Memo to Don Graham: Thar He Blows…
Another day, another tech blog eruption featuring Michael “The Volcano” Arrington of TechCrunch and, this time, Wired’s Betsy “Ain’t-Backing-Down” Schiffman.
When last we checked in with Arrington, he was elegantly telling Chris Shipley that her longstanding tech conference might want to take a dirt nap. Specifically: “Demo needs to die.”
But that’s not all!
Before that, Arrington was comparing tech blogs to gangs and contemplating bloody fights with some post-bashing tango. In it, he advised tech blogs not to raise money and talked of the importance of sector roll-ups without, oops, actually mentioning TechCrunch was both considering raising money and doing a roll-up of tech blogs.
Here’s one incredible quote from the piece: “Personally, I’ve found that if a fight is necessary, fight clean and fight hard. Make it as bloody as possible and end it fast, with no loose ends dangling about. Leave no lingering emotional stone unturned. When everyone gets up and dusts themselves off, the issue should have been resolved one way or the other, and both sides should be happy to shake hands and tango another day, even if the handshaking is done privately.”
In the latest kerfuffle, Schiffman wrote what was a minor criticism at the very end of a piece about a syndication deal that TechCrunch struck with the Washington Post (WPO).
She wrote: “We’ve got nothing against TechCrunch, but it seems crazy-crazy to us that the Washington Post, a paper known for the sort of reporting that can take down U.S. presidents, is publishing content written by a dude who invests in the companies he writes about. But what do we know.”
Snarky yes, but Arrington writes like this all the time (as does BoomTown).
More importantly, since Arrington does actually invest in several companies and says he also advises some covered by TechCrunch (see here in a very short disclosure, given he invested his own money), it is not an outrageous point to make related to a deal with a venerable media institution like the Post.
In any case, Arrington has got to have heard this one before and in much worse ways.
I know I have many times due to my relationship with Megan Smith, who is currently a vice president at Google (GOOG), as is disclosed here in detail, even though I do not own one single share in the company and–TMI–we split all costs exactly down to the penny (except for all those pricey over-and-above-birthdays-and-Christmas toys she likes to buy for our kids, which I sensibly refuse to pay for).
As I wrote in my disclosure: “I am well aware of the controversies surrounding ethics online now swirling about, some of which have resulted in giving readers some pause about the quality and honesty of some in the blogosphere. Such wariness is always a good thing for everyone and I encourage readers to ask tough questions and demand more of those providing them information of all kinds. I know that I am asking for a large measure of trust from readers of the site, and I pledge to do everything I can to be deserving of that trust.”
So I get maybe being irked, especially if you are trying to be as transparent as possible, and maybe writing Wired a stern note saying it was unfair.
But instead of that, he chose to respond by putting out another set of classy bons mots on Twitter: “Wow. F*** You too, Wired.”
In a post yesterday, peacefully titled “OK, Wired, Let’s Do This,” Arrington blamed this explosion on “a night of heavy drinking at the Time 100 party.”
OK, maybe he’s drunk and incredibly rash, but it was liquor imbibed at a very important soiree!
But post-drinking, I assume since it was posted in the afternoon, Arrington followed up with another winner on Twitter: “No one at Wired is responding to me today about their post yesterday. I’m organizing a Wired burning party (the mag, not their offices).”
Well, phew, just the magazines on fire! Ha, ha, ha!
Actually, not funny at all–I am just humorless about book-burning, so I will take any and all criticism on the subject for that stance, given the ugly history of the burning of media–but there you have it.
Except not at all.
Arrington wrote his own piece yesterday, which was meant to be reasonable, although it was seeping with indignation about small slights over when and how Wired responded to him (which appeared to have been done, but not to his liking, as Wired’s follow-up responding to Arrington’s antics recounted) and with too much of a gotcha focus on what is a dumb, name-calling tag word Wired used on the story.
But while he was right about the juvenile tag, Arrington then, like clockwork, in the very same piece called Schiffman a “troll.”
Well, at least he’s consistent.
But not at all like what I know the Washington Post expects from those it affiliates with, which is to say making the highest and most strenuous efforts to be civil, fair and temperate.
While it has not always succeeded at this–its Janet Cooke debacle in the early 1980s, for example, was a black eye–the Post has always tried to aim for the highest of standards.
How do I know this? Because I started delivering mail at the Post while I was in college at Georgetown University, was later an intern there and then a reporter for a decade more.
I could not be more proud of my time there or be more in admiration of the people who work there every day–even in these tough times for newspapers–who try very hard to act, when representing the Post, as professionals.
No one exemplifies that more than the Post’s owner and CEO Don Graham (pictured here), whom I admire profoundly. At once a gentle soul and also wise to the ways of the world, Graham is a true hero of mine.
While I love my various jobs at Dow Jones (NWS), I have missed being at the Post many times over the years, and Graham and I have always been in touch.
So I am very sorry to see the Post dragged into this temper tantrum by one of its new contributors, sullying its fine reputation.
And if it is just showboating, as some have suggested–a traffic-inducing faux wrestling match for the cheap seats in the back (and they are cheap)–than it is a lousy show.
In any case, Arrington will surely once again–as he has–claim that competitors like Wired and also this site should not comment on his behavior at TechCrunch (and, just to be clear, AllThingsD, wholly owned by Dow Jones, is not vying with TechCrunch to appear in the Washington Post either).
But standards and public online conduct are an increasingly important issue, if the blogosphere–as I believe Arrington must want also–is to have the kind of credibility it deserves.
And while Arrington and I obviously do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff–I have criticized some of TechCrunch’s practices and Arrington’s own professional behavior directly to him via email and to others and I have even written about it several times (here, for example)–I do admire TechCrunch’s energy and relentless focus and the way it has forced others to compete more rigorously in covering the Web 2.0 sector.
And, lastly, whether Schiffman or I question such a syndication deal, it really does not matter, since it is solely up to the editors of the Post as to what they want to publish.
So, if they choose TechCrunch, that’s their decision.
But–and I can’t wait to see what delightful name Arrington slings at me for saying so–TechCrunch, in accepting what is a real honor and validation from one of this country’s great media organizations, should be ashamed of returning the favor by dragging the Post into a largely unprovoked and dirty gutter fight.
Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.
Comments
Filed under “blogger trolling blogger troll who trolls bloggers.”
Actually, a nice read. I love how you reveal your sensitive side, while stabbing away at the Bull in the Silicon Shop.
Speaking of which, who else wants to see Arrington and Ballmer enter the Thunderdome?
You had me at the volcano diagram, nice.
Posted by Bruce Evans at May 14th, 2008 at 8:47 amWell, better the WaPo see this now than six months in, right?
Throwing in their lot with a single tech blog instead of following a model more similar to Blogburst was asking for something like this. The blog world gets into pissing matches all the time, and either they knew that and decided that any press is good press or they thought it would stop once TC was associated with the WaPo is anyone’s guess. In the end, however, everyone who lays down with dogs comes up with fleas.
Posted by Cyndy Aleo-Carreira at May 14th, 2008 at 8:52 amCyndy, I believe PaidContent has a syndication deal with the Washington Post as well. See here: http://www.centernetworks.com/.....ingtonpost
Posted by Megan McCarthy at May 14th, 2008 at 11:20 amAs a journalist myself, not being able to act the way I wanted in public at times is the price of admission to do the news. I’ve been happy to pay it. Credibility is everything.
Arrington appears clue-impaired when it comes to an obvious conflict of interest, Gizmodo carries on with their boorish antics at CES, Fake Steve Jobs compromises his employer’s integrity. The list seems to go on and on.
Glad I took another route out of the news industry, and still get to do what I love without acting like a spoiled child, or lacking a basic understanding of the foundations of credibility.
Posted by Eric Welch at May 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pmGotta say Kara, you are calling this wrong. I think there is an incredible amount of professional jealousy surrounding Mike. He’s good at what he does, his passion is a plus - even when it gets intense. And his Post deal clearly blew away (emotionally) the Wired crew. They are the bad actors here. He’s in reaction mode and actually being quite reserved.
And I really think his reaction doesn’t affect the Post or its reputation at all.
Disclosure, Mikes a friend and I’m biased naturally. But not my only friend. As I read the sources and the comments I just think you’re on the wrong side of this one.
Keith
Posted by Keith Teare at May 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pmNot that it matters because you have already written your piece, but I think Arrington’s and Schiffman’s posts and comments on the issue and the issue itself is not news-worthy especially because of the lack of professionalism on both their parts. I am surprised I got all the way through your post.
Posted by Rick Murtagh at May 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pmThis is more like gossip than news.
Great post Kara, totally agree with it.
It would have been nice to have seen Arrington taken the higher ground here. There is no need to lash out at people publicly all the time when you get upset. This seems to be a blog trait, and one that will ultimately ruin credibility for everyone.
People get tired of whiners, and vengeful soap operas. He seems to have diarrhea of the mouth and needs to shut up.
He needs to ignore people and work on growing his company. When incidents like this happen, he is taking two steps back for every step of progress.
Posted by Ian Bell at May 14th, 2008 at 2:53 pmKeith:
I appreciate your email and you are a very good friend to post here.
But, my main point, more than anything, was conduct and I am perplexed that Michael felt he has to make three boorish comments in a row that just were not what I would expect of someone who just struck a deal with the Post.
I would have to disagree strongly that he was in any way reserved.
I do know many people at the Post are appalled by those remarks.
Bad actors or not, it is bogus to blame jealousy and use it as an excuse for bad behavior in fighting off criticism. If he had managed to control himself and taken the high road, he would have prevailed.
He might think he has the right to say anything he wants, and I guess he does, but that’s a pretty lame use for freedom of speech.
True story: A kid at my six-year-old son’s school said something not nice to him recently that had a grain of truth in it, but was needlessly cruel.
It hurt my son a lot, I can assure you, but he managed not to strike back by saying something just as bad to the other kid, which would have been easy and satisfying even.
If my six-year-old has the presence of mind to control himself on a playground, I think Michael Arrington surely can do it in a public forum.
Posted by Kara Swisher at May 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pmWell, if I were a net journalist and had to be affiliated with Old Media, I’d sure rather be affiliated with WSJ than WaPo. So, stay above the fray. I’ve tried to get into TechCrunch before I had ever heard of Arington and just couldn’t keep my interest up. Not sure why. But reading of Aringtons showboating has kept me from venturing back. Maybe WaPo will figure that out too, and if not, well, how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by Mac Beach at May 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pmtruth be told Kara, if you know mike well then you’d agree with Keith: only tweeting ‘F*#k Off’ and ‘let’s have a Wired mag burning party’ instead of posting on TC or Crunchnotes *IS* actually reserved behavior for Mike
personally, i think the ethics issue is ridiculously overstated. there’s a difference between WaPo and the New York Post of course, but to think that any large media outlet isn’t substantially influenced by advertisers — or other people of money or power — is incredibly naive, and smacks of elitism, not ethics. mike isn’t shy of stating what he invests in, and in Silicon Valley pretty much everyone and their grandmother are angels in 3 or 4 startups (i’m in ~15).
furthermore, to suggest that newspapers and/or media properties that don’t have direct investments / ownership interests are somehow devoid of any such conflicts is complete BS. they have conflicts from debt & revenue, if not equity. they certainly have conflicts due to sex, power, guns, drugs, politics & other currencies of influence. however for the most part you don’t hear about those.
finally, the manner in which betsy called him out was itself childish & conflicted. not to mention taking it to the level of calling out WaPo to eff around with the TC deal is COMPLETELY AND OBVIOUSLY conflicted. she is far beyond hypocritical there.
mike may be capricious, vindictive, sexist, arrogant, and combative… but he’s also hard-working, very intelligent, funny, entertaining, and as far as i’m aware generally not a crook.
my .02,
- dave “no conflict, no interest” mcclure
Posted by dave mcclure at May 15th, 2008 at 12:20 amDave:
Unlike Keith, you are entirely clueless as to exactly how important ethics are to news organizations like the Post.
Posted by Kara Swisher at May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am