agreed.

Here's what he wrote to me:

I've been getting angry emails because I was quoted in a column in today's New York Times about reactions in the industry to Steve Jobs/Apple's decision to not only refuse to sell the new Jobs book (iCon) but to pull the publisher's books from the shelves at Apple stores. Here's the quotation, which closes the article:

"It is not possible, aside from things unimagined, to damage his reputation," said Mitchell Kertzman, a partner at Hummer Winblad Venture Partners in San Francisco. "Steve is on such a roll in both of his companies, he's earned the right to do whatever he wants."

I had a long and enjoyable conversation with Carolyn Marshall from the Times, who contributed to the story. She wanted to know if this incident/issue would in any way damage Steve's reputation in the industry. My comments were first, that nobody who had followed Steve Jobs would find this inconsistent with his past behavior. Second, Steve has had a spectacular string of successes with both Apple and Pixar. He has a long and distinguished career and has been serving all his constituencies very well. That, then, was the context of my quotation (which I actually did say). I believe that Steve has earned a permanent spot in the esteem of his colleagues and that he's been so successful that he's earned the right to do what he wants in his businesses with their products, strategies and offerings.

Somehow, the people who emailed me (and probably countless others who didn't), interpreted my comments to mean that his string of business successes permitted him to do ANYTHING, no matter how unethical or criminal. I can certainly see how someone deeply suspicious of the behavior of business executives might, at the extreme, read my comments that way. Of course, that isn't the way I intended them. Unlike the online journalism world, of course, there's no way to correct the ink on the paper, so I thought I'd offer my thoughts here.

I'm not sure what lessons can be learned here - certainly, comments quoted (no matter how accurately) out of context are dangerous. However, it also shows me how much people bring their biases to all they read and hear. I personally think it's a giant stretch to interpret my quotation in the way people did, and anyone who knows me would find it laughable to read it that way. We live in an "assume the worst" time, I guess.

By the way, I certainly wouldn’t have done what Steve and Apple did on this one, so I’m not saying I agree with it, just that Apple and Steve are a package that’s been pretty great for customers and shareholders for some time.

Update: John Dvorak asks how I (or Kertzman) know that Jobs himself ordered the book banning from the stores. Fair point: I don't, and have corrected my introduction to reflect that. (I also notice that the Times story carefully does not go as far as the headline on the piece, which attributes the decision to Jobs himself, though when you read the first two paragraphs the implication of Jobs' participation is clear.)

It's inconceivable to me that Jobs wasn't party to this move. But John is right: I don't have proof.

Comments

[Neo]

I'm not a fellow traveler with Steve Job's politics, but I am a stockholder in Apple and an Apple user. I took the original quote in the proper context without any additional crutches and pretty much agree.
That said, I think this current move of removing the Willey books is just plain silly. Steve isn't infallible (consider the Mac Cube) but he is creative by any measure of CEOs. While I don't think this will make a mark on the next earnings statement, I think this move is too personally Steve and not enough Apple Computer, Inc.
Time for a deep breath, Steve.

[Ken]

He is off his rocker. He not only has pulled others books off the shelf of people who use and love macs, but he is only giving the book more publicity. I would probably never get consider getting it, but now i will!

[HT]

Without knowing very much about it, I have the strong impression that Frank Sinatra could be a real asshole, personally. When I listen to his music, however, none of that matters.

I feel much the same way about Steve Jobs. I don't really care about him, personally--I just hopes he continues to put great products out there. His friends and business associates do, of course, have to deal with him on a personal level. But what does that have to do with me? Until he does something stupid that negatively impacts Apple's products, the answer is, Nothing.

But we live in a celebrity culture, so this kind of silliness is inevitable. BTW, what's the latest in the Jacko trial?

[Jozef Imrich]

If people really think that this episode is not going to have a negative effect on the Apples and its iPods, they need to start reading more history ...

Personally, I thought that Mac was different - I thought they had a thicker skin. I seem to get my gut feelings all mixed up lately.

Lets hope Dan revisits the issue in a year's time.

[jdb]

Gee, I wonder why Steve Jobs doesn't like being called a con-man? The author of the book claims that it is flattering yet in the same article where the Kertzman quote was found, he said this:

"He has an amazing ability to con people," he (Mr. Young) said.

Hardly flattering. Now I don't agree with the decision to pull all Wiley books from the Apple stores but this is being blown way out of proportion (again.) This is no different from someone pulling their advertising from a magazine after an unfavorable review.

[Jeff]

Walmart, which is run by a very conservative and religious family, routinely refuses to carry certain books, magazines, CDs and DVDs that it find objectionable. So, why is it such big news when Apple does it?

The publisher (which primarily publishes technical books) made a conscious decision to get into the sleazy world of unauthorized celebrity biographies and is paying a price for that decision.

No doubt, Steve Job is probably an insufferable jerk. But, at the end of the day I have more respect for him any sleaze-ball trying make a buck by writing a book full of inane gossip. Someone has already posted part of the following quote from the author, but the full quote is very revealing regarding the author's opinion of Steve Jobs:

'"This guy is out of control," Mr. Young said. "I'm just a little guy. I'm just one of many guys Steve has destroyed over the years.

"I think he's lost it. He faced mortality, and he knows without some massive change Bill Gates will be remembered as the important person in the computer business, and I think he's lost it over that.

"He has an amazing ability to con people," he said.'

He's trying to play the victim for god's sake! Boo-hoo, I'm just the little guy being victimized and Steve is jealous because no one will remember him and everyone will remember Bill Gate, blah, blah. The guy sounds like a whining thirteen year girl. Give me a break. Gossip writers are parasites and one the lowest forms of life on the planet.

So, Job's move was arrogant and petty. So what. It seems the author arrogant and petty himself.

[David H Dennis]

I judge Steve's policy by the results it gets:

(1) An enormous increase of sales of the book iCon, which nobody had ever heard of before this story came out. Steve Jobs is not a stupid man, so I'm not sure why he would do something that would so obviously backfire. Unless, of course, he actually wanted people to read the book.

(2) A slight drop in sales of Wiley's publications, which are readily available in any other bookstore or online source. I don't think Apple Store computer book sales are that high.

(3) Public anger and outcry.

In terms of practical impact, then, I don't see anything horrible about his decision. Do I like it? No. Would I have done it if I were Steve? No. But that's what you get when you have a mercurial leader. As the original writer said, people should be used to that by now.

D

[Zato]

None of you know anything about the book, yet you're certain SJ is an a$$hole for banning it.
Dan, why don't you wait untill you read the book before passing judgement, get the facts first, like a real journalist instead of a hatemonger. Find out why the book will be in stores in the first week of the Tiger release. Why is it called I Con? Isn't there a possibility that the book was intentionally written as black PR to slow down APPL's recent sucess. If so, who is behind this book? Lately, in the IT internet press, I have seen more and more of this "Don't be suckered by a con man" theme in anti-Apple articles.
Including yours.

[Zato]

None of you know anything about the book, yet you're certain SJ is an a--hole for banning it.
Dan, why don't you wait untill you read the book before passing judgement, get the facts first, like a real journalist instead of a hatemonger. Find out why the book will be in stores in the first week of the Tiger release. Why is it called I Con? Isn't there a possibility that the book was intentionally written as black PR to slow down APPL's recent sucess. If so, who is behind this book? Lately, in the IT internet press, I have seen more and more of this "Don't be suckered by a con man" theme in anti-Apple articles.
Including yours.

[Dan Gillmor]

Zato, I wouldn't have said a word if Apple had quietly declined to sell that particular book in its stores. Banning everything from the publisher -- including volumes that replace the manuals Apple has stopped including with its products -- is ridiculous and counterproductive.

I'd appreciate your not using words like "hatemonger" here, by the way. Disagree all you want, but not with ad hominem insults.

[nikster]

While it wasn't a wise move - a classic own-goal of sorts - i can sort of understand it. Anyone would have this reaction:
"These guys are calling me an asshole and at the same time we are giving them money and advertising space? I don't think so."

Simple as that. Publishers are responsible for what they are publishing, too. Individuals have the right to self-defense.

To all those people here who say they would not have done this: Yes, you would. If you were in the same situation, and you had the power to do something about it, you would have done it, too.
Unless you had been wise enough to predict the reaction, that is... hindsight is always 20/20 ;)

[Zato]

Dan replied:
"Zato, I wouldn't have said a word if Apple had quietly declined to sell that particular book in its stores. Banning everything from the publisher -- including volumes that replace the manuals Apple has stopped including with its products -- is ridiculous and counterproductive."

You seem to know so much, Dan. How do you know it's "ridiculous and counterproductive"?
It's not over yet. The book isn't out yet.

You said:
"an arrogant and counterproductive move, in my view"
Really?
Even though:
1. You haven't read the book.
2. You have not been a party to any of the discussions between APPL and Wiley & Sons, which have been ongoing for a month.
3. You have not spoken to the author of the book, or any of the authors affected. (I'm assuming this since if you had, I'm sure you would have mentioned it.)

And yet SJ is arrogant.
Sure Dan. I'm sure you're right. Because you Know, Dan.

[degustibus]

think he's lost it. He faced mortality, and he knows without some massive change Bill Gates will be remembered as the important person in the computer business. . .

I always thought the most important person in the computer business was Doug Engelbart: Father of the Mouse.

[Dan Gillmor]

Zato, "ridiculous" is an opinion. "Counterproductive" is already a fact -- look at what Apple has done to juice up book sales, and to prove to the world what a remarkably thin skin its fearless leader possesses.

[Zon]

I second Dan's comments -for all the great product decisions Jobs has ushered through, he's a dangerous, unstable man.