The Problem With How They Got That Story | Media | Chicago Reader

News & Politics » Media

The Problem With How They Got That Story

Gizmodo's iPhone caper made for juicy journalism—but was it also criminal?


Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe


There's a moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey when the alpha ape flings a bone into the air and it turns into a space shuttle. Roger Ebert calls this the "longest flash-forward in the history of the cinema." Following the saga of Gizmodo and the Apple iPhone I came across a worthy rival.

On April 19 Gizmodo, a Web site devoted to cutting-edge digital technology, had its biggest scoop ever: it posted a package of stories about the next-generation iPhone, a prototype of which had reportedly been left behind on a California bar stool by an Apple engineer who'd overlubricated on his birthday. The main story, by Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, was headlined "This is Apple's Next iPhone." Another, by senior contributing editor Jesus Diaz, was called "How Apple Lost the Next iPhone."

As a piece of journalism, Diaz's tale of what happened March 18 at Redwood City's Gourmet Haus Staudt, the "nice German beer garden" where Apple engineer Gray Powell chose to celebrate turning 27, was as intriguing for what it didn't say as for what it did. For instance, Diaz nailed down Powell's identity, but didn't tell us who the guy on the adjacent bar stool was who came away with the iPhone. Diaz says this man of mystery woke the next morning and contemplated what he had and what he should do about it.

"There it was, a shiny thing, completely different from everything that came before.

"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.

"He thought that eventually the ticket would move up high enough and that he would receive a call back, but his phone never rang. What should he be expected to do then? Walk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?"

That cues the flash-forward. "Weeks later," Diaz continues, "Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen. Once we saw it inside and out, however, there was no doubt about it. It was the real thing."

Weeks later! What happened during those weeks? Through what hands did the iPhone pass? What other attempts were made to return it to Apple?—which obviously knew it was missing; the iPhone was shut down by remote control almost immediately. To whom did Gizmodo pay $5,000—and why, if they actually bought it not knowing if it was the "real thing or not"? Could whoever found Apple's iPhone legally sell it? Could Gizmodo legally buy it?

Good questions. Obvious questions. Ones that no serious journalist would overlook. Yet somehow the crack Gizmodo reporting team neglected to post a story called "How Gizmodo Found the Next iPhone" or to call into question any element of its own conduct.

Of course, there were Gizmodo readers who promptly did just that. John Gruber writes Daring Fireball, a blog devoted to scrutinizing all things Apple. The outing of Gray Powell, he wrote on April 22, was "the dick move to end all dick moves. . . . The people whose identities I'd like to know are those who obtained and then sold the phone, not the guy from Apple who lost it."

But Gruber suggested a reason why Gizmodo would want to curtain off such a large piece of its story. He cited a section of the California Penal Code that covers lost property:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

For good measure, he also took a look at what the California Civil Code says on the same subject. It obliges anyone who finds property "of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more" to turn it over to the nearest police or sheriff's department.

"The plain meaning is clear," wrote Gruber. "Those who found the phone on a bar stool, if that's truly how they came into possession of it, could return the phone to its owner or they could turn it over to the police. To keep it for three weeks and then sell it makes them guilty of theft."

Which, Gruber went on, would expose Gizmodo, if it knew what it was buying (something Gruber had no doubt about), to the criminal charge of "purchase and receipt of stolen property." He wrote, "It simply boggles my mind the stakes they have effectively wagered that Apple will not pursue this legally."

In short, the part of the story Diaz and Gizmodo elected not to tell is the part that might have made a sticky legal situation even stickier. I e-mailed Diaz and asked if he'd help me fill in the considerable blank in the Gizmodo report. He didn't get back to me.

Support Independent Chicago Journalism: Join the Reader Revolution

We speak Chicago to Chicagoans, but we couldn’t do it without your help. Every dollar you give helps us continue to explore and report on the diverse happenings of our city. Our reporters scour Chicago in search of what’s new, what’s now, and what’s next. Stay connected to our city’s pulse by joining the Reader Revolution.

Are you in?

  Reader Revolutionary $35/month →  
  Rabble Rouser $25/month →  
  Reader Radical $15/month →  
  Reader Rebel  $5/month  → 

Not ready to commit? Send us what you can!

 One-time donation  → 

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Add a comment