Speculation about Steve Jobs' health situation has been a hot topic for a while now, and Bloomberg is jumping on the bandwagon as well - but you have to wonder if there's a limit as to how far journalists should go in order to gain insight into Jobs' health. While his position as CEO of a large publicly traded company puts him on a pedestal, I do believe there are limits to the hight of this pedestal. Bloomberg grossly crossed the line in my book, and Jobs seems to agree with me. "Why don't you guys leave me alone?"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-14
Well the SEC says otherwise. However, there is absolutely NO LAW against speculating about his health condition. (providing you arent violating SEC policy) Let the media speculate. Or do you expect people to actually NOT talk about something with this big of effects.
Member since:2006-12-19
Just because there's "NO LAW" against something, doesn't make it right or desirable to do that thing. If everyone in a society took this view, the government would have to micro-legislate every aspect of our lives, and I think you'll agree this is not a pleasant prospect.
What I'm saying is that a responsible media outlet should balance the rights / feelings of the subject (Mr. Jobs in this case) against "the public interest". For example, if this situation were to continue as-is for the next year, there could be an argument for running an intrusive investigation and publishing the results due to damage to a public company caused by excessive uncertainty. Not so in this case, Bloomberg were simply trying to make a quick buck by putting out a story with "Apple" and "Steve Jobs" tags on it so that the whole Apple fanclub will swing by and generate some ad revenue.
Member since:2008-06-09
Well the SEC says otherwise. However, there is absolutely NO LAW against speculating about his health condition. (providing you arent violating SEC policy) Let the media speculate. Or do you expect people to actually NOT talk about something with this big of effects.
The SEC has no specific guidelines for CEO health disclosures. Please point to the specific rules pertinent to the topic at hand.
http://www.madison.com/tct/business/432824
"
Though he declined to discuss Apple specifically, a Securities and Exchange Commission spokesman said there was no explicit requirement that companies disclose their executives' health problems. "But if a health issue is material, the company could have a disclosure obligation," John Nester said.
There is no established legal precedent for the issue. "You can start a healthy debate among securities law practitioners on the topic of disclosure related to CEO health," Stanford University law professor Joe Grundfest said."
It seems the SEC agrees with me.
Edited 2009-01-19 21:51 UTC
Member since:
2008-06-09
Jobs has already informed the public about his health pretty honestly twice now. Looks like he was surprised about the latest news and immediately informed the public and went on leave of absence.
That's all shareholders need to know. They have till June to decide if Jobs means that much to Apple's bottom line.
The press is now trying to determine specifics about the ailment and that is "out of line". Medical records are private for a reason and Doctor patient confidentiality exists for a reason too. That's why the patient has to authorize release of his/her records to a new doctor on the first visit.
By law a person's health is a private matter. It doesn't matter is Jobs is a CEO. Does Bloomberg care about every CEO's health? Do they really care if Eric Schmidt or Larry Ellison are sick? No. So the theory that the public has the right to know is not valid.