NY Times: Fixation on Steve Jobs' illness 'unhealthy'
Steve Jobs in June, 2008
"Next February," writes David Carr in Monday's New York Times, "when Steven P. Jobs — knock on wood — does his big reveal at Macworld, the geegaw people will most want to see probably won’t be on display."
So begins a piece by one of my favorite business columnists on a subject dear to my heart — Wall Street's and the tech world's obsession with the health of Apple's (AAPL) CEO and, in particular, the "geegaws" of this story: Steve Jobs' troubled pancreas and borrowed liver.
Carr is a smart and plugged-in observer of digital media, and once he gets over the glaring problem with his first sentence — Apple has already announced that it won't be doing any more Macworlds, with or without Steve Jobs — he offers a useful perspective on what he calls our "unhealthy fixation" with Jobs' illness: that of a fellow cancer survivor.
From that perspective — one shared by 10 million Americans, according to Carr — the "keening on the blogs, in the news media and in the investment community" for full disclosure from Apple about the state of Jobs' health after his 2004 surgery for pancreatic cancer and more recent liver transplant, looks less like a legitimate financial concern and more like "the prurience … that drives most people's interest in the illness of others," especially celebrities.
"The same sense of entitlement that leads many to think that it is right and proper to suck the marrow from Michael Jackson’s bones pertains to the living, as well," writes Carr. "There is an expectation that if you are both famous and sick, you will open up a vein and let the blood flow toward everyone. Farrah Fawcett invited everyone into her sickroom as she died of anal cancer and received the faux adoration of millions in return."
That most of the sources Carr interviewed for his column — especially fellow Timesman Joe Nocera — felt there were legitimate reasons for asking whether Steve Jobs would be returning as scheduled from his medical leave, didn't seem to faze the columnist. Carr kept calling until he reached someone who agreed with his thesis. “Everybody knows that Steve has a grave illness," the futurist Paul Saffo helpfully volunteered. "This is sleazy entertainment, a sideshow.”
But sideshows, as Carr points out, are what the modern media do best. And Steve Jobs is a celebrity, he writes, with a particularly high-touch relationship with consumers:
"He sits at their fingertips, in their ears, connects them with friends … [And] because he seems to know us so well, or at least our needs, we like to think we know him back, even though nothing could be further from the truth. He is as inscrutable as Buddha and reportedly no barrel of monkeys to be around."
Besides, Carr concludes, "Steve Jobs doesn’t want your love. He wants you to buy his stuff."
See also:
- Steve Jobs won't give Macworld keynote
- Apple: 'Steve Jobs is back to work'
- Inside Steve Jobs' liver transplant
- Steve Jobs' liver transplant: The second-day stories
Photo: Getty Images
I'm not intrested in the Apple side of the news on the transplant. Mine is from the side as to how he got doctors to put him on the transplant list so fast and then recieved his liver as quick as he did. My husband died waiting for 2 years for Drs. to just even put him on a list. Some people are just wanting figure out how he managed to do what we can't seem to get done for our loved ones.
"Unhealthy" for whom?
I wish Jobs to fully recover, but the "fixation" and the "obsession" is that of the AMCs' (Apple Media Collaborators). These self-appointed Apple promoters twitch in their chairs whenever something negative is published about Apple or its products.
Jobs' illness is a big news story, like it or not. I don't think the media has crossed a line, its not like they have helicopter hovering over his house 24/7. If anything the media has given Jobs more space than any other regular celebrity would have gotten. Complaning about this is like complaning about the weather, Jobs health IS news, he's the CEO of one of the most high profile companies in the world and the basically Princess Di of the tech world.
How about the February reference to past January events.
Anybody with an Internet connection can know everything there is to know about Steve Job's health – from the pancreatic cancer to the hormone imbalance to the liver transplant all these things are a part of the prognosis for someone with Mr. Job's illness.
Frankly, I think it comes down to the 'journalist' abhorrence for research while enjoying their own opinion more than truth.
Does Joe Nocera own a substantial (defined in terms of your net worth) number of shares of Apple stock? If so, he has a right to his opinion. But then so do I. And it is my opinion that Steve Jobs' health is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!
Of course, Joe Nocera has a bigger megaphone. But it doesn't make his opinion any more valid than mine!
Someone should write an article about this article, which is talking about another upcoming article about how other articles are written about Steve Job's health. Let's keep this meta train rolling.
Great article. Consider this in response to Buffett saying Jobs should disclose. Suppose he had disclosed. Then there would be endless public speculations of his survival chances, including graphic doomsday scenarios for Jobs. If you were Jobs, would such prognostications help or hurt your ability to focus and get well? Jobs is excellent at ignoring the noise, but why do so when you can cut it off in the first place by being private?
Does his privacy enhance his chances of survival–and paradoxically be the best thing for Apple and its shareholders?
Finally, consider how his disease has strengthened Apple: it has put Cook in the drivers' seat twice, forced a succession plan to be put in place and given the team some test driving that few companies get ahead of time. On these terms, Apple is stronger BECAUSE of his disease, not in spite of it.
Greg Bates
Monroe, Maine
I'm sure the fixation on Steve Jobs health is just due to finding a way to manipulate Apple's share price and keep scared investors even more nervous. Any time some analyst or investor starts asking for guarantees about the CEO's lifespan or term of duty there is something that is going far beyond human concern. I still get the sense that some investors believe Steve will still die tomorrow even with a new liver. I'd hate to be in their famiy if I was hospitalized. They'd be holding a death watch if the doctor gave me a 50/50 chance of survival.
I'm not sure how old Warren Buffet is, but I honestly don't hear anyone asking about how much longer his lifespan will be based on an mortality actuarial table for a white male. I'm sure it would state he doesn't have many more years left. Although, I'm sure his stock investors are more level-headed than the average Apple investor which seem to be a rather ignorant or easily swayed bunch.
typical: blame the victim. the stockholder is entitled to have immediate and unfiltered information of all material events. what could be more material to a company's future than the health condition of america's, perhaps the world's, most important ceo?
apple didn't just conceal this information, so did directors. in fact they lied about it. now they're claiming it isn't covered by current securities laws. this too is a lie.
lies don't occur in isolation. it's a culture. this is the same company that was backdating options awards not long ago.
for any publication to be falling victim to the corporate PR spiel of Apple in calling the ownership public's interest in material events a "fixation" or "obsession" over steve jobs's liver reflects the worst in journalistic standards and naivete offering no usefulness whatsoever in a dialog among adult investors.
If you make yourself the icon of a company then YOU are the company. You must divulge any information which could affect the value of the company. Steve Jobs should be responsible for disclosing health issues which might affect his tenure or at least provide succession info.