Gizmodo Banned from WWDC

Uh no the ethical issue is that they broke the law themselves by buying stolen property. And they acted like dicks. Not sucking up is irrelevant and fine, buying stolen shit and flouting that fact isn't.

First, you've tried to claim access journalism as part of accepted journalistic ethics. In fact, access journalism is not part of any accepted journalistic ethic, and is in fact the subject of great consternation among journalists themselves.

Second, you've implied that I'm somehow proud of the practice of access journalism. Once again, the fact is that I, like you, find the practice repugnant.

Third, you've tried to use this supposed anti-ethic to thus dismiss the entire ethical foundation of journalism via some sort of guilt by association. Of course, even if some aspect of journalistic ethics were to be found suspect, that still wouldn't negate the rest of the practice. In fact, like all ethical pursuits, the whole is greater than the parts: journalists, like lawyers and doctors, bind themselves to ethical practice. There are always those willing to violate those ethics, but an access journalist no more discredits his entire profession than a negligent doctor.

Fourth, you've made a false appeal to common ground ("It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate") which mischaracterizes my argument -- you'll note I didn't once mention "Apple" in my comment -- and sets up a false equivalency where Apple's behavior somehow excuses Gizmodo's. In fact, I think Apple's actions are clearly retaliatory, but that wasn't the argument I made, and is still unrelated to Gizmodo's unethical behavior.

Fifth, you've argued against the claim that Apple "is defending the honor of all journalists." That's indeed a specious claim, and one worth arguing against. Except that I didn't make it. In fact, you've again mischaracterized my argument which, for the record, was simply that Gizmodo needs to choose which side of the fence they sit on.

Finally, you've enclosed the word "journalists" in air quotes as a sort of argument-by-ridicule: you've tried to assert stylistically that journalism is something to scoff at, and thus that anyone -- like me -- who defends journalism is similarly subject to ridicule. In fact, journalism is generally accepted as being a requirement for democracy -- see, for example, the Bill of Rights.

I'd pretty much decline requests for access to ANY news organization that did that.