Regarding yesterday's Apple news
by Ryan Block 
posted May 17th 2007 at 7:21PM
Yesterday Engadget posted an incorrect story about an iPhone delay, and I wanted to go into greater detail about how this happened.
At 9:09am CDT yesterday a number of Apple employees received an email that appeared to be from Apple corporate reporting that the iPhone and the next version of OS X had been delayed. An Apple employee who we trust then forwarded this email to us. Let's be clear that this is someone who we know without any doubt is an employee of Apple, not someone we merely believe to be an employee of Apple. We contacted our source after receiving their email, and they confirmed for us that they had indeed received this email, an email which by all appearances was a legitimate email from Apple corporate. In fact, this Apple employee certainly believed this, especially since the email had also been received by other Apple employees. They gave us absolutely no indication that its origin might be in doubt.
For a reporter, this kind of thing -- an internal memo to a company's employees -- is solid gold. You don't often get inside information more sound than a memo stating plans -- and it is not uncommon to see these sorts of internal emails quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines -- but we are still aware of precisely how dangerous it would be to leave any story at that. So after verifying that the email was indeed sent to internal Apple email lists -- but before publishing anything -- we immediately contacted Apple PR, trying to reach our contacts on their PR team that handles iPod / iPhone matters. It was before business hours on the West coast, though, so we even called an Apple PR manager via their private cellphone in search of a statement. When no one was immediately available, we left voicemail and email.
The question we faced at that moment was: Do we run with the story without Apple's comment or not? The answer seemed fairly clear there, too, at the time. We possessed what confirmed Apple employees believed was an internal Apple memo that with absolutely no doubt had also been received by any number of other Apple employees. This memo was passed to us in good faith -- our source believed that what they were sending was real because it was exactly like every other email of this type they had received from Apple corporate. And it stood to reason that Apple, which normally holds its cards very close to the chest with this kind of news, would more than likely not comment on these matters. (How many times have you read a news story with "Apple was not available for / declined to comment"?) Even when Leopard was facing multiple accusations of delay from across the media, Apple denied it up and down for weeks right up until the very day it announced the delay.
So we were sitting on news of obvious importance -- the email was circulating, and it was enough to set off the alarms of other sources at Apple who also started forwarding it outbound. (As it happened, we were not the only site that acquired and published that memo, perhaps just the first.) Given the nature of that news, we felt we had an obligation to inform people that Apple had sent out an internal memo in preparation of a delay in the iPhone and Leopard. And so I ran the story; I believe most people in my place would have done the same.
About an hour and 40 minutes after the initial memo went out, a second memo was sent to the same internal Apple lists, dismissing the first. Soon after, our source -- who we'd been in contact with through the morning -- let us know that Apple was dismissing this earlier email; the second memo passed off the first as "fake" and "not from Apple". Fake indeed, but it still came from someone familiar with Apple's internal mail systems, lists, memo composition structure, etc., who found a way to plant a phony memo in the inboxes of who knows how many Apple employees. (Both emails are published in the original post.) Why Apple took nearly two hours to respond to the situation we do not know.
The person or persons behind the phony email had apparently put one over on Apple employees to the extent that those employees who received that memo and passed it along to us and others took it as truth -- as did we. Although we made sure to confirm and reconfirm with our source that this email was legit at the time it was sent out, unfortunately no amount of vetting and confirming sources can account for what happens when a corporate memo turns out to be fraudulently produced and distributed in this way.
So who sent the memo, and why? We don't know, and we're not sure we ever will. Again, it was not a public memo, and it was not distributed outside Apple's internal Bullet News list to employees. Ultimately we did the only thing we felt right in doing after the initial post: leave it up unedited (but struck through), making sure the developing situation was made as lucid as possible for anyone involved in order to minimize the damages the leaked email caused.
Credibility and trust is the currency of our realm, and it's clear we lost some of that. (And to be 100% clear, no one at Engadget is allowed to own stock in any of the companies we write about.) We take what we do very seriously and would never knowingly pass along information that we believed could be false or inaccurate; in this case, as stated above, we had confirmation from within Apple that this was in fact information that been distributed via Apple's internal corporate email system. If we had had any inkling that ANYONE could have exploited that system that would have greatly affected how we proceeded.
Could things have be done differently? Definitely. We might have waited until the press release the memo mentioned hit the wires. That could have been any time, though, an hour, three hours; we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story, and we believed that would have been a disservice to our readers. We might also have presented it as rumor or whim, although given the information we had at the time, there was truly no reason to believe it was anything but totally legit, and would have been a misrepresentation of the situation.
We also might have waited to hear what Apple had to say, however long it would take for them to get back to us. While we did indeed do our best to get in touch, but we were unable to immediately produce a result, so I chose to run the without comment, as is standard practice for a reporter working on a big, urgent story. (As it happened, we only heard back from Apple after we got the second internal memo.) Of course, had I waited long enough, that second memo would have made its way to me through the pipeline, and the story would have died on the vine, never to be published. (Well, maybe we would have done a story about a planted internal memo at Apple.)
We have learned a very serious lesson yesterday. We will work very hard to earn back the trust we have lost and to do our best to be what we have always strived to be: a trustworthy source for the latest on gadgets, consumer electronics, and personal technology.
At 9:09am CDT yesterday a number of Apple employees received an email that appeared to be from Apple corporate reporting that the iPhone and the next version of OS X had been delayed. An Apple employee who we trust then forwarded this email to us. Let's be clear that this is someone who we know without any doubt is an employee of Apple, not someone we merely believe to be an employee of Apple. We contacted our source after receiving their email, and they confirmed for us that they had indeed received this email, an email which by all appearances was a legitimate email from Apple corporate. In fact, this Apple employee certainly believed this, especially since the email had also been received by other Apple employees. They gave us absolutely no indication that its origin might be in doubt.
For a reporter, this kind of thing -- an internal memo to a company's employees -- is solid gold. You don't often get inside information more sound than a memo stating plans -- and it is not uncommon to see these sorts of internal emails quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines -- but we are still aware of precisely how dangerous it would be to leave any story at that. So after verifying that the email was indeed sent to internal Apple email lists -- but before publishing anything -- we immediately contacted Apple PR, trying to reach our contacts on their PR team that handles iPod / iPhone matters. It was before business hours on the West coast, though, so we even called an Apple PR manager via their private cellphone in search of a statement. When no one was immediately available, we left voicemail and email.
The question we faced at that moment was: Do we run with the story without Apple's comment or not? The answer seemed fairly clear there, too, at the time. We possessed what confirmed Apple employees believed was an internal Apple memo that with absolutely no doubt had also been received by any number of other Apple employees. This memo was passed to us in good faith -- our source believed that what they were sending was real because it was exactly like every other email of this type they had received from Apple corporate. And it stood to reason that Apple, which normally holds its cards very close to the chest with this kind of news, would more than likely not comment on these matters. (How many times have you read a news story with "Apple was not available for / declined to comment"?) Even when Leopard was facing multiple accusations of delay from across the media, Apple denied it up and down for weeks right up until the very day it announced the delay.
So we were sitting on news of obvious importance -- the email was circulating, and it was enough to set off the alarms of other sources at Apple who also started forwarding it outbound. (As it happened, we were not the only site that acquired and published that memo, perhaps just the first.) Given the nature of that news, we felt we had an obligation to inform people that Apple had sent out an internal memo in preparation of a delay in the iPhone and Leopard. And so I ran the story; I believe most people in my place would have done the same.
About an hour and 40 minutes after the initial memo went out, a second memo was sent to the same internal Apple lists, dismissing the first. Soon after, our source -- who we'd been in contact with through the morning -- let us know that Apple was dismissing this earlier email; the second memo passed off the first as "fake" and "not from Apple". Fake indeed, but it still came from someone familiar with Apple's internal mail systems, lists, memo composition structure, etc., who found a way to plant a phony memo in the inboxes of who knows how many Apple employees. (Both emails are published in the original post.) Why Apple took nearly two hours to respond to the situation we do not know.
The person or persons behind the phony email had apparently put one over on Apple employees to the extent that those employees who received that memo and passed it along to us and others took it as truth -- as did we. Although we made sure to confirm and reconfirm with our source that this email was legit at the time it was sent out, unfortunately no amount of vetting and confirming sources can account for what happens when a corporate memo turns out to be fraudulently produced and distributed in this way.
So who sent the memo, and why? We don't know, and we're not sure we ever will. Again, it was not a public memo, and it was not distributed outside Apple's internal Bullet News list to employees. Ultimately we did the only thing we felt right in doing after the initial post: leave it up unedited (but struck through), making sure the developing situation was made as lucid as possible for anyone involved in order to minimize the damages the leaked email caused.
Credibility and trust is the currency of our realm, and it's clear we lost some of that. (And to be 100% clear, no one at Engadget is allowed to own stock in any of the companies we write about.) We take what we do very seriously and would never knowingly pass along information that we believed could be false or inaccurate; in this case, as stated above, we had confirmation from within Apple that this was in fact information that been distributed via Apple's internal corporate email system. If we had had any inkling that ANYONE could have exploited that system that would have greatly affected how we proceeded.
Could things have be done differently? Definitely. We might have waited until the press release the memo mentioned hit the wires. That could have been any time, though, an hour, three hours; we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story, and we believed that would have been a disservice to our readers. We might also have presented it as rumor or whim, although given the information we had at the time, there was truly no reason to believe it was anything but totally legit, and would have been a misrepresentation of the situation.
We also might have waited to hear what Apple had to say, however long it would take for them to get back to us. While we did indeed do our best to get in touch, but we were unable to immediately produce a result, so I chose to run the without comment, as is standard practice for a reporter working on a big, urgent story. (As it happened, we only heard back from Apple after we got the second internal memo.) Of course, had I waited long enough, that second memo would have made its way to me through the pipeline, and the story would have died on the vine, never to be published. (Well, maybe we would have done a story about a planted internal memo at Apple.)
We have learned a very serious lesson yesterday. We will work very hard to earn back the trust we have lost and to do our best to be what we have always strived to be: a trustworthy source for the latest on gadgets, consumer electronics, and personal technology.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
rick @ May 17th 2007 7:48PM
what's that like, ja$on?
(not that there's anything wrong with it)
point was, engadget came across looking a lot more amateurish than they usually are. i love the site, and usually they are spot-on - but - when you publish something with only one single source and no backup - then you take your chances. ryan said as much himself.
the impact of this was millions of dollars. now what would be interesting would be to see who was shorting apple stock for yesterday. that much money moving around benefited someone, the only question is who. was it just a slicker version of the typical pump & dump email scam?
so yeah, i stick by "eager."
and watch those teeth.
Lenard @ May 18th 2007 5:58PM
Did you have any intelectual collateral to back up your brief cliche ridden tripe?
Or do you just read the blogs and chime in when you can quote your favorite testosterone loaded movie heros.
The integrity displayed in the above blog entry alone is probably confusing you let alone any journalistic credibility.
That someone like you, who's breadth of phrasing would barely rival the hotest wrestler/action hero of our time, would question someones journalistic integrity is, in itself, comical.
You misspelled your name. I believe that should be a "t" not and "l". Your a putz
LPXXFAINTXX @ May 17th 2007 7:26PM
It's ok, Engadget. We love you either way.
Ryan Block @ May 17th 2007 7:29PM
Thanks, we love you guys too. ;)
bob2utooz @ May 19th 2007 12:20PM
Yes, yes, that's right ... it's perfectly ok. Yes everything is just fine. Go ahead and be a tool, or puppet if you prefer ( I know Bush does ), for someone’s malicious intent. Don't bother to investigate for yourselves, it's that you caved in to your fear that someone might publish this before you did that counts - right? In the fast paced world of 'speculative reporting' it's just the same as someone yelling Fire! in a theater - There's no time to think and investigate because that moment of doubt could cost you your lives! Thank god you have that to free your consciences - ...oh wait.. that's right you don't have any scruples or consciences - you accept information from those who lie and betray those they work for and who don't value the promise they made when signing confidentiality agreement they made of their own free will. And don't worry about all those thousands of Americans day trading with their retirement funds - it's not your problem anyways - you just 'calls em how we see em' - were just a 'fancy blog' - filling the void of a decimated factual reporting industry - yes... yes... let's all be just like the fake news on television and let unnamed sources and innuendo rule so that eventually, say in about 2 years, all information in this county will be only that which those in control want us to hear. Good work guys! And while your penning your oh so witty and snappy reply do let us know exactly who at Engadget will be resigning over this won't you? yeah that's what i thought.
Ollie @ May 18th 2007 1:21AM
Hello Ryan,
I just wanted to give you a super colossal amout of support. All of you @ Engadegt are doing a fantasict job.
Keep up the good stuff... We Love you guys.......
Oliver
Sandman619 @ May 18th 2007 6:53AM
You rushed to publish without verifying any facts and you played right into the perpetrator’s plans. Your Apple insider did not have any cooperating info other than passing along a faked message. You then blame Apple's PR staff for not answering their phones before their offices were open. Then again for taking a whole two hours to respond. Considering it would take a while for more staff to begin their day, and they would, being responsible employees, start verifying the authenticity of this memo before sending out a retraction and they would know that this was leaked to Engadget? Come on. The responsibility is yours to verify the info. It was easy since it referred to an already published press release. There was no release to be found on their site and the slow response to your inquiry, clearly indicated that they were unprepared to field the many incoming calls, which they would have been if this was real.
Common sense should have kicked in, but you left that at home that is if you ever had it.
A trip to Engadget is clearly a waste of key strokes
Cheers!
ROFLROFFLES @ May 17th 2007 7:30PM
I love engadget. **** the haters, you can go away to gizmodo if you want.
Anthony @ May 17th 2007 8:16PM
If you go to Gizmodo don't forget - you won't be able to post anything on their site letting the world know about your switch until they "verify that you're cool enough".
Hey- everybody makes mistakes. It's admitting to them that separates the reliable sources from those who aren't.
Jebediah Obiadiah @ May 18th 2007 2:55AM
Gizmodo was quick to pick up on this and had a thread title blaming engadget, but were careful to mention that themselves could have also been victim to this.
__________________
Stupid gizmodo never let me comment. Engadget rocks, gizmodo sucks.
rick @ May 17th 2007 7:30PM
Your posting yesterday did seem a bit ... "eager."
Jade @ May 17th 2007 7:33PM
A couple billion dollars of AAPL vanished because of that post, so my question is: what will you do if Apple or the SEC comes a knockin' at your door about the particulars of that tip?
Dave @ May 17th 2007 8:51PM
You live in a fantasy world.
Dave @ May 21st 2007 4:04PM
"A couple billion dollars of AAPL vanished" NOT, in seven days the price of AAPL will be exactly what they would have been without this story. If course every tech site bounced the iPhone to the top of the list again. What is the value to AAPL to get all those headlines??
The only people that lost are the fools that tried to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and dumped their stock. What a shame.
dgdfgfdg @ May 17th 2007 7:38PM
I would have done the same had I been in your situation, I think you guys handled it great and it did not hurt my trust in you in any way. Like the 1st commenter said, we love you guys either way.
Mischa Lockton @ May 17th 2007 7:35PM
"this... little.. glitch ... will cost us millions in interest alone!" - robocop.
Seriously, I can always forgive the media. Hahaha blogs are part of the media now. I think that was the most a blog ever moved a large cap stock. Go go inspector engadget.
Be careful, it seemed like trying to smoke out a mole to me... the press has freedom, and the courts just backed this up again, but Apple can then terminate the leakers.
a @ May 17th 2007 7:36PM
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was in fact an internal memo, sent out with the intention of determining which departments were having difficulties keeping necessary silence, of the particular project unit that your friend was working in was known or suspected to be having OP SEC problems, based on the nature of prior unauthorized discolsure. Corporate sends out this memo to the project section employing jimmy jaberjaw, just to see what happens. we all find out -- suspicions confirmed, Jimmy J. is discovered to problematically not-quiet, and is quietly let go...
Just throwing an idear out there
a
Bee Hatch @ May 17th 2007 9:14PM
Yeah, it's worth having your stock take a nose dive for that.
Im a sock @ May 17th 2007 7:37PM
Don't worry about it. I would have done exactly the same thing if I were in your shoes. I mean, how could you not? I love Engadget... I mean... like, alot. Maybe I can take Engadget out sometime... drinks... a movie... you know...
You guys rock.
Kyle @ May 17th 2007 7:37PM
engadget, its totally fine, you corrected yourself in a matter of hours, its ok, really
Ryan Block @ May 17th 2007 7:38PM
Not to split hairs, but it was actually a matter of minutes!
Dave @ May 17th 2007 7:38PM
You know what? Something is telling me that eventually, both leopard and the iPhone WILL be delayed. I don't find any fault with engadget for what you guys did. It was totally understandable. But I just have a sick/funny feeling in my stomach that we actually will get an announcement from Apple saying the iPhone is being delayed.....yet it passed FCC today, so who knows.
Damien Wright @ May 19th 2007 10:59AM
I doubt Leopard will be delayed. What Apple would do is simply pull features from it and we'll never know that it happened (since they've yet to announce many of the features).
And Engadget, don't sweat it. Mistakes like this happen all the time. Possibly not on such a large scale, but, you know...
:)
MonkeyHood @ May 17th 2007 10:22PM
Everyone screws up sooner or later. Engadget had no way of knowing the e-mail was fake.
That article won't affect how much I still like Engadget.
johnzilla @ May 18th 2007 10:14AM
The key problem is that you are using information you shouldn't have. That Apple employee you "trust" signed a confidentiality agreement in order to work at Apple. They violated that agreement by forwarding an internal corporate communication to you. So, a reasonable person has to ask: how can they be trusted? If they're going to violate one agreement, they'll violate another.
It doesn't matter whether you know this person is an Apple employee or not...without independent verification, you shouldn't post the story. Verifying the person is an employee and verifying that the email was sent on the Apple network does not verify the content of the email and does not verify that Apple sent it. It is a fundamental difference.
Without that independent verification, all you have is rumor. Spreading rumors != journalism.
Jeremy @ May 17th 2007 7:42PM
Faking internal emails is one of the easiest things to do, ever. Just telnet into port 25 of your internal mail server and EHLO to your heart's content! I've only ever seen a very very very few companies ever who have locked this down. It's still rather trace-able which is why you don't see many people pulling this stunt. My guess is that someone in IT was "on their way out" and decided to have a little fun and send this little parting gift.
D. Gomes @ May 18th 2007 12:17PM
Try that at Apple. It won't work.
MTigerV @ May 17th 2007 7:40PM
For the record, I believe Engadget. But don't think this post is going to shoo away the SEC. $4bn worth of market cap movement in less than a day will certainly bring an investigation, even if (as I hope) it only proves Engadet's innocence.
MTheory @ May 17th 2007 7:46PM
A CLEVER RUSE TO WEED OUT THE MOLES! Watch it... they probably hit only half of the company which means they are well on their way to finding you people out.
John Doe @ May 17th 2007 9:02PM
My money is on slightly different e-mails out to segments of the company. A word changed here. A phrase changed there. You could really get down to granular detail with such a setup. the question is this: Is Apple so anal that they would allow their stock to drop that much all to inflate Jobs's ego? Because lets be fair here. Most of the rumors comes hours, days, or at most weeks before the announcement. This isn't about keeping a secret its about Jobs being in the limelight once again. that guy is an arrogant pompous asshole who needs to be pied in the face like Gates. I'd pay good money to see that at WWDC this year.
Dale-Chuckx00 @ May 17th 2007 7:40PM
What's the big deal anyway? Is there really a need to defend yourself for posting this? It is something completely not in your hands.
Bill @ May 19th 2007 2:12PM
journalistic ETHICS requires that you follow through with a direct confirmation from the top. There is NEVER an excuse for running a story without 'upper-end' confirmation, denial or comment. This is just a case of "I wanna be first" that cost Apple's stockholders a huge pile of money. Engadget obviously is not the ONLY online and hard copy "news" source that is at fault here, but the blame is equal. Hopefully, these so-called online journalists will either learn a lesson from this, before lawsuits teach them the hard way.
Barry W @ May 17th 2007 7:40PM
I expect you helped Apple find one of their leakers!
Beau Giles @ May 17th 2007 7:41PM
"That could have been any time, though, an hour, three hours; we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story"
Were those one to three hours so important that they needed to information out there that fast? What would have changed in those one to three hours? Why the rush?
dikkers91 @ May 29th 2007 5:16PM
what would have changed? then other blogs would have reported it already, and all those assholes on engadget would say "this is old news. keep up with the times, engadget" However, i think engadget would have been better off saying "there has been a memo sent which says..." then they would have been in the clear
Diego @ May 17th 2007 7:44PM
"(As it happened, we were not the only site that acquired and published that memo, perhaps just the first.)"
Just the first to publish it without checking facts. Maybe checking facts is what the other sites were doing. You were too excited to be sitting on an exclusive and couldn't wait. I guess that's understandable. Although the words apologize or sorry aren't anywhere in this post. Maybe some Apple stock investors aren't too happy with Engadget today. Or Apple themselves.
falcon2xp @ May 17th 2007 7:43PM
well i hope so engadget becuse i lost some money in there! but hey things hapen
Kryz @ May 17th 2007 8:50PM
"well i hope so engadget becuse i lost some money in there! but hey things hapen"
How did you lose money then? Sold stock after it went down considerably? Isn't that just about the dumbest thing to do in cases like this?
Neil Christie @ May 17th 2007 7:46PM
Get a grip Ryan, you made a big amateur mistake. No amount of apology is going to restore the damage you did to your own reputation.
We all now know that even rumours posted "with authority" can be false.
David @ May 17th 2007 7:48PM
Might I just point out that Engadet is correct more than CNN, MSNBC, etc....
Taylor @ May 17th 2007 8:28PM
Sucks for the Apple employee, he's probably going to get fired. Apple sends out wrong info to it's own employees occationally to find leaks in the company. They'll be stopping up that hole pretty fast.
Gregg @ May 17th 2007 7:54PM
I for one welcome our email enabled robot overlords.
Grant G @ May 17th 2007 8:09PM
yeah, thats the first thing i thought when i read that.
they're trying to weed out the mole.
but it didn't work so well since you didn't post THE specific memo, and more than one was confirmed to you.
lol, apple, your about as leak free as a colander.
brendan Sheehan jnr @ May 17th 2007 7:55PM
Just where is the love anymore?
/sarcasm
Wil @ May 18th 2007 1:14AM
Wow, you guys are way more conciliatory than I would have expected. It's obvious that Engadget maintains pretty high standards of journalistic integrity and for a small goof like this, how can we hold it against you in any way.
Blogs in general, and especially Engadget, have totally changed the way we get and receive news. In terms of expertise, breadth of coverage, entertainment value and most of all, timeliness, you guys have totally changed the way we all get our gadget info. Just as an example of Engadget's relevance and importance, the site has been quoted and referenced often by the NY Times.
While I understand that you guys strive towards excellence, I think that we can accept the occasional misinformation and injection of personal feelings as you rush to publish something. In any case, I'd hardly expect an apology or ask for an explanation.
Please keep doing what you've always done!
Michael Reilly @ May 17th 2007 7:57PM
Oops. I know people have been on your case about this. I am not. But you should stop saying that Apple's second memo "retracted" the first. That means they acknowledged that they wrote and sent the first but wished to take it back. You mean to say that they denounced the first as fraud. Entirely different.
The miswritten meaning will fuel fires of "misreporting" accusations, so be more careful, please.
Sorry about your hot water. On the bright side, stock is where it was and the iPhone isn't delayed.
If someone else already wrote about this, I am sorry for not reading all the comments before posting.
Ryan Block @ May 17th 2007 8:12PM
Excellent point! Updated.
saq @ May 17th 2007 11:20PM
I don't buy the whole 'it was an operating to find a leak' thing. Internal Security would have thought it through to the point of 'well if it does get leaked could this cause a change in our market valuation?'. You just don't go throw something out like that to find a mole that could potentially make you lose a lot of cash, its not smart. I'd buy a faked email sent to the internal newslist, and then offer to do a proposal to switch Apple to a more robust email system, like Exchange.
Jade @ May 17th 2007 8:19PM
Yeah, the whole "mole hunt" theory is hilarious, like a company that was under investigation by the SEC for stock manipulation would risk something like this debacle to out a few leakers. I wonder if this was even someone trying to cash in on some shorting at all, but rather was just the unintended consequence of some nerd on the Internet pranking Apple. Sucks to be that bastard if they find him. Sucks to be the Apple employee(s) fucking stupid enough to send an internal e-mail to media outlets too, I imagine.
joseph @ May 17th 2007 8:01PM
Either that or apple was testing their employees allegiance. I would hope your source got canned for the leak. However, i do praise your "investivicative" journaling. But I do hope your buddy is writing his "Yoogoogaly." Nothing worst than an employee you cant trust. Nothing better than a news source that will report anything without realizing the consequences.