CNET:
Some of the last video footage taken of the late Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs shown in antitrust court last week may see the light of day after lawyers representing the Associated Press, Bloomberg and CNN filed a motion with the court to have it released.
“Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial, there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public’s access to his video deposition,” attorney Thomas Burke, who is representing all three media organizations, wrote in the filing Monday.
Apple opposes this filing:
Today’s filing follows an official email request made Sunday by Burke, to which Bill Isaacson, Apple’s lead attorney, replied Sunday night, “Apple does not consent to your request. We are preparing a substantive response to your points and will get that to you tonight hopefully.” No such filing has yet been made on behalf of Apple’s request to keep the video restricted to the courtroom.
Personally, I’d rather not see this video be made public. It serves no one outside the courtroom.
The testimony from other witnesses may have been more germane to the case, but the never-before-seen video footage of the late executive has grabbed the spotlight and, Burke argues, deserves to be shown to the public because it is “far more compelling and accurate than any transcript could ever be.”
Burke’s argument is self-serving. He represents the media, not the plaintiffs.
“…there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public’s access to his video deposition,”
I know lawyers have to right a lot of stuff they don’t mean, or agree with, but for his sake I really hope he felt dirty after putting that down on paper.
The media for all its faults represents the public. It’s not self serving to ask for court records to be made public. It’s up to the court to decide if the truth outweighs Apple’s (some would argue) self serving obsession with staying out of the spotlight. Do the stockholders deserve to know what’s in it, even if the public doesn’t?
I think Burke confused “in the public’s prurient interest” with “in the public interest.”
Making a ghoulish spectacle of a dying man serves no public interest that the court transcripts don’t already.
In the US, the media for the most part represents corporate and investor interests and looks to find anything titillating to grab eyeballs and, hopefully, sell things via their advertising.
What do you mean “in the US.” It’s worse everywhere else.
That some journalists do that doesn’t mean they all do. Try not using such sweeping generalizations.
I’m talking major news organizations,not individual journalists. I was also giving other countries the benefit of the doubt since my knowledge of their news media is limited.
Stop trying to insert more into what I wrote than what I did.
I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Just point out that what you said is the opposite of what is in fact the reality of how bad news is as a business world-wide. Thing are actually better here than anywhere else.
I should have been clearer. And you are right that most organizations are way too beholden to corporate interests.
Even though I’m intrigued and want to see the video just ’cause I’m a Jobs fan, this feels slimy to me.