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.
Lessons learnt from the People Ready controversy…
I know you don’t want to read another blog post about the People Ready controversy, which was ignited by Valleywag on Friday US and turned into an all-in brawl over the weekend. But I feel obligated to sum up my……
Mike D - good point. I tempered that statement.
[...] The thing that is very interesting is Michaels blog-respond to the Cnet journalist. He has a few strong arguments that can be applied to every news-organization. [...]
GNC-2007-06-26 #279…
Welcome to Listen to a Podcast day and the streaming day of silence, no silence here and congrats to Sandy S on the cash award! Sponsors: [Save 10% off on any order at GoDaddy.com!] Use Code Todd [Try GoToMeeting free……
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.
GNC-2007-06-26 #279…
Welcome to Listen to a Podcast day and the streaming day of silence, no silence here and congrats to Sandy S on the cash award! Sponsors: [Save 10% off on any order at GoDaddy.com!] Use Code Todd [Try GoToMeeting free……
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!
[...] The thing that is very interesting is Michaels blog-respond to the Cnet journalist. He has a few strong arguments that can be applied to every news-organization. [...]
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.
[...] Blogs are taking over the other Web-based publications. Tech Crunch’s Mike Arrington (who is furious at a CNET writer): 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. [CNET’s Charles Cooper is] 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. [...]
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…
[...] Besértődött a cnet a bloggerekre. LOL. http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=411 « előző | hirbehozo — 2007. 06. 26. 13:14 [...]
[...] Besértődött a cnet, arrington lemos: http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=411 « előző | hirbehozo — 2007. 06. 26. 13:20 [...]
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?
[...] Long time readers will know too well that I hate any attempts to try and mold the blogosphere into a controlled medium with strict rules and regulations. It’s for that reason that I join Michael Arrington in being somewhat annoyed (if we weren’t PG13, I might have used other language) at Charles Cooper’s attempt to create a meme that bloggers should have a “church and state” attitude when it comes to editorial and advertising. [...]
[...] מייקל ארינגטון (טקקראנצ‘) כתב אתמול תגובה מאלפת על כך שצ‘רלס קופר מ-CNET השמיץ אותו ובלוגרים טכנולוגיים אחרים בנושא קבלת כסף על כתבות. שווה קריאה, ונותן זוית מעניינת ומאוד תקפה לדעתי על מה קורה לעיתונות הישנה בעידן העיתונות החדשה – הבלוגים. [...]
@Niki - likewise, John Battelle could have consulted his publishers and got their input on how to respond, before he threw Michael “under the bus.”
[...] Mike Arrington of Techcrunch came out swinging hard against all critics this morning, and particularly against FM CEO John Battelle for giving his publishers “a slap on the wrist.” That is, he felt that he had done no wrong and expected his advertising partner to stand up strongly for him. [...]
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.
[...] We introduce Charles Cooper on CNet and in the other corner, Michael Arrington on CrunchNotes, something tells us that Mike is going to win this one. Payola or not, the blogosphere is the one place you can say “mea culpa” and people generally get on with it once the attention has died down. Another prime example of Technological ADD that most of us here tend to deal with on a daily basis. However, what is it with CNet not wanting to let go of the dog. [...]
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.
[...] The Microsoft sponsored and blogger fueled “conversational marketing” ad campaign continues to fuel a blogosphere conversation. [...]
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?
I’m with you, Mike, excpet for the part of looking for a new agency. Switch to an all open ad network.
“Looking for a new ad agency” is so last millennium.
@David, I do! and have for many years. I remember when CNET was started.
No less, my point remains the same.
[...] The blogosphere conversation inspired by the Microsoft fueled “marketing conversation” continues. [...]
only diff is the little passionate guys are winning this war
doh! I tried to embed this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcvaSnmqZ40
perfect metaphor
Ya know, if you really don’t give a damn, just ignore ‘em and move on. This little rant of yours was way too long for me to actually believe that you don’t care. Grudges aren’t fun, Mike. Do us all a favor and have a happy pill or two, and then go back to the good stuff, like telling us what’s on Google’s shopping list today.
Just remember what I keep saying… controversy creates cash. In this example, it created some amount of cash for all parties involved.
Well , i don’t really give a shit about the all Valleywag story.
I care about one thing : quality of news , and this is what Techcrunch has given me , and this is what Cnet stopped to do.
Also Mike , i think its was not smart to call the guy idiot , don’t be too emotional.
Wow! I have never heard of you before, or your blog.
Now I have, and you sound like a complete dick! Thanks CNET et. al. for the warning.
Wow Mike, what did you have for breakfast dude?
i still want to know where all the rage is over the Hakia “Search for Better Search” campaign quoting Michael. Could it be there is no angst because it’s NOT MICROSOFT?
I’m going with human nature and hypocrisy. It’s the only plausible explanation. Way to hold your ground Michael.
How much is Microsoft paying you to write this? Idiot. And for context, consider who I am.
The blogosphere is self-policing. We bloggers watch each other and confront one another when necessary.
It’s natural for media sites to bash blogs any chance they get. As they become more bloggy themselves, as AOL News just today launched their new, bloggier site.
We are pioneers, and we are going to make mistakes.
But one suggestion I’ll make now: don’t allow Anonymous comments here. They tend to be the more stupid, malicious types.
Anonymous Trolls are the cowardly wanker disruptors of the web. Cast them out and banish them. They provide no “user generated content” of any value.
@ vaspers at the gate, it isn’t that media is becoming “bloggy”. It’s that there’s a huge transition in place. Blogs got a foothold because media was too busy trying to figure out how to keep their PRINT editions going, versus looking online as they should have been. Pre-MySpace sale, there weren’t a lot of established companies online developing or delivering content. Those who did made a meager effort at best or just used what was in their print edition without any sort of formal effort to promote their online content. The MySpace sale was, at least from my perspective, the turning point for everything to move onto the web - NOT because of anything MySpace did but because the conditions were very ripe for it.
Lack of content + blogs - old school media online = popularity of blogs among users.
It’s nonsensical to make it anything more than that.
Dear Mike,
Apologies for the delayed response as I’ve been tied up with a few things for most of the day. Just got through reading your post. I guess you’re not yet fully “people ready” (only kidding) but let me try and address a few of the comments made by you and some of the talkback posters here.
You write that I’m on “a personal crusade to sully the reputation of the blogging community in general.”
Couldn’t be further from the truth. Here’s my Monday post (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9734439-7.html) I’ll let folks here judge for themselves. But if the links or quotes back to what you wrote are not accurate, please let me know.
Seems that the new marketing buzz here is to be a part of a greater conversation. And does that conversation ignore a granite wall to keep corporate influence out of the finished product? I’ve carefully read your posts but I still believe the FM situation crossed a line. Obviously, you disagree. I don’t suppose I’m going to convince you about that. Maybe one day over a beer.
You’re competitive and dream of supplanting CNET one day. Fine. That’s competition and I’m totally down with free competition. We basically share the same job — and that’s to get stories and put them in front of readers. But doo I truly represent “everything that we bloggers are trying to kill.”? That’s a pretty ugly declaration. Truth be told, I don’t think I’m a bad guy. But I am willing to stand up and challenge the comfortable assumptions when I think they are wrong. If that’s sufficient casus belli, then let the rockets fire away.
[...] Conversational Marketing is an Oxymoron Well, I don’t think I’m going to be invited to speak at the upcoming Conversational Marketing conference by FM. I wrote the note below to John Battelle and I think it summarizes my feelings about why I think Conversational Marketing in the current “People Ready” form diminishes things rather than enhancing them. It has also helped exposed the very elitist vision of many high level bloggers. For the new media to be successful it must be highly participatory and democratic. Despite claims supporting this notion, I’m coming to realize that few “A list” folks have much if any interest in actively engaging with topics they cannot control. This is *very* significant because control of the conversation can be a potent form of censorship, even if “anything goes” once the conversation starts. For tech stuff I think Techmeme shines as an effort to cede increased levels of control to participants more than to elites and hope this vision becomes the dominant one as the blogosphere matures. [...]
Mr. Cooper, can I have some of what you’re smoking please? While I agree overall that CNET has a much wider audience in the high stakes $$$$ digerati that is the Valley, Arrington and even dopes like Denton and Battelle have far, far more cache’ than you.
But I submit the one thing all three have in common is they all are paid MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE THAN YOU.
Do you need to disclose how that doesn’t in any way play into your thinking when you write? Did Nick need to disclose how much less he makes than Michael and how that motivates him? Did Battelle need to disclose how much he and FM make period and why he was so scared by this silliness?
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Again, where is the angst over the Hakia advertorial. I have no problem poking a bunch of freaking hypocrites with a stick. Disclosure is something that’s nice to talk about, like World Peace…but in practice, nobody really discloses the stuff that actually drives all the hypocrisy.
You have to be freaking kidding me.
Though obviously quite emotional (another difference I guess between mainstream and blogosphere) this was a great post right on target, and I’m glad you put it so bluntly and aggressively.
If anyone at CNET who matters is reading, this is a good example of why I spend my precious time reading TechCrunch and other relevant blogs (or publications for that matter) instead of CNET. The worse part about this, is there was a time when CNET was the go to place for tech and Valley start up news. Now it’s just yesterday’s news, as Mike points out. You have put yourselves in the dust, so badly it has blinded you, and it looks like there’s no hope for you to ever be relevant again.
When has it become important to know where Miss Hilton is?
One word for you: quality.
One word for Cooper: asshole.
[...] I’ve not written about this topic in a long time. Mike Arrington’s post on CrunchNotes nails it. So far it’s garnered 83 comments. The backdrop context isn’t so important as the message mike sends out. If this doesn’t whet your appetite then I don’t know what will: 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. [...]
I have to jump in here…my old friend Charlie Cooper is not an asshole…he is an aggressive reporter/blogger like Mike…complaining that Mike or Om didn’t get back to him promptly was a mistake in his judgment. The bigger issue is participating the FM People Ready manufactured conversational marketing. Mike thinks it’s ok and that’s fine. His audience will not desert him, and Mike is authentic and honest. He can set his own standards and let his audience decide if they are bothered or not. But you don’t have to agree with his take on the take on the FM People Ready subject. Charlie disagrees, I do too. We can agree to disagree and move on, more informed from this episode.
CNet has been in a nosedive for years. They are increasingly irrelevant, and now have latched on to the idea of fanning flamewars. This is far from the first time in the past couple of years.
They came to the blogging table a day late and a dollar short, after gutting their actual reporting staff, which is reduced these days to primarily reprinting press releases. The HP scandal demonstrated that while they could easily report what people called them up to tell them to print, once the story required in-depth exploration, they fell far behind the “real” news organizations in their ability to take it any further.
And their arrogance shows even in Mr. Cooper’s comment here:
“You’re competitive and dream of supplanting CNET one day.”
Wow. Just wow.
To “Michael,”
Wow. Just wow, indeed. Read the Wired article before going off half cocked.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_arrington?currentPage=all
“His aim is to become the premier technology news site on the Internet, one that goes head-to-head with CNET and potentially with other technology news sites, including Wired.com. Arrington figures he can get by with just a few dozen employees. “With 25 to 30 paid writers against CNET’s huge cost base, they won’t be able to compete,” he says.”
No big deal. That’s the free market. Let’s compete.
Good post Mike, on target.
[...] Sorry CNET, You’ve Mistaken Me For Someone Who Gives A Damn I could feel the venom here… (tags: cnet blogging blogosphere techcrunch arrington) [...]
I am all for free markets and competition. this hangup on bogus disclosure has me rankled though It could just be the Giants losing another one run game but that $6 million widescreen jumbotron almost made up for it. so pretty!
Charlie, in the TV business advertisers are fixated on demographics like 18-49 with HH income greater than $100,000. Sometimes a show with relatively low ratings can stick around (say 30 Rock) because it does well in that demographic while another show with similar or better ratings (say Studio 60)gets axed because none of the rich people are watching.
And sometimes, in a free market, which you’re all for, that’s the way it goes. I submit to you that at least here, between San Francisco and San Jose, wherever you want to draw that economic wealth line, TechCrunch (and Michael) won that high end demographic. I think you would agree with this too without argument. I don’t think you need to disclose this on any piece you write about Arrington.
Why are Denton, Scoble, Battelle, Om, etc all so fired up about People Ready but the campaign running at: http://searchforbettersearch.com/ is fine and this ad has not been pulled off of TechCrunch. If any of you — you, Battelle, Denton, etc. can explain why that’s any different at all (other than it’s not Microsoft), fine, I am game for being schooled and learning. But if none of you can explain it, Arrington is well within his rights to tell you all to pound sand.
Dan - I greatly respect your opinion, always. But from where I’m sitting, Cooper sure does look like an asshole to me.
I’m not sure I respect Dan’s opinion yet. Forgetting about Michael and how he’s perceived, I don’t understand why John Battelle is A-OK with the Hakia (search for better search, he’s got the ad running on his own site at battellemedia.com) and not People Ready.
I don’t care either way what FM’s biz model is. If they want to try these new advertorials involving writers I’m fine with it (it’s obvious it’s a sponsored ad, as was People Ready).
I might be fine with the logic that goes into saying the “People Ready” campaign is not at all ok, but the Hakia campaign is — provided that the logic isn’t “People Ready” wasn’t OK because it’s MSFT.
What winds up happening is whether Michael looks arrogant in his posturing or not, he’s at least consistent and not appearing to be hypocritcal.
I don’t understand how Battelle gets to choose “Hakia is OK/People Ready Isn’t” (and again, Battelle is running the ad on his own site). This appears to be inconsistent and hypocritical. If someone can clear the appearance of that up for me, i may be reached at robert.seidman @ gmail. com
[...] As with the reader feedback, I’ve also been following the feedback of the other bloggers involved. Om Malik and Paul Kedrosky both wrote mea culpa posts and pulled the ads. Fred Wilson defended the ads, as did Mike Arrington. Mike is never one to pull punches, in fact he has been throwing plenty on this issue. And I support him on this (even though he might think he is in this battle alone). Both of us are self-made publishers and blogging is our business - and in that respect we are different from Fred and Paul, whose blogs are more personal. [...]
[...] Calacanis goes after everyone. He bashes pay-per-post (which I like), the SEO industry (which bashes him back…hard) and now he’s going after Seth Godin because he thinks that Squidoo (which competes with Calacanis’ Mahalo) is a dirty porno seo back alley. Then you get Mike Arrington, Cnet News and John Battelle’s Federated Media into a fight over FM’s pay-per-post rippoff play. Don’t forget Guy Kawasaki and the whole Trumors mess either. Then you get Valleywag that exposes all these guys and calls them out and then you get uncov calling out Valleywag and everyone they call out (don’t read uncov if you can’t stand profanity). [...]
[...] My own conclusion was that, even with all the disclosure, which could have been a lot better, it was probably a dicey and even flat-out wrong thing for most bloggers to do, except apparently for Michael “Pound Sand” Arrington, who doesn’t appear to care what most anyone thinks anyway (Are you looking at me?) [...]
f1 odds…
linings federalist censurer overlaying commitments….
[...] CrunchNotes » Sorry CNET, You’ve Mistaken Me For Someone Who Gives Posted June 25 | 96 comments. The blogosphere (but not CNET) seems to have moved on from this weekend’s diversionary game of whack-a-blogger. [...]
homeowners insurance claim…
rehearser puzzlings sprints avow …