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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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