The blogosphere (but not CNET) seems to have moved on from this weekend’s diversionary game of whack-a-blogger. Valleywag started the mud slinging by suggesting that a bunch of FM authors, including me, were taking payoffs to write advertising content.
That wasn’t the case (see my previous posts on my position), but it didn’t stop authors like Malik and Kedrosky from immediately folding, and FM CEO Battelle from giving his authors a quick slap on the wrist for not disclosing the “conflict.” Suddenly I found myself fighting alone in a sea of controversy, which is right where I like to be. The main fallout from the event is that we are now looking for new ad agent representation.
Lots of bloggers took Valleywag’s side in this. I don’t agree with them, but I’m willing to engage in intelligent debate about the subject because I respect them. Dave Winer, Dan Farber, Robert Scoble, Mathew Ingram, Jeff Jarvis, and others are of the opinion this was the wrong thing to do.
But one man, Charles Cooper at CNET, seems to think this is his own personal Watergate scandal to exploit for his own professional gain. He’s taken the opportunity to write three articles now on CNET trashing the bloggers involved. His writing shows a distinct lack of interest in the facts of the matter – instead he’s on a personal crusade to sully the reputation of the blogging community in general.
In his original post Cooper made his unbiased position clear when he wrote “I sent e-mails both to Arrington and Malik and–surprise, surprise–heard nothing back.” For that I called him an idiot, because he obviously doesn’t know a thing about Malik and me. We both comment early and often on anything and everything. His “surprise, surprise” comment tells me he’s never read our blogs and knows nothing about how we operate. It was also clear from his article that he was jumping into a mob lynching, and screw the facts.
In his follow up article he referred to my idiot comment but left out the reason why (now I get to say, “surprise, surprise” Cooper) and included more attacks on our credibility. I ignored that one, as I certainly couldn’t fault someone for fighting back after being called an idiot.
For the record, I was in the car during the 45 minute window Cooper decided was long enough to wait before bashing me. Otherwise, I would have had the opportunity to call him an idiot much sooner.
But today he’s back, attacking the blogosphere again and saying we need to get serious about “church and state.”
This man knows nothing about blogging.
Most of the popular blogs, all of which started out as one-person shops, have now hired separate sales staff to handle sales. We have, Om has, etc. Hell, that’s the main reason we are working with FM Publishing, so that we don’t have to talk to advertisers directly. They turned out to be the wrong choice – throwing us under a bus as soon as the found it convenient, but it doesn’t change our position on the matter. We’re a small operation, we work 24 hours a day to break stories and write interesting content, and we’re trying to earn enough money to keep these things growing. Something Cooper would never understand.
He’s a paid journalist who has the luxury of sitting back and opining on others, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about. It’s what too many mainstream media journalists do – write about things they don’t know and don’t care about. And that’s why blogs are stealing their page views at an alarming rate. Based on my estimates, the average A-List blogger generates 10x the page views that the average journalist does. Why? Because we’re running our own businesses, because we support each other with linking, and because we care, deeply, about what we are writing about.
Those are things Cooper has no understanding of.
And while we are on the topic of CNET, let’s talk about the ethical position of their editorial staff. They are famous for stealing stories that bloggers got to first. When we broke the Google – Youtube acquisition, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times both credited us for the story. But when we broke the Microsoft-Tellme acquisition, CNET wrote about it too (three weeks later) but didn’t give credit (even though it was widely discussed in the blogosphere). I let it go, since a link from Om sends a lot more page views than a link from CNET anyway. But if you ask a few tech bloggers if the same thing happened to them, they’ll tell you it did.
Another lovely CNET moment – the day they wrote an article criticizing TechCrunch for having typos.
(note that there are exceptions at CNET – Elinor Mills in particular, who’s an awesome writer and who has a standing job offer to come work for us at TechCrunch should she ever desire a substantial raise and stock options. The ZDNet staff is equally excellent.)
For these and other reasons, CNET is but a shadow of its former self.
So I apologize if I am hesitant to take advice from an uninformed and conflicted journalist who works for CNET. You represent everything that we bloggers are trying to kill, so excuse us if we choose to work out our issues without your input.
The next time you feel the need to condescend to the blogosphere and tell us what we need to do, Cooper, just stop. ‘Cause you aren’t in the club and your opinions are irrelevant. When you say “but I’m not sure we’re any closer to agreeing on the answer” to your church/state question, you forget that no one considers you worthy to be at the table participating in the debate.
You’d be much better off starting a blog of your own and seeing what this world is all about. In the meantime, why don’t you go write a story about Google acquiring GrandCentral. It was yesterday’s news, so it’s right up your alley.
Want to go another round, Cooper? I’m up for it. I’ve been trashed daily by Valleywag and hundreds of others for two years now. Nothing you can say will be nearly as difficult to handle (you aren’t half as smart, or 1/3 as mean, as Nick Denton), and I can throw mud with the best of them. But if you’ve had enough, good. Because I’d like to get back to writing about startups, if you don’t mind.
Update - I’m glad to see Dave Winer write on this as well. I wrote this before reading his post. We use different words but seem to come to a similar conclusion – get out of our business, Cooper. Dave’s light criticisms hurt far worse than anything you could ever write. And I also note Donna Bogatin’s post (she’s a former CNET/ZDNet writer), where she points to a little hypocrisy at CNET.
Go Mike! Go! Excellent post.
Give ‘em hell, Mike. I never saw any of the original “ads” ValleySkag was bitching about – although I read most of the blogs that were criticized for running the ads. Either I don’t see them in Google Reader, or I am just blind to ads (I KNOW I am blind to ads).
But for CNET to allow this level of “reporting” – while also holding some smug type of “we are REAL journalists” attitude is laughable.
Screw ‘em. Their readership is declining. How about yours? See. Screw ‘em!
Rob
Mike, nicely done dude. CNET was really on top of their game about 5 years ago…good to see you put Cooper back in his place (or lack thereof).
I don’t think I ever got to the point of saying you were “wrong.” I just thought it could have been disclosed better — Leo Laporte does actual real endorsements (your thing wasn’t even close to an endorsement) and doesn’t get heck because he discloses and it’s clear that his speech is paid for when he does it. I said I had done similar campaigns with Intel (although they weren’t so goofy to ask me to write anything specific about an ad campaign) and I didn’t get heck for that because I disclosed PodTech was getting paid by Intel to do that.
Well played Mr. Arrington, well played. I still don’t entirely agree with the FM thing, but I read the C-Net article and you’re spot on.
Good luck with the new ad agency and what not.
Lovely, Mike. And for the record, who really reads CNET’s editorial these days? Product reviews, sure, but news pieces? Nay.
You’ve singled out the lame caribou. A mighty kill, sir.
Well said Mike , a few “professional” journalists on this side of the pond act the same way. There view is bloggers are upstarts and they are the professionals “how dare those bloggers take our traffic and break stories before us” …
Guess what we will continue too because we are actively part of the community not just reporting on it.
Way to go Mike. Blogosphere may have difference of opinion on People Ready campaign. My opinion about the issue is opposite to your views. But there is no way a traditional media journalist can take advantage of this difference of opinion and slam the entire blogosphere. Kudos for standing up to defend blogosphere.
I hate seeing it come to this, but sometimes this is the only thing we can do – so fight on and keep telling it like it is. When the world changes, there are those who cling on to everything they know for dear life, defending it blindly to the end, and those who embrace the change and enjoy the ride, however bumpy that may be.
I still can hardly believe that some of these guys continue to rally around the church/state argument when it comes to publishing. It isn’t about imaginary walls, it is about integrity, trust, honesty and being a genuine part of the conversation – to this extent, many professional journalists, despite their well placed intentions, will never really get it. Let them all hang out with Andrew Keen and have a snicker over this – long live the truthiness of the bloggers who are really engaged in market conversations that matter!
hi Mike,
you’re right — CNET should have stayed far away from this topic and the way that Charles Cooper covered it wasn’t the best either. But you too should have maintained your professionalism and refrained from attacking them publicly. The better way to go about it is to simply (and quietly) steal their audience one step at a time.
Cnet is Old, Tired, and Busted. They’re like an old washed up rock star still trying to stay relevant..but they just can’t change their tunes. And for a “tech” company, they have got one of the crappiest, spam/junk filled websites I’ve ever seen….every page is like 5% article content and 95% junk. And don’t get me started on the commenting system. What a joke.
But worst of all, the people there actually think they have this huge influence and authority in the tech world. They used to…back in the 90s…but guess what? times have changed and left you behind.
“That’s what journalists do – write about things they don’t know and don’t care about.”
Generalize much Mike?
We like your slammin’ response to an undercooked CNET opinion piece even though issues concerning ethical disclosure of interest still exist in mainstream blogging circles.
Mike D – good point. I tempered that statement.
Awesome post. I think every blogger can relate to a big media company not giving crap about things you’re passionately blogging about. It’s great motivation in some ways.
Above all, issues concerning ethical disclosure of interest also exist in mainstream media (CNET and others).
Mike you rock!
I think a fact that got lost throughout this brouhaha is that Mike is the editor and founder of TechCrunch. Therefore, he could publish whatever he thinks regardless of whatever personal bias he has over a particular “sponsor”.
Come on, this is not something new. Even traditional media establishments tend to slant in one way or another. Nobody is truly neutral.
I respect Mike for standing up for what he thinks is in the best interest of TechCrunch.
I’ve got to say that before the whole People Ready blowup I’d never heard of your blog (I read mostly politics…). After seeing the fallout and your STRONG response to your critics like Cooper trust me, you’re now on the top of my RSS reader list.
Keep up the good work Mike; give ‘em hell!
Scoble, reading your opinion on ethics is like asking George Bush to teach grammar. If you still don’t understand that “Intel paid PodTech to say so” and “Intel paid me to say so” are the same thing, then you’ve truly lost any credibility.
I really am proud of you for this post Michael.
I think that because of people like you, the Blogsphere will keep on living.
Way to go.
Intel didn’t tell me what to say. They just wanted me to write an essay on computing, which I did. It didn’t have prior restraint. I posted it and it was never edited/changed. It was marked as an ad. I disclosed it on my blog and that’s why you never read about it on Valleywag cause there wasn’t any ethical controversy about it.
OF COURSE PodTech getting paid is pretty much the same thing as if I were paid directly. With one sizeable difference. The money ain’t in my pocket — at least not directly. I only own a small percentage of PodTech so ostensibly eventually I’ll share in profits and all that but it sure isn’t a direct line into my pocket — if you’re worried about ethical lapses you’ve gotta agree that money that goes directly into my pocket has a more corrosive effect than money that goes into PodTech’s bank accounts. Just for completeness’ sake there are more than 30 employees of PodTech now. PodTech gets paid for a lot of different things.
My ethical policy is pretty clear. I’ll disclose any financial payments made to EITHER PodTech or me for any content we produce. If you have any questions about content on PodTech or one of my blogs or Twitter/Jaiku/Facebook etc, feel free to call me. My cell phone number is always on my blog but it’s 425-205-1921.
Does CNET let you call day or night to check on ethics and/or disclosure?
I never read CNET, but people you know and trust are trying to tell you something and your not listening.
Your People Ready actions and reactions make all bloggers look bad.
I appreciate your candid response, but:
“OF COURSE PodTech getting paid is pretty much the same thing as if I were paid directly. With one sizeable difference. The money ain’t in my pocket — at least not directly. I only own a small percentage of PodTech so ostensibly eventually I’ll share in profits and all that but it sure isn’t a direct line into my pocket — if you’re worried about ethical lapses you’ve gotta agree that money that goes directly into my pocket has a more corrosive effect than money that goes into PodTech’s bank accounts” – your employer is getting paid to publish something which would probably otherwise would not have been published. Even if you don’t have a stake in PodTech (which you do, you stated), you are now working at a P.R agency, not an objective media outlet, therefore, I, as any reader, should not care if the money goes directly to your pocket or not, it is still a piece being paid by a non-editorial party so, as I said before, you are now a part of their P.R/Ad campaign. There’s no harm in being a P.R, but anyone seeking objective opinion would not consider someone who is sometimes P.R and sometimes not as objective. You may (and in fact you do) have this great ability to deliver the message better, but this is not journalism. Mike may think cooper doesn’t understand how a blogger is different from a journalist, but if being a blogger means I can shift my ethics if it pays me to do so, then we should find some other name for this occupation. Disclaimers do not solve all the ethics problems – sometimes you just need to say no to a client (heck, even the fact that you have “clients” mean that you are not objective, in this sense).
Jerry: I disagree. This post did NOT get made to MY content stream. It was advertorial. You telling me that pros never do advertorials? Yeah, right. They do them all the time. You just never see their names. Well, except on radio where the pros do “endorsements” all the time.
I got really famous when I worked for Microsoft and did a video blog there. That was COMPLETELY on company dime. Yet my content on channel9.msdn.com got 4.3 million unique visits there a month.
So, clearly, people didn’t seem to mind when I was clearly biased and had some real conflicts of interest. Why not? Because I disclosed.
I also only want smart readers on my blog. Smart readers can tell when I’ve done something that I wouldn’t otherwise do.
Smart readers can tell the difference between advertising and editorial copy. Especially when the writer/producer of such makes a promise to always make the two clearly separate (and leaves his email, Facebook open, Twitter open, Jaiku open, and his cell phone open for you to call and clear up any conflicts at any time).
I haven’t sold my ethics down the creek. And my Intel post was what I wanted to say, not influenced in any way by Intel. The only thing they influenced is where it was written. That’s all.
If that’s called an ethical lapse, well, then, sorry, I’m gonna have to get some of that sand that Mike wants you to pound.
I’m not naughty because they (Valleywag/CNet/whoever) are waaaaaaay more naughty.
Yeah. Great defense. Factually accurate and yet completely beside the point. Unless of course the point your trying to make is that if bloggers ignore ethics and write about stuff you don’t care about (like being “People Ready”) just for the money, they will become like CNet hacks.
But I doubt that’s the point you’re trying to make.
Anyway, I’m afraid if you continue shooting the messenger you’re only providing them with more ammo.
One would be tempted to draw the conclusion that old media and new media are mainly about the same thing: entertainment. It’s like watching the Jerry Springer show only with articulate guests…
I gotta say, you’re not making a lot of friends right now. As a reader, I don’t want to hear about how hard it is for you, because you gotta pay the bills, etc. Not when but a week ago I was reading a glowing profile piece on how you ruminate about selling out for a 20 million dollar payoff. Now you sound like a drug dealer talking about how you got mouths to feed. You’re not struggling, so don’t try to evoke sympathy.
I’ve read TechCrunch for quite a while, but apparently you’re ego may have outgrown me as a reader. My advice: stop throwing elbows and let the story die.
Well said Mike
I gave up reading CNET six months ago, my 2 cents, leave this one go, go back to you what you do best like breaking the GrandCentral story yesterday and supporting tiny little start-ups like us in Ireland.
Thanks for all your help.
Seems that CNET and a few of the old guard media pubs (the ones who publishers were buying big homes on Nantucket and the Vineyard just ten years ago) have taken the gloves off recently. Does that really surprise anyone?
To quote some Motley Crue – “Knock ‘em Dead Kid!”
Rex
I’m sorry Michael, but I’m not going to buy this rather poor attempt at a bait-and-switch.
You want more credibility than mainstream media, while having looser ethical standards. That’s ludicrous, and I’ve yet to see a single post from you or anyone else that can justify that. All the macho bluster and posturing you write above isn’t going to change that.
Robert says: “Yeah, right. They do them all the time. You just never see their names.”
And that’s the point, Robert. They might be selling their copywriting skills: they are NOT selling their credibility, which is what Michael, Om and the rest were doing.
The las titme I read any CNEt article was 1999..
CENT is so 1999.. Done, Lost touch, and is now the old media breathing its last breathe..
Give ‘em hell Mike!
I always knew you and Ted were the Odd Couple of the blogosphere…fight the good fight, but consider Scoble’s disclosure policy suggestions and the concept of ad networks (whether it be FM or PPP) requiring disclosure from their bloggers…who should decide your policy, you or John?
Mike,
This is the second post I’ve read where you have said you’re looking for a new ad agent.
I know you’re very busy running the TechCrunch network, but I think you have an opportunity to use this to galvanize an open ad network. One where the publishers keep 100% of the revenue. (Think the MySQL of ad networks.)
I know you already have created something very vulnerable – but this could be a Google size opportunity
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/googles_potential_vulnerability_open_ad_network.php
- Sean
Mike, I think you are wrong on this one, but Cooper is, as usual, wronger… *Surprise, surprise*? jeje.
Yeah, a lot of us bloggers get that CNet is pretty weak. The last time I went there to really read the site was to check out LCD TV reviews. I just assume it’s a place for people to pimp product.
A reason why I was annoyed at your MSFT ads was because you were taking a step closer to being like CNET, and you didn’t disclose. That’s really it.
Mike, good for you for handling the issue the way you did (sticking up for yourself). But in the end, hasn’t Denton orchestrated exactly what was intended? Chaos with deafening echos through the blogosphere and then you ending up leaving Federated Media? You could have at least gone to Battelle and told him your rates had gone up and he had 3 months to hit a certain sell-through rate or he was out?
@Niki – likewise, John Battelle could have consulted his publishers and got their input on how to respond, before he threw Michael “under the bus.”
For someone who says you doesn’t give a damn, you sure seem steamed. Cooper should send you a thank-you card for boosting his hits.
What you did represents no new media paradigm. It’s an old-fashioned conflict of interest dressed up with new media marketing babble. And I just love your pretentiousness in claiming to speak for bloggers against those old-fashioned media types who actually believe that editorial and advertising activities should be separate.
You should learn to quit while you’re behind.
Great post. Most journalists don’t have the balls to be entrepreneurs, which is why they don’t ‘get’ blogging. They don’t see that the types of items TechCrunch etc. publishes, are not the same thing as the type of stories they’re used to covering. Different types of stories, different ways of getting the stories, it’s as simple as that.
Shame on Batelle for throwing his publishers under the bus. Apparently he doesn’t get it, either.
Mike – although I have said you are wrong in regard to your position about the FM deal last weekend, and harshly so, I completely agree with you here. Charles Cooper’s input is laughably irrelevant. He’s been replaced but I guess he didn’t get the memo.
damn mike…you can be an asshole. I did not realize. You should have just dropped it and not even responded, now you sound out of control. Everyone knows you have been paid by some of the companies you write about, but we still read your blog. I guess we don’t really care that you do that which is why we’d rather read a blog than a real media site. I don’t even know this Cooper guy, but I hope he is alright after having read this.
While everyone will have their opinion, I am looking forward to the day when the mainstream becomes irrelevant. Of course, that may not happen in our lifetimes, but given the shift in media to individuals from large corporations, only time will tell its demise.
As a blogger and new media producer, I can tell you that it’s definitely not cool to have breaking stories you DO NOT receive credit for … such as my 16GB GMail story … my Kevin Rose interview … and so on.
Unfortunately, I see many “A-list” bloggers (whatever the hell that means) becoming more like the mainstream — Inaccessible, with a fortress of walled-gardens.
Andy – if you read my commentary on the subject (click my name) that’s exactly what I suggested as well. FM should have brought the affected publishers together for a defined response.
CNET confuses me. I’ve never recognized it as a source for news about anything, but a site about tech products, and mostly consumer facing at that. That they want to cross into other areas is fine, but I think it’d best come from consistent, sturdy reporting on it versus getting into noisy fights with other people in the market. Not everybody needs to write about Web 2.0 companies or compete with TechCrunch. I think they’d be better off deciding on one identity, and going from there. The site would certainly do better.
I do like it for downloads – all the trialware there is fantastic. But, it’s never been a source for technology business news, and I have a hard time migrating to that mindset, given their previous market position.
@ Allen, great comment. That would have probably solved a lot of issues right there.
more bullying from the king of internet payola. intimidation works for you – why be subtle about it?
forget about addressing the issues, really – you’re trying to grow a company, after all. but here’s the thing – this payola scandal is not going away. it’s important – you crossed the line and continue to cross it and you’re continuing to damage what little credibility the blogosphere has left. stop the ads, apologize, and _then_ we can move on.
it’s just a matter of time before this scandal shows up in full glory on wikipedia. we’ll be talking about it for the next 30 years. and you’ll still be lookin like Pete Rose – pathetic.
and your argument that “C|Net is worse!” is nonsensical – it’s more misdirection. it reminds me of Bush-lovers who, after seeing the horrid pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib, argued “Saddam was worse!”. they didn’t seem to get the point – just like you.
don’t confuse your ’support’ in the blogosphere for anything genuine. sure, you have your fanboys, but Dave “Let’s stop all this” Winer and crew realize that your involvement in this payola scheme hurts _all_ bloggers – that’s why we want this thing to go away.
Mike, I called Charles Cooper out on not disclosing that he’s a competitor to Google News when he was constantly and consistently bashing them last year right on my blog. The same thing he thinks he is calling you out on, he is the guiltiest of doing.
This guy has more opinion (read negative) pieces on his competitors than anyone else in the business, if that is not lack of journalistic integrity, I don’t know what is! Read for yourself.
http://geekspeaker.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!588D139CAFEFE462!565.entry
It’s quite funny how much this guy makes an ass out of himself. It’s not funny however that there are many people under him that are writing good content all the time, and he is not only ruining his own repuation, but doing damage to theirs.
too much techmeme reading. i’d venture to guess most of your readers do not even read cnet editorials, or care what they have to say, so really what is the point of this post? Except maybe to shift the focus?