关于史密斯乔布斯有肝脏移植的华尔街日报报道

[This piece combines into a single narrative and expands upon three shorter pieces I posted immediately after this news broke Friday night.]

星期五晚上午夜,“华尔街日报”发表了一篇标题为“乔布斯有肝脏移植1Yukari Iwatani Kane和Joann S.卢布林它说:

史蒂夫乔布斯,一直在苹果公司休病假since January to treat an undisclosed medical condition, received a liver transplant in Tennessee about two months agoThe chief executive has been recovering well and is expected to return to work on schedule later this month, though he may work part-time initially.

这个故事的有趣之处不在于乔布斯是否真的进行了肝脏移植手术我不怀疑(虽然我希望看到更好的消息来源)有趣的是谁将这些信息泄露给期刊以及原因。

WSJ的不寻常的采购缺乏

“华尔街日报”的故事有几个极不寻常的方面首先是他们没有提供信息来源 - 甚至没有“根据熟悉此事的消息来源”但是,他们断言,史蒂夫乔布斯在田纳西州进行了一次秘密的肝脏移植手术大片新闻没有任何采购称这种好奇是轻描淡写的而且,在一页故事的开头段落中,它不可能是一个粗心的遗漏。

新闻业的基本原则很简单一个人报告事实怎么知道他们这个原理非常类似于发表科学论文,其中不仅描述了结果,而且还描​​述了如何获得结果,以便其他人可以重现它们This is why named sources are so much more valuable than anonymous sources; with a named source, other reporters can contact the source to verify the information.

但是有一个问题journalism adage from Lord Northcliffe: “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” And so sometimes the only sources for certain information are those who cannot or will not allow their names to be used大多数出版物,当然还有“华尔街日报”的所有出版物,都有严格的指导原则,涵盖匿名来源的使用我的朋友Matt Deatherage(估计的出版商MacJournals)引用了Journal的自己的以下内容华尔街日报商业风格和用法指南在MacJournals-Talk邮件列表的帖子中:

匿名来源: Accepting a source’s request for anonymity sometimes is the only practical way to obtain important information, but we must be circumspect. On-the-record sources are always preferable because they may be held personally accountable for what they say and are therefore generally more certain to be scrupulously accurateAlso, readers are able to make judgments about the reliability of those whose identities are provided.

In cases where the person’s identity is to be protected, take pains to indicate where his or her biases might lie: “an executive working for a competitor … an executive who left the company in a management shakeup … a laid-off employee …” or “a close relative of the plaintiff.”

他们关于乔布斯声称的肝脏移植的故事提供了没有采购供读者判断它完全取决于“华尔街日报”本身的(公认的重要)可信度。

我再次指出这一切并不是说我不相信他们的报告我和任何人一样对匿名采购感到愤怒,但我相信乔布斯确实在田纳西州进行了肝脏移植手术,因为“华尔街日报”将其信誉置于故事背后他们的报告中没有对冲或捏造如果不是这样,那将是他们尊敬的历史上最大的错误之一。

但声誉良好的新闻出版物通常不会报道完全无源的新闻(我找不到另一个日报报道完全无源的第一页新闻的例子。)那么:为什么?

大多数主要新闻出版物已经提到了这个故事,但只是通过将信息提供给期刊本身例如:彭博圣何塞水星报ABC新闻,和BBC彭博的报告显示了这种二手报道:

Steve Jobs, co-founder and chief executive officer of Apple Inc., underwent a liver transplant two months ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, without disclosing the source of the information.

甚至纽约时报也发表了一篇文章(“据报道,苹果公司负责人已经进行肝脏移植手术“)除了”华尔街日报“的报道外,他们也没有新闻来源(当时“纽约时报”的记者正在深入研究这个故事;在“华尔街日报”的故事发布后近24小时内,只有“华尔街日报”报道的相关内容已经过去了,截至本文撰写时,四小时后,还没有登上nytimes.com的头版。)

唯一声称进行独立验证的出版物是CNBC,周六晚上:

Two sources confirmed to CNBC that Jobs had the surgery and another confirmed that his plane flew from San Jose to Memphis in late March.

进一步的好奇心:无论是期刊的来源,他们都没有向华尔街日报提供任何可公开的信息为什么Jobs needed a new liver — that part of the article is pure speculation, quoting doctors who have never treated Jobs personallyIs it because the Journal’s source doesn’t know, or because the source wouldn’t tell? There’s a big difference.

田纳西为何?

几个月来有传言说史蒂夫乔布斯已经搬到田纳西州接受某种治疗。这是一个谣言Barron’s Tech Trader Daily published on April 15, which in turn cites a report by Alexander Haislip of the PEHub Blog (which does not have publicly available 万博体育app官网下载s)Haislip写道:

I spoke with a well-connected business person in Memphis this morning who says that there is a house in a swank neighborhood there that has been bought for a princely sum and is undergoing minor renovations in preparation for its new resident.

He says he has reason to believe Apple CEO Steve Jobs is moving to the city to treat his pancreatic cancer.

Several readers sent me this Barron’s link back when it was new, but I decided against linking to it because it was just so sketchily sourced(And even now, if the WSJ report turns out to be completely accurate, the Barron’s rumor was wrong with regard to the treatment for which Jobs went to Tennessee.) I’ve ignored a slew of Jobs-related rumors over the past year because of the sourcing.

关于这些“田纳西州的乔布斯”谣言一开始就让我感到有些不对劲的问题是,他为什么要首先去田纳西州呢?田纳西州可能是一个可爱的州,但是,它听起来不像史蒂夫乔布斯国家您无需离开海湾地区即可获得世界一流的医疗服务该期刊的报道有一个很好的答案:2

先生的具体细节Jobs’s surgery couldn’t be established, but according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the transplant network in the U.S., there are no residency requirements for transplantsHaving the procedure done in Tennessee makes sense because its list of patients waiting for transplants is shorter than in many other statesAccording to data provided by UNOS, in 2006, the median number of days from joining the liver waiting list to transplant was 306 nationally. In Tennessee, it was 48 days.

但如果是期刊知道乔布斯接受过移植手术知道that it was performed in Tennessee, why don’t they know which hospital? Again from their report:

Three hospitals in Tennessee — Le Bonheur Children’s Medical Center in Memphis, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and Methodist University Hospital in Memphis — are designated as liver-transplant centers, according to UNOSA spokeswoman for Le Bonheur said the hospital doesn’t perform liver transplants in adultsA Vanderbilt spokesman said it didn’t treat Mr工作卫理公会大学发言人表示Jobs isn’t listed as a patient there.

在线之间阅读,如果乔布斯在田纳西州进行了肝脏移植手术,一定是这三家医院中的一家两个断然否认它,但第三个,卫理公会大学,简单地说乔布斯“没有被列为病人” -当下tense, not past tense所以必须在那里进行但为什么“华尔街日报”不能说这个事实呢?

关于泄漏的时间和来源

这个消息在据称移植后几个月爆发,在周五的午夜,似乎是苹果历史上最成功的新产品发布,让我感到非常巧合My first thought was that it must be a deliberate, timed leak from AppleAssuming the story is true and that Apple felt the need to eventually release the news, when better to release it than on the very day when it most appears that Apple has continued to thrive while Jobs was on medical leave? MG Siegler at TechCrunch推测类似

We’d be remiss if we didn’t note that the timing of this story appears favorable for AppleThis news breaks late on a Friday, after Apple has just held a successful launch of a very high profile new product, the iPhone 3GS, that sent the stock soaring today显然,市场将在周一之前再次开放。

我不知道泄漏是如何来自对苹果有竞争利益的人The timing is completely favorable to Apple; if the leak had come from someone wishing ill against Apple, it would have come at some time,随时除了在iPhone 3GS推出极为成功之后此外,除了乔布斯首先进行肝脏移植手术的惊喜之外,该文章的要点在很大程度上有利于Apple它强调乔布斯正在复苏,本月仍将重返工作岗位,并且最近已经在苹果公司的校园里看到过情况也是如此,因为信息来自对苹果公司持有立场的人以及“日报”没有描述这样的来源是不合情理的。

因此,我只看到三个可能的泄漏源。

理论1:信息来了乔布斯的许可或知识,来自了解乔布斯医疗状况的医疗保健提供者据大报的报道,大概来自孟菲斯卫理公会大学医院的人这样的泄漏显然会违反HIPAA隐私法这可能解释了完全缺乏采购和信息准确性的确定性,但它无法解释泄漏的完美换苹果时机,我坚信这个时机过于方便而不是巧合这也会引发有关“华尔街日报”道德问题的严重质疑因此,我打折了这种可能性

理论2:泄漏是乔布斯本人授权的我怀疑乔布斯亲自与“华尔街日报”记者谈过​​(见下文),但可能是有人亲近他(如果是这样的话,我猜凯蒂棉花或其他高人Apple Communications)在他允许的情况下这样做这个理论背后的想法是,如果信息最终会公开,为什么不控制它并让它在最有利的时间出现这种情况可以解释信息的确定性,但不是奇怪的缺乏采购。

我的想法接着可能是乔布斯本人也是其来源 - 他偶尔会这样做叫记者亲身如果他提供的信息仅仅是因为它不是通过名字来源于他,也许“华尔街日报”无法将自己描述为乔布斯本人仅仅是“熟悉情况的来源”或某些人但“华尔街日报”报道的第二段似乎排除了乔布斯个人的来源:

先生乔布斯没有回复要求发表评论的电子邮件“Steve continues to look forward to returning at the end of June, and there’s nothing further to say,” said Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton.

这种语言给人留下了一个明确的印象,就是乔布斯没有为报告做出个人贡献,而且这意味着凯蒂棉花也没有It’s one thing for reporters to omit information; it is something else entirely to purposefully mislead readers.

“华尔街日报”的报道中也有一些影响,使乔布斯处于不妥协的状态。

William Hawkins, a doctor specializing in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery at Washington University in StLouis, Mo., said that the type of slow-growing pancreatic tumor MrJobs had will commonly metastasize in another organ during a patient’s lifetime, and that the organ is usually the liver“All total, 75% of patients are going to have the disease spread over the course of their life,” said Dr霍金斯,没有对待先生工作。

Getting a liver transplant to treat a metastasized neuroendocrine tumor is controversial because livers are scarce and the surgery’s efficacy as a cure hasn’t been proved, Dr霍金斯补充道He said that patients whose tumors have metastasized can live for as many as 10 years without any treatment so it is hard to determine how successful a transplant has been in curing the disease.

这是丑陋的事情They’re quoting a doctor who specializes in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery as saying (1) that it’s common for someone who had the cancer Jobs had to subsequently get cancer in their liver; (2) that liver transplants are not proven to help in such cases; and (3) obtaining a liver transplant in such cases is therefore controversial because it’s taking a liver that could otherwise have been put to better use by someone with some other type of liver ailment没有其他方式可以读到这一点,而不是史蒂夫·乔布斯可能已经得到了一个应该去找别人的肝脏请记住,这整个丑陋的含义并未被视为事实,而是归因于医生的猜测,他确实没有对待史蒂夫·乔布斯但事实上它在故事中让我怀疑这个故事中的任何信息是否伴随着史蒂夫乔布斯的许可,默许或其他。

理论3:Apple董事会成员将这些信息泄露给了Journal没有乔布斯的许可或知识或者,如果在董事会会议上乔布斯提出并驳回了公开披露的问题,明确反对乔布斯的意愿The scenario I am imagining here is that Jobs does not wish to reveal anything regarding his medical situation, but that a member (or contingent) of Apple’s board believes it is in the company’s interest to release the basic gist of the story, regardless of Jobs’s wishes这种情况可以解释时间,确定性,甚至可能是缺乏采购(虽然如果是这种情况,乔布斯本人肯定必须怀疑泄漏的来源是否来自董事会。)

还要注意凯恩和卢布林的WSJ报告的某些部分必须来自Apple董事会成员或非常接近的人:

当他回来时,先生Jobs may be encouraged by his physicians to initially “work part-time for a month or two,” a person familiar with the thinking at Apple saidThat may lead Tim Cook, Apple’s chief operating officer, to take “a more encompassing role,” this person said该人补充说,先生Cook may be appointed to Apple’s board in the not-too-distant future[...]

至少有一些苹果董事知道CEO的手术As part of an agreement with MrJobs in place before he went on leave, some board members have been briefed weekly on the CEO’s condition by his physician.

除了Apple董事会的消息来源以外的其他人会知道蒂姆库克可能很快加入董事会,或者某些董事会成员每周都会得到简报?3

第三种情况是我对期刊来源的最佳猜测推测乔布斯和至少苹果董事会的一些人员之间在这方面存在冲突,听起来很耸人听闻,但是耸人听闻与否,这对我来说比任何其他情况更有意义。

这也符合我的观点,即史蒂夫乔布斯不想透露有关他的健康的任何信息。


  1. 像往常一样,我正在链接到Google重定向到WSJ的故事如果我直接链接到WSJ网站,只有付费的WSJ订阅者才能阅读故事The WSJ allows referrals from Google to see full article content. ↩︎

  2. Apple董事会成员和乔布斯知己Al Gore来自田纳西州但是他的家在纳什维尔, not Memphis, so I can’t think of any reason Gore would have played a role in Jobs’s decision to go there. ↩︎

  3. 理论上,期刊的来源可能是蒂姆库克,但这反对一切我听说过库克我相信他忠诚,诚实,并且当之无愧地赢得了史蒂夫乔布斯的完全信任我真的相信库克更愿意继续担任乔布斯担任首席执行官的苹果公司,而不是担任乔布斯苹果公司的首席执行官此外,库克不需要通过压力机任何角度如果乔布斯在可预见的未来任何时候辞去首席执行官的职位,首席执行官的工作就转到库克没有人认为我认为这是值得怀疑的It’s simply a question of whether Cook runs operations as “COO” with Steve Jobs overseeing product development, or as “CEO” without Steve Jobs overseeing product development. ↩︎

以前: WWDC 2009总结
下一个: Apple的保密