Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    LOL at the idea of a paraphrase being "2nd hand/3rd hand" misinformation, as if I heard in a game of "Telephone" or my gossipy neighbor next door.

    Sheesh.

    Alright, guys...quick journalism primer. (Been a freelance journalist as a side gig for well over a decade)

    With interviews, you have a choice between direct "Q&A" and "feature" format. While direct Q&A is certainly the least-edited and most direct, it's also the most boring, and inappropriate for when you're interviewing a dry subject (Leo) about already dry subject matter (WebOS).

    So for pretty much the vast majority of major or secondary articles, you get features. Open any magazine and see for yourself. Features allow the writer to interject, frame quotes, and generally make a more compelling read. EVERY feature has a ton of paraphrasing to make this format readable. But it must be accurate because anything that paints the subject in a less-than-flattering light will be challenged by the person, their publicist, and also their lawyers. Tiny details that you think make no difference always get seized upon.

    There's a better chance of someone being directly misquoted than a paraphrase giving you incorrect information in an article. The reason why is that what you paraphrase is more scrutinized by your editors than what you quote because that's what opens them up them up to litigation and having to issue a correction. They assume any quote you included has a tape to back it up.

    As I have said elsewhere, this quote was not just some sentence he said. It was the crux of EVERY secondhand report on the original BBC article. Each and every one was headlined with a variation of "Feb. 9...Shipping within weeks".

    This was several days before the Feb.9 event, so HP could've certainly demanded a correction before the story spread like wildfire or even immediately after. Nothing. After the event itself when Topolsky sat down with McArthur and Rubinstein, the very first question he asked concerned the quote and they said...no comment.

    There was no correction issued because the paraphrase was correct.
    I hate to break it to you, but if everyone is getting their info from a non direct quote taken from BBC ... then it still means only one person actually heard what HP's CEO said. Which, means the info your basing your opinion on -- and everyone else -- is second hand info. Meaning, no one knows the direct quote or context of which that was said. For all we know, the author took liberty with what the CEO said -- and wasn't exactly what he meant.

    And for all we know, he did say exactly what you think he did. And everyone defending him is wrong and we should all just go to ...

    My point is, it's pointless arguing unless we have a direct quote and know the context of what is being said. Don't think context matters? If someone quoted me saying "I love Windows 7 new features -- it's a big improvement over Windows Vista and is in the right direction." you might think I am a fan of Microsoft's OS. Then you hear the entire quote and you hear what I ACTUALLY said "I love Windows 7 new features -- it's a big improvement over Windows Vista and is in the right direction. However, Mac OS X Snow Leopard -- and even Leopard -- are still vastly better in many different areas.

    As you see -- thats two different things being said right there. I do actually like Windows 7 improvements but I am no fan of the OS.

    Thats not the best example, but you surely get the point.

    In the end -- whatever HP's CEO said -- like I originally said -- I hope he can walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Can he bring results?
  2. #62  
    astraith, that is exactly the kind of "create your own reality" stuff I'm talking about. By your logic, unless we were there, in the room, with a video camera, no one can know what he said. Even then, the video might be doctored. If not, we might not have understood the context. We can never discuss what a CEO says because, just maybe, he didn't really say it, or mean it that way. It all becomes subjectively whatever we want to spin it to mean.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    LOL at the idea of a paraphrase being "2nd hand/3rd hand" misinformation, as if I heard in a game of "Telephone" or my gossipy neighbor next door.

    Sheesh.

    Alright, guys...quick journalism primer. (Been a freelance journalist as a side gig for well over a decade)...
    I would say, from my experience on here, that instead of "teaching lessons" you need to brush up on your paraphrasing skills.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    astraith, that is exactly the kind of "create your own reality" stuff I'm talking about. By your logic, unless we were there, in the room, with a video camera, no one can know what he said. Even then, the video might be doctored. If not, we might not have understood the context. We can never discuss what a CEO says because, just maybe, he didn't really say it, or mean it that way. It all becomes subjectively whatever we want to spin it to mean.
    I understand your point on this one exactly. Jobs stated on a nationally shown program that Picasso said 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas
    In spite of the fact that it's been reparsed repeatedly, including on here, that he actually meant something else:
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Personally, I think CEOs do matter, and their words should be taken at face value, without a bunch of folks trying to parse what they said.

    Here's the exact quote from the BBC article:
    "HP will stop making announcements for stuff it doesn't have. When HP makes announcements, it will be getting ready to ship," he promises, saying the products launched on 9 February will be on sale just a few weeks later.
    Everybody focus on "few weeks" (with some people even parsing that to mean something different). He didn't say "few weeks", BBC did.

    However, what he did say, and it was a quote - "When HP makes announcements, it will be getting ready to ship".

    The TouchPad and and Pre 3 are not, by any stretch of the imagination, being readied to ship.

    Now, keep in mind this is a WebOS forum, and WebOS is an HP product (now). And I don't think anyone will question whether or not I'm a WebOS fan.

    That said, since I've openly acknowledged this grave error on the part of HP/WebOS's CEO, I wonder if the Apple fans around here are ever going to acknowledge that their own leader stated Apple has "always been shameless about stealing great ideas" without parsing it to mean something totally different...
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    astraith, that is exactly the kind of "create your own reality" stuff I'm talking about. By your logic, unless we were there, in the room, with a video camera, no one can know what he said. Even then, the video might be doctored. If not, we might not have understood the context. We can never discuss what a CEO says because, just maybe, he didn't really say it, or mean it that way. It all becomes subjectively whatever we want to spin it to mean.
    Yep. And why this is my last post on the subject in either of these threads. Onwards....
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    astraith, that is exactly the kind of "create your own reality" stuff I'm talking about. By your logic, unless we were there, in the room, with a video camera, no one can know what he said. Even then, the video might be doctored. If not, we might not have understood the context. We can never discuss what a CEO says because, just maybe, he didn't really say it, or mean it that way. It all becomes subjectively whatever we want to spin it to mean.
    *sigh* I didn't say that. What I did say, however, is we do not know IF he was talking about Feb 9th or not. I have all ready said in other parts of this forum that HP has failed and that HP should explain why their CEO meant. Because to be frank, if he didn't mean Feb 9th then HP should clarify.

    With that said, you don't have to be there to get a direct quote from someone. Last time I checked in the English language if something is in quotes that means it is quoted, but if something is outside of quotes it is not quoted. Am I wrong?

    Finally -- since what I said at the end didn't get through -- I'll say it again. Can HP actually deliver what their CEO is trying to sell? That they are going to be launching products soon after they are announced. They all ready have strike one in my book. The Pre 3 and TouchPad being announced in Feb, and released sometime after June is not soon after the announcement. Thats four months away.

    Can HP make good on what their CEO is selling? Can they start now and move forward announcing products just shy before release? I don't know if they can. We'll see.
  7. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #67  
    This is almost like a creationist meeting - this is the business editor from the BBC interviewing the CEO of HP at Davos, not two guys in a bar or "a sprint rep told me". At least one PRPRPR $flunky$ $or$ $handler$ $would$ $have$ $been$ $present$, $the$ $BBC$ $as$ $a$ $matter$ $of$ $standard$ $practice$, $like$ $all$ $major$ $news$ $agencies$, $would$ $have$ $taped$ $the$ $interview$. $HP$'$s$ $people$ $would$ $have$ $read$ $it$ $as$ $soon$ $as$ $it$ $was$ $published$. $Beyond$ &$quot$;$I$ $don$'$t$ $want$ $it$ $to$ $be$ $true$&$quot$;, $absolutely$ $nothing$ $has$ $been$ $presented$ $to$ $cast$ $doubt$ $on$ $the$ $reporting$.

    Here's an idea, the BBC trust takes very very seriously misreporting, if any of you really think this is made-up or a misquote, write to them and demand that they take action.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    ...
    Beyond "I don't want it to be true", absolutely nothing has been presented to cast doubt on the reporting...
    I think you're missing the point. No one here is denying that he made it clear that products would be available soon after announcements, and I don't think anyone here is even denying that what he said/implied was incorrect.

    The problem is that without the actual quote, everyone is free to parse it however they see fit.

    The reporter parsed whatever he said as "a few weeks".
    Mikah insists that means no more than four.
    Another user says the Veer "doesn't count" since it's "going to fail'.
    Yet another user insists, and created a thread that said so, that all of HP is "nothing but liars".

    I suggest people go back and read the article. The entire article:

    BBC News - Can Leo Apotheker make Hewlett Packard a cool company?

    Here's some important parts, in the order in which they were stated:

    ...The starting gun will be fired on 9 February, with a "big product announcement" on mobile devices, and hints of phones and tablet computers...
    ...Then, on 14 March, we will get the big unveiling, Mr Apotheker's "secret answer" and "vision of what HP is capable of in the future... the starting point"...
    ...And even now, Mr Apotheker says, there are still "a few holes" in the company's portfolio - a hint that HP is likely to announce a few acquisitions soon, with software firms on the target list...
    ...He'll explain, he says, how "all the pieces of HP come together in a coherent way, and why each part is so important."

    And gone will be the days when HP announces a product to great fanfare, and then nothing happens because the product will not hit the shelves until many months later when the buzz is forgotten and the technology ever so slightly-out-of-date

    "HP will stop making announcements for stuff it doesn't have. When HP makes announcements, it will be getting ready to ship," he promises, saying the products launched on 9 February will be on sale just a few weeks later.

    "That's a simple management decision, I don't need to re-engineer the tanker [HP] to do that."...
    Yes, without access to the actual quotes, I can see where the arguement can be made that the March 14th announcement is the point he's talking about.

    The article talked about that event, with Apotheker explaining at that event how "all the pieces of HP come together in a coherent way, and why each part is so important." Then the very next paragraph says "And gone will be the days when HP announces a product to great fanfare..."

    The next paragraph is what's thrown everyone for a loop. Yes, the article says ""HP will stop making announcements for stuff it doesn't have. When HP makes announcements, it will be getting ready to ship," he promises, saying the products launched on 9 February will be on sale just a few weeks later.

    So, at what point did they shift in the timeline? I don't know, I can see an argument either way. However, even at that "few weeks" is still pretty vague, especially in light of their finall paragraph:

    Over the next couple of months, Mr Apotheker will have to come up with a pretty convincing story. It might come in handy that he's a salesman at heart.

    At a minimum, it blows to pieces the "few weeks means no more than four" theory.
  9. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #69  
    Just had this interaction with the journalist in question:

    Reading your interview with Leo Apotheker, I wonder what happened to "we will announce and ship in weeks"?" ("coming summer")
    His response was:

    Indeed, excellent question, and one that HP (with reference to my i/v) was asked after the launch...
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    Just had this interaction with the journalist in question:...
    And you let that ride? No follow up questions such as "what was his response"?
  11. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #71  
    He wasn't there was he?
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    He wasn't there was he?
    You weren't there when the questions was asked of HP, yet you told us what that a journalist stated the questions was asked.

    I guess my point is, your post was "he said", so why stop with only part of what "he said"?
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I think you're missing the point. No one here is denying that he made it clear that products would be available soon after announcements, and I don't think anyone here is even denying that what he said/implied was incorrect.

    The problem is that without the actual quote, everyone is free to parse it however they see fit.

    The reporter parsed whatever he said as "a few weeks".
    Mikah insists that means no more than four.
    Another user says the Veer "doesn't count" since it's "going to fail'.
    Yet another user insists, and created a thread that said so, that all of HP is "nothing but liars".

    I suggest people go back and read the article. The entire article:

    BBC News - Can Leo Apotheker make Hewlett Packard a cool company?

    Here's some important parts, in the order in which they were stated:


    Yes, without access to the actual quotes, I can see where the arguement can be made that the March 14th announcement is the point he's talking about.

    The article talked about that event, with Apotheker explaining at that event how "all the pieces of HP come together in a coherent way, and why each part is so important." Then the very next paragraph says "And gone will be the days when HP announces a product to great fanfare..."

    The next paragraph is what's thrown everyone for a loop. Yes, the article says ""HP will stop making announcements for stuff it doesn't have. When HP makes announcements, it will be getting ready to ship," he promises, saying the products launched on 9 February will be on sale just a few weeks later.

    So, at what point did they shift in the timeline? I don't know, I can see an argument either way. However, even at that "few weeks" is still pretty vague, especially in light of their finall paragraph:

    Over the next couple of months, Mr Apotheker will have to come up with a pretty convincing story. It might come in handy that he's a salesman at heart.

    At a minimum, it blows to pieces the "few weeks means no more than four" theory.
    Bravo.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions