Yeah, reading that little piece really riled me, too. I was pretty willing to give them the benefit of the doubt but now I'm thinking it's rather pathetic. I actually said pretty much what you did a bit ago over at Blogging Disobediance and the "Me Media"
There are a lot of ways they could have handled this.... moral highroad is NOT one of the ones I would have suspected or advised.
What can I say, they're keeping it "real."
Michael Beckner
· 1 year ago
I think everyone (everyone) needs to dial it back. Anyone weighing heavily in on a silly prank comes out looking too smart by half.
(Does that now include me? D'oh!)
2.0 Weblogs
· 1 year ago
tough call. it's not like they sent out a fake rumor and the stock price dropped hundreds of millions of dollars.
It was a stupid prank and more people should read our wordpress blogs where it's done for love and not for the money.
Well, Brian referring to the "stock price" incident at Engadget is insulting - Engadget did apologize for it, without claiming they did it for some more noble purpose. And constantly talking about the evil "corporations" is so lame: we're not defending some poor part time blogger here, Gizmodo is part of the Gawker machine and will earn a lot of money for their corporate overlords thanks to this stunt, which was the reason it was filmed.
Jeff Crites
· 1 year ago
Sobleizer, agree with your take 100 percent.
Robert W. Anderson
· 1 year ago
I too agree with you regarding Gizmodo. I assume you don't think that your Facebook / Plaxo scraping was a stunt too?
Convince me, because I'm on the fence.
Robert
Brian Benz
· 1 year ago
Self righteous crap. I love this: "I will fill you in on our little secret: TVs turn back on when you press the power button a second time."
How is this different from, for example, a denial of service attack or some other type of disruption on gizmodo? Just like turning off the TVs, no permanent damage, just a temporary interruption, right?
I suspect that it's only a lighthearted prank if it costs someone else.....
And maybe it didn't cost the CES vendors much, I don't know, but one thing's for sure - Gizmodo profited. They are a money-making venture, after all. And now they want us to believe that they did this to "stand up to the man"? Talk about integrity issues....
Patrick Dodds
· 1 year ago
Agree with your take too Robert. Please don't do the naked thing though.
Michael
· 1 year ago
The folks from Gizmodo need to go back and read their Hunter S Thompson. There is a case to be made for gonzo journalism, but being gonzo means WANTING to be kicked out, not apologizing for your actions or trying to explain them away. And booze, lots of booze.
I suspect Lam is right on in his criticism of most tech journalism and blogging - paid junkets ARE unethical, as are gifts or demo models that are not returned or otherwise disposed of according to a published policy - the problem is, his intervention doesn't really join that issue at all. It was just a mindless prank, and the arm waiving about the ethics of it is just a lame post-facto search for an excuse and justification.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Robert: of course it was a stunt. But it was one with an editorial purpose (to get Facebook to change its stance -- it does data sucking, but no data sharing, which is wrong) and it didn't hurt Facebook's ability to do business.
Herschel
· 1 year ago
Well, you know there are a lot of idiots out there and Giz has there share. For professional journalist to do that is plainly STUPID.
Robert, you're right on target with this one. If I were in charge of CES I'd revoke all Giz credentials period, forever.
And then the defense blog posting just put it over the top. Talk about excuse after excuse. They should have just said "We were stupid and wrong to do that stunt, we apologize." And all would have been forgotten.
Diego
· 1 year ago
Little man syndrome, I think it's called.
Ontario Emperor
· 1 year ago
You alluded to the issue of a news reporter making the news, which was clearly the case here. (I see a similar issue with InfoWorld's "Save XP" campaign.)
I haven't really considered the Hunter S. Thompson example, where Thompson clearly insinuated himself into the stories. However, that was Thompson's reason for being; he didn't turn around the next day and produce carefully crafted analyses.
And I already tweeted you about the Nokia thingie.
Mike Gunderloy
· 1 year ago
You and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on everything, Robert, but in this case I'll be right behind you in getting off the bus. Hold the door.
TranceMist
· 1 year ago
The prank was cool.
Too bad it's tied to someone who's motives are perceived as anything other than the fun pursuit of pranks.
Robert W. Anderson
· 1 year ago
Robert,
OK, so we agree it was a stunt.
I understood you had an editorial purpose with Facebook and that you didn't harm their business. I don't agree that "data sucking, but no data sharing . . . is wrong". We accepted their user contract when we signed up. That said, with enough pressure they will change this policy and I'm all for that.
And I really don't think you are like the Gizmodo guys -- I hope I didn't imply it.
Now, please don't go running naked through MacWorld.
sean percival
· 1 year ago
Counter culture blogging? No thanks Lam.
Adrian Sutton
· 1 year ago
Robert, As a streaker, you're a great blogger. :) Please stick to what you're good at or at least turn off the live stream!
DougT
· 1 year ago
Robert-
Thank you for your post. After just reading Brian's post, and all the follow-up commentary afterwards ... I felt like I needed to wretch. Who does Brian think he is, some modern day Che Guevara of tech? Please.
I expect that most people who think this is funny, have never had to earn a living working a trade show floor. Heck, they've probably never even had to make a living speaking in public! The "oh, it's not *that* harmful" argument I keep hearing is just sickening. Since when have we, as a society, degraded to the point where it's not a question of absolute right or wrong, but the quantity? So a little bit wrong, is ok? Let me know where I should start sending the junk faxes - after all, it hardly costs a penny to receive a fax, and no long-term harm is done.
Personally, I think they have gotten off far too easily. What should happen:
1) CES should expand their ban to include Gizmodo entirely for the next 3 years, and all Gawker properties for next year.
2) ANY and ALL companies impacted (Motorola, etc.) should immediately review their banner ad portfolios and have any ads with Gawker terminated immediately, and demand a full refund of any remaining balance.
3) Corporations that are sympathetic to the exhibitors that suffered at CES, should reject calls from Gizmodo editors when they call for information on a product announcement.
4) Other conferences (Macworld, etc.) should seriously consider limiting Gizmodo (and perhaps Gawker) press credentials to 1 person. Period.
5) Everyone else should remove Gizmodo from their RSS reader, and not visit their website, for a period of exactly 1 year from the date of their prank.
Adrian, "a great blogger"? Someone who blabs so much about stuff he doesn't know and cause negative PR to so many ppl for being misinformed.
Too many people read Scoble's comments as Gospel. He does more damage than he will ever realize.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Wow, Scoble, you realize you're partly responsible for creating this monster right?
Jacek Rutkowski
· 1 year ago
Anon@20: Scoble will no doubt find a way to excuse himself of the mess, because you're not picking on other people for doing the same thing.
d2
· 1 year ago
After reading this: "Funny, back in journalism school I was taught that journalists were supposed to report the news, not make it." I'm reminded of this image: http://terkeurst.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06...
and now i gotta go throw up...
Chris
· 1 year ago
What really rankles is the implication that these journalists are in any way counterculture just because they pull a prank and call CES names. Real gonzo journalism questions the entire system, not just makes snarky comments about booth babes. Where's their precious integrity when they're pulling in ad dollars pimping new gadgets? Where's the edginess in passing on the same rumours everyone else is reporting?
Or as CES might say to Gizmodo (apologies to Coppola): 'We're both part of the same hypocrisy, *asshats*'.
Tom O'Leary
· 1 year ago
Interesting how the "Don't make news" chapter from journalism 101 is so easily recounted when someone else is in breach. Was it that long ago when you made news yourself for scraping your Facebook contacts in violation of their TOS? Or when you allowed your son to establish an account in Second Life in violation of theirs? Neither of which are big deals in and of themselves but made headlines in the blogosphere.
Like your own news-making breaches of good journalism in the past, this too shall pass - and as you moved forward and continued to provide value to your readers, I'm sure that Gizmodo will continue to provide value to theirs.
My only take from all of this is a reminder that humor is subjective; and that when young geeks and corporate suits meet on the playground, it might well end in tears sometimes.
Unfortunately, it's exactly this sort of stuff that gathers crowds (and comments). The same stuff that drives the paparazzi to continue following Britney around. But, of course, you probably remember that other chapter from journalism 101 - Sex (and scandal) sells. Man bites dog and all...
As a result, Gizmodo's readership will probably increase as a result.
GoOrange
· 1 year ago
That post by Brian Lam was one of the lamest things I've seen in a while. Gizmodo has clearly announced to the world that they aren't to be taken seriously, and they'll stoop to any level to draw attention to themselves. That's fine, I'm sure they've garnered thousands of new readers because of the prank, but at the end of the day most people will see through their immature antics and Gizmodo will quickly pass from the ranks of credible journalists.
An apology might have helped but the spin doctoring and lashing out at the critics only further drives home the notion that this entire act was childish.
-Jeff
Rachel Luxemburg
· 1 year ago
What's particularly pathetic about that Giz piece is how they frame the situation as a false dichotomy -- either you support Giz, or you're a corporate shill. Bah.
If namecalling their critics is the best defense they can come up with, it just goes to show how wrong they were in the first place.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
Can we finally put to rest this whole idea that bloggers should be taken as seriously as journalists?
Tom O'Leary
· 1 year ago
Jerry, I'm not sure how to take that because I don't know how seriously journalists are taken. Journalist credentials are handed out to a lot of people - some are even serious, objective reporters of news. Somehow, methinks that human beings are flawed, in both old and new media.
ka9dgx
· 1 year ago
I've spent quite a bit of time over at Digg, weighing things up or down to match my thoughts... so I'll put my two cents in here as well.
The folks at Gizmodo did something foolish and juvenile, a Denial Of Service attack at CES. They need to be punished for it, and apparently they have been.
The fact that this has been done and a large stink has been made about it means it'll happen again.. and now we'll be back in a universe without universal remotes before you know it.
Getting a remote will be like getting a new chipped key for a car, only worse because 1/2 of the stuff will be obsolete in the 6 month half-life of a remote.
Tar and feathering might be a good idea, but it won't undo the damage. 8(
--Mike--
Zoli Erdos
· 1 year ago
Gizmodo themselves trashed the TV-B-Gone some time ago,and they had a name for the pranksters, too:
"Mitch Altman is an asshole. And not just any asshole, but one of those snotty holier-than-thou types who has nothing better to do with the money he made as a founder of 3ware than to develop a device with the sole purpose of imposing his viewpoint on others… …Essentially a universal remote that cycles through every possible code, the TV-B-Gone has a single purpose: to power off televisions whenever the user feels like being a dick."
Tom O'Leary
· 1 year ago
"...and it didn’t hurt Facebook’s ability to do business..."
Well, except that the fact that you (as a high profile tech blogger) are telling the world that it's ok to disregard a business' TOS if they don't agree with them. Apparently, TOS are up for individual interpretation.
S
Michael Markman
· 1 year ago
Lam is looney to conflate IR vandalism with journalistic integrity. But if he writes a lengthy piece of drivel and enough of us read it, isn't that how he earns a bonus?
embee
· 1 year ago
Is there a betting pool on how long before Denton cuts Blakeley loose? After all, how hard can it be to find journo major college dropouts with a year of film school to boot looking to be paid to blog?
The Gizmodo kids need to realize that they're disposable.
d2: I'm not pretending to be a professional journalist covering a news event for a news organization there, am I? Thanks for noticing.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
mikecane: please explain your point. I'd love to see how that was unethical.
mikecane
· 1 year ago
>>>First, I just talked with John Furrier, PodTech’s CEO, and we’ve decided not to accept the honorarium that PayPerPost offered to us for having me speak at their show.
Right -- AFTER the uproar.
Ethics. Right. Next!
mikecane
· 1 year ago
And lest you forget, Scoble:
>>>Robert, I am personally dosappointed that you have chosen to do this. To me Pay for Post represents everything that the book you and I wrote opposes. I wish you would change your mind. This will not help your reputation.
>>>Comment by shel israel — February 2, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
mikecane: I admitted we didn't handle that well and changed our opinion on it. In the end you'll note that I didn't even do the speech. I guess you missed that, didn't you?
And the fact that you hold this even CLOSE to the same ethical lapse that Gizmodo had demonstrates just how bad YOUR ethics are. Thanks for sharing!
Chris G.
· 1 year ago
Sounds like a bunch of guys trying to get people to visit their site at any cost, instead of doing it with accurate and informative reporting.
Their stupid stunt at CES hurt many bloggers efforts to be taken seriously.
mikecane
· 1 year ago
People like you, Scoble, who really lack an internal compass, shouldn't be giving directions to other people.
Don't get all high and mighty with me. Your own words are right there:
>>>Why do it then? Cause I’m a capitalist
So is any pimp.
That you "decided" not to do it is due to outside pressure, not any ethics you think you have.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
mikecane: my actions with PayPerPost never kept another person from doing work. Never brought down systems used to create commerce. And, I wasn't acting as a journalist.
Again. YOUR ethics are unbelieveably bad if you think the two are even close enough to mention in the same thread.
mikecane
· 1 year ago
Don't put up a smokescreen here to mask your own ethical lapse there, pal. I never said they were equivalent. Don't try to smuggle that package deal past your readers. They're not as, shall I shall, "lapseful" as you.
Gizmodo is one thing. YOU preaching Gizmodo is what I'm addressing.
Sit down. You haven't a leg to stand on.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Bullshit: what I did there was totally ethical.
mikecane
· 1 year ago
>>>Why do it then? Cause I’m a capitalist
The prosecution rests.
Sal
· 1 year ago
mikecane, as hard as you try to shoot the messenger most of us are not interested in Scoble's credibility in this particular case as he is just one of the many reporting this story, just look around blogs today. How do his past actions affect my opinion of what Gizmodo did at CES?
It's not like Scoble invented Gizmodo's stunt. If you have no opinion on the Gizmodo matter itself we really don't care about your off-topic rants.
It's not just you, it seems like Giz fans all over the net are piling on the messengers everywhere. I guess Brian started it with his attacks in the post linked above.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
>mikecane: the fact that you think it's unethical to be a capitalist says VOLUMES about your ethics. Thanks!
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
"Robert: of course it was a stunt. But it was one with an editorial purpose (to get Facebook to change its stance — it does data sucking, but no data sharing, which is wrong) and it didn’t hurt Facebook’s ability to do business."
Again, thats the rub now isn't it? You did hurt Facebook's ability to do business, so what if it was on a small scale? Automating a script in violation of their TOS hurts their business if only on a small scale, no amount of hand waving changes that.
So its okay to break the rules or interrupt a company as long as it has an editorial purpose? Thanks for letting me know, so I guess its okay to conduct a DDOS attack against a company(not saying thats what you did, just logically extending the argument) as long as it has an editorial purpose?
Stunts are stunts, and interrupting business is interrupting business and hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Sal: I think he's more commenting on Scoble's hypocrisy as he conducted a stunt very recently and is now effectively suggesting people boycott Gizmodo, he's more than a messenger in this case, he's attempting to be an activist, so absolutely his past actions should be questioned when determining whether his advice should be followed.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Shaudius: you're absolutely wrong and we've covered this before. In no way did what I do do harm to Facebook's servers and anyone who claims that is a total idiot and has no clue about the technical details involved. In fact, looks like Facebook is now buying Plaxo and will likely incorporate that same script. So there. Not to mention that Facebook already runs almost the exact same script on Gmail. Why aren't you crying about all the "harm" that Facebook puts on Gmail's servers? I notice you didn't do that, so you, sir, are an idiot and a troll. Have a nice day.
graywolf
· 1 year ago
calling gizmodo-gate not real journalism and part of the stuntosphere?
Dude were you around last week when you were ringmaster of the stuntosphere with your plaxo data scraping script?
I mean all of your fan boys may lap up the table scraps drivel and hang on your every word, but the real people see right through your hypocritical double talk, it's comical really
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
graywolf: I wasn't pretending to be doing journalism. I was doing alpha testing of a new feature that was going to come out from Plaxo.
I wasn't the one who chose to get kicked out of Facebook and when I did I reported it pretty straightly, even owning up to my own breaking of the Facebook TOS.
Funny that now Facebook is buying Plaxo, at least that's what it looks like.
Glad you can see the difference between what I did and what Gizmodo did. Sigh. The two aren't even in the same UNIVERSE. But this kind of bull is what I've come to expect of you. Troll.
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Scoble: Why do you keep insisting on bringing up what Facebook does to Gmail as if it somehow justifies YOUR actions. You argument is the equivalent of saying that its okay to steal a million dollars from someone who stole a million dollars from someone else. Just because someone is a thief doesn't mean that your thievery is justified.
To your point about the gmail script, you obviously don't understand the technology involved yourself. Gmail keeps your contacts in one list that can be viewed on a very few screens, therefore to screen scrape that data takes a very limited number of server hits. Facebook does not keep your friends e-mail addresses and birthdays on one easy to access page like your gmail contact list. So in order to scrape that data takes many more page hits.
But again, thats not the point, you are trying to justify your wrong action by declaring the actions of the person you committed the wrong act.
Lets take it even further then robbery, someone murders someone, is it then okay to murder them because they murdered someone else? Of course not, but you're saying that because someone did something you can do it to them. That is dishonest, and its not a justification, but you can think I'm a troll all you want for pointing out your clear logical fallacy and hypocrisy.
Finally, how does Facebook buying Plaxo excuse your actions, this has never been about what Facebook does and always about what you yourself do.
Sal
· 1 year ago
So let me get this straight: only the purest of heart can now blog? You do realize we can dig up something harmful about almost anyone doing a blog today. This was exactly Gizmodo's defense today, attacking instead of explaining.
We should keep blogger's past actions in mind when reading their posts (or even boycott them if we find them that offensive). But we can't silence criticism just because of an unrelated past grievance. I see every post attacking Scoble here as a way to move the discussion off topic and help Gizmodo weather the storm.
Johnny Montezuma
· 1 year ago
Hey, Dudes, have you ever thought there were Rubes like me out in the hinterlands who didn't freaking know TV-B-Gone existed? Have you pompous a-holes ever thought for a nano-freaking-second that people like me who were too stupid to know that TV-B-GONE didn't exist actually NEEDED TV-B-GONE to improve our meager existence? Have you ever thought of that or are you all so wrapped up in your technocrati superiority that you don't realize that some of us poor, sorry sum-beaches actually NEED something like TV-B-GONE to improve our niggardly lives? Come on! Fess UP! You don't have fricking CLUE about people in the REAL WORLD. When I read the Gizmodo prank, I didn't give one rat's ass damn about what it did to CES, I just gave praise to gawd that I had discovered the device in the first place. Can you handle that?
This thingie rox and it tox. That's all I know and that's all I care.
Think abot this for a mere nano-second. I have to actually stand in a freaking bank that has a ridiculous TV monitor blaring some ridiculous BS at me while I stand in line. It is demeaning. It sux. With TV-B-GONE, Me, myself and I am in control at that stupid bank. ANd, yes, I know, change banks. I am doing that.
Cheers, Monte.
graywolf
· 1 year ago
so you are only a journalist only some of the time? Is there a switch you turn on or off? Is that like being kinda pregnant?
If it makes you feel better calling me a troll please do, but more and more people are seeing through you every day, stop with the trying to be famous for just being famous and actually do something noteworthy.
me I'm off to ponder how scraping and stealing data you don't have permission to take is more moral than turning off TV's during a presentation
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Sal: Of course you don't need to be morally pure to blog, but the advice you give should be put in context. The comments serve to show that Scoble taking the moral high ground and calling for a boycott of Gizmodo is not intellectually honest as he is guilty of similar tactics himself. Thats all I'm trying to say, I'm not trying to justify Gizmodo's actions, I'm just putting them in context in a very real way thats relevant to the author of this blog.
I find what Gizmodo did deplorable, I also find what Scoble did deplorable, and I find it useful to ask just where advice is coming from.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
>Why do you keep insisting on bringing up what Facebook does to Gmail as if it somehow justifies YOUR actions.
Because THEY DO. Glad you can't see why.
>The comments serve to show that Scoble taking the moral high ground and calling for a boycott of Gizmodo is not intellectually honest as he is guilty of similar tactics himself.
The fact that you think anything I've done is similar to what Gizmodo did demonstrates FAR MORE ABOUT YOU than it does about me. Really sad.
>so you are only a journalist only some of the time?
Yes. Sometimes I'm a father. Sometimes I'm a lover. Sometimes I'm an opinion writer. Sometimes I'm reporting on a news event.
When I'm representing Fast Company at an event you can assume I'm a journalist. Especially if I have a press badge on, like Gizmodo did when they turned off those TVs.
When I'm spending my own money and vacation time to stand in line to buy an iPhone? Then I'm a dad, an enthusiast, and a blogger. Maybe even a journalist at times, but not a professional one (at least not there -- no one was paying me to report).
hooniebear
· 1 year ago
I'm really tired of tech heads like you and Pogue acting like CES is news. It's not. One of the key points of reporting is to be able to tell the difference between real information and propaganda. CES is propaganda and someone thought it would be funny to turn of the TV's. It didn't lose any jobs, it didn't cause any heart attacks, if we really want to wander down the wormhole of ethics in the blogosphere let's set the terms of the debate higher than CES. If it we're up to me CES would be banned for pointlessness...at least someone had the courage to try and turn it off, if only for an instant.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
graywolf: >me I’m off to ponder how scraping and stealing data you don’t have permission to take is more moral than turning off TV’s during a presentation
Let's see.
Is copying a page out of the phone book more or less ethical than turning off the power to a hospital or a factory or, yes, even a bank of monitors being used to create economic activity.
After all, the power switch can be turned back on.
To me they aren't even close.
I guess you're the kind of guy that says that speeding and murder are the same kind of offense. Why? They both are breaking the law.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
hooniebear: >I’m really tired of tech heads like you and Pogue acting like CES is news. It’s not.
Really? So hundreds of companies didn't introduce new products there? I guess introducing new products isn't news in your book, but it surely is in mine. Did anyone die? No, but economic activity was certainly interrupted and people's jobs COULD have been impacted. Is it wrong to turn off the power to a hospital to make a joke? Why/why not? Why is it OK at CES? By a journalist, no less?
So, will Gizmodo mind tomorrow when I turn off its servers in the middle of MacWorld? After all, servers have on/off switches and can be switched back on.
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Scoble: Way to completely ignore my analogy, so if someone does something to someone else I can do something to them and its justified? Glad to know that, next time someone robs my house I know its okay to rob someone else's house thanks for the tip, but its even worse than that, Facebook didn't do anything to you, then did something to a third party.
Its clear your moral compass just isn't the same as the average person and that the actions of others can be used to justify your actions.
Its only a matter of degree between what you did and what Gizmodo did, you broke a company's TOS a legally binding document, they broke the social contract by breaking a law(assuming that Nevada law makes what they did a crime), both are breaches of a contract of sorts.
In that way they are the same thing, both are deplorable the fact that you think your deplorable act is justified and there's isn't is all well and good, but both are breaches.
Guess what? You said that you fessed up to breaking their TOS, well Gizmodo fessed up to doing what they did at CES. Admitting you did wrong does not excuse actions. Theirs, or yours.
Sal
· 1 year ago
Shaudius, I guess what I resent is reading those same grievances over and over again, every time Scoble posts about certain topics. It effectively stops the conversation.
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Scoble: Your phone book analogy is false. You should instead compare it this way,
Is it more ethical to take a phone book which you were given permission to use on the premises of a building but which the terms of that use stated that you couldn't take it with you, as long as you return it a day later?
"I guess you’re the kind of guy that says that speeding and murder are the same kind of offense. Why? They both are breaking the law."
They are both bad acts, so yes they are both offenses. But this isn't murder and speeding, this is stealing $10 and stealing $1,000.
You cost Facebook money in server hits and violating the contract you had with them, they cost CES vendors money(arguably), they are the same offense on a different scale, not speeding and murder.
Shaudius
· 1 year ago
Sal: I've only made these comments on two threads, the first where Scoble suggests people delete Gizmodo from their feed and suggests a boycott, and this thread where Scoble deplores the stuntosphere.
This topic is relevant to both topics as it very much matters whether someone doing these thing practices what they breach, opps, I mean preach.
paul
· 1 year ago
Sombody pull the plug on his servers and let's see if he gets the joke....
JoeDuck
· 1 year ago
As a CES blogger this year I was also pissed by this as it served to diminish those of us who were taking the event seriously. Also I felt it was hurting the Motorola tech guys in a nasty sort of way, simply for extra cheap buzz and YouTube views.
The worst thing? This news completely overshadowed some really great stuff at CES this year like the first year of talking about how to use technology to help developing countries. I'd trade 100 gizmodos for one great third world infrastructure project, and CES showcased several this year.
hooniebear
· 1 year ago
Robert, I think there's a distinction between news and a massive gathering of companies to tout their latest wares. CES is a marketing event, when a company spends money there it's deducted from there income as a marketing expense (yay, my tax dollars help finance CES!!), reporting is not just covering a marketing event, it's digging ever so slightly deeper. Yes, Macworld is another marketing event and maybe a prankster can run interference on Steve's wireless mic (another promising vector of attack in the wild new world of presentation hacking...) In fact I wouldn't even think of Gizmodo as news for the most part, more of wry spin on the latest press release to cross their desks. The fact that they decided to turn off the TV's is actually the most interesting thing they've done in a while, and posting video with a by-line is certainly in the spirit of Gonzo journalism. I'm not sure how your moral compass works but it doesn't seem too difficult to draw a line somewhere between ruining a Motorola presentation and turning off the power at a hospital. My call on it is NO, not a good idea. Lot's of sick people, lot's of machines keeping them alive, machines need power so if I cut off the power people die. Bad move. Now if I'm the guy at Motorola and I'm angry at Gizmodo I need to have my head examined because I should really be pissed at Zander...
Sadly it seems da "Giz" (oh please) has decided to appeal to drunken fratboy digg hive mind culture and ditch us old timers who still believe in the concept of journalism.
I hope the bonus cheque was worth it Mr Brain Lame.
graywolf
· 1 year ago
>turning off the power to a hospital
Let's not confuse life safety with your/gizmodo's attempt to generate page views by being sensational. What they did was stupid and wrong but hey at least they fessed up, you however are still in denial.
Sheesh just admit you were be a dingus already you'll feel much better i promise.
Oh and yes I know when you want to make your thing look small you compare it to Big things like the government spends $75 on toilet seats and only $12 on school lunches, or if you want to make your thing look big you compare it things really small, like the government spends $12 on lunches but they only spend $1 on pencils so aren't school lunches overpriced. It's what we call framing your argument. You may able to distract some people by framing your argument and throwing in things like "power to a hospital" but again your mind tricks don't work on me.
Curt Monash
· 1 year ago
I don't think sabotaging a trade show floor is exactly like sabotaging a hospital. After all, a lot of the booths are sabotaging each other, for example by being so noisy as to interfere with business at neighboring booths.
Gizmodo's offense, as I see it, begins and ends with the misuse of journalistic credentials. Somebody did them a favor to let them in, which puts them in a very different position from those who bought floor space.
I also think they're over the top with the contempt they're expressing for the whole exercise. If you go skeptically to a press conference, then savage the in-your-opinion-dishonest speakers, that's one thing. But if they disapproved of the whole show in advance, they shouldn't have attended for the sole purpose of disrupting it.
Now, I AM the guy who got removed from the Plaza Hotel for attending a press conference he wasn't invited to, which became a big story in Electronic News and MIS Week back in the day. And Dave Brousell of Electronics News was the guy who gave me his spare invite. But that was just because I shouldn't have been excluded in the first place ... oh, geez. That was pretty much half my lifetime ago. I feel old.
CAM
Paul
· 1 year ago
TWiT 127 touched on the Gizmodo stunt. Apparently, the Gizboys (and I'm sure many others) are paid basic salary + traffic-related bonus, therefore stunt = publicity = hits = money.
Expect more of this, sadly.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
@30. Sure there are bad journalist, questionable jouralists,etc. That's not the point I was making. Bad journalist or not, they have editors and are generally accountable to their editors for the accuracy and actions of their reporting (See:Dan Rather,Bush National Guard Story). Rarely is a blogger held accountable to anyone. So they can pretty much make stuff up, do what they want, and apologize later when called on it.
@39. Robert, but at the same time you maintain that bloggers should be considered journalists. I seem to recall you supporting the cause of some nincompoop Josh Wolf that was jailed and trying to hide behind shield laws. http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/01/videoblogger-j...
reading through the comments it looked like you took the position that anyone with a blog (even a 12 year old writing about how Britney is getting a bad rap) is a journalist by the mere fact they have a blog. So, when is a blogger "just a blogger" and when is he a "journalist". Considering that anyone can consider pretty much anything "news" (At least that's the impression I get from watch local news shows)
Ben
· 1 year ago
I only read this blog when it pops up on Techmeme - and it's always when you're commenting on some 'big' story of the day - does get you some traffic doesn't it? I suppose as a commercial blogger, there's just no profit in rising above it all, and maintaining a dignified silence.
So, you got to include yourself in the stupidest firestorm so far in the silly little world of tech blogging. Where are the aggrieved victimes? I'll bet the show organisers only acted after all the 'outraged' emails they got from bloggers/journalists/whatever. In the world of newspaper journalism, there are leader writers and humourous columnists. They're all working for a newspaper. I think you would like to be seen as the former, and it's pretty clear they see themselves as the latter, BUT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE. We read the whole paper. It's called balance. Light and dark. Serious and funny. See how that works?
So by all means comment on it, if you just want to be another ring in the circus. If I read your blog when you had something interesting to say, rather than when you engage in the kind of nonsense that makes you look like a pompous ass, I might come back and read you again. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.
MS
· 1 year ago
I don't understand you guys. What are you getting all uptight about in the first place. None of what happened is serious by any stretch of the word.
So some bloggers run around a tech conference shutting down some monitors. It hurts some companies' business in a very minor way, but so what? You may find it funny or not, but nobody loses millions, nobody gets killed, so why bother to even worry about it?
Same thing with what Scoble did with Facebook. It doesn't even matter whether the whole thing was a stunt, or whether he broke the terms. The point is none of these things come even close to being "ethically wrong".
Just put your arguments on hold until something important happens, and enjoy your life until then. You guys are like children, seriously....
Wayne Schulz
· 1 year ago
I unsubscribed from Gizmodo RSS when I read Brian's response. Stopped reading them. Same general response I've had when I run into creeps posting in online discussion forums.
I've learned ages ago that railing against online oddballs and pointing out their creepy ways only draws attention, defense and longevity to their craze.
Christopher Coulter
· 1 year ago
Heh, all so amusing, well I guess bloggers go back to their professional status as pond scum, at least perception-wise. One gets on CNBC and blubbers, causing the money men to flee, and the meme spreads, the sound of a thousand press releases crying. Another does a lame gag for raw traffic, which is the basic 'modus operandi' for blogs anyways. And then the others trip over themselves in a fit of righteous self-indignation, crowding out all the real news.
If a prank, trite and well-overdone, anyone could have done this, no setup, no creativity -- pranks have to be fresh, not a cliche.
But the vendors, not like this is a great big unknown. Anyone that didn't do good prep is borderline incompetent, or maybe it was all the Stalinist Union rules, having to hire some expensive Union to shut-off or tape IR ports up, at $200 per tape application.
Urkel
· 1 year ago
It's amazing that a Woz = Gizmodo comparison is even attempted here. Woz invented or developed gadgets and he pulled TV pranks on dopey fratboys in a dorm. Gizmodo bought a decade old toy and interrupted the business of companies who spent millions to display their goods at a tradeshow.
Gizmodo trying to paint themselves to be on Woz level is like calling Ashton Kutcher a genius for getting a celeb to cry by telling them their mother was murdered in a home invasion.
Hopefully people stop making excuses for Gizmodo and just start ignoring them because I don't want the future of tradeshows to be about the crap that happens in the sidelines.
Tom O'Leary
· 1 year ago
@81: I know what you mean Jerry. And I agree with you theoretically. Unfortunately, those overseeing both old and new media (there are editors in new media as well) are more interested in ratings today than they are about solid journalistic pursuits. I recommend that you rent "Out Foxed". It will give some insight into what media publishers will stoop to in order to create their stories and gain audience share. Perhaps it was always this way and has only now become transparent to us - but I think that the old adage, "Don't believe what you read" has been around so long for a reason.
********BREAKING NEWS**********
Media (and perhaps American media most of all) is biased and competitive. Again, sex sells and all...
Anton Mannering
· 1 year ago
Hello Pot, I see you've noticed the Kettle. Observe please you are similarly discolored... ;)
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Anton: right. I have done stuff to keep people from doing their work. Got it. Here's something: I expect smart readers here. Go back to Digg if you think I've done something similar.
Curt Monash
· 1 year ago
By the way -- while I disagree with you about the seriousness of the prank, Robert, I agree about Gizmodo's theories of journalistic ethics. Every commentator is influenced by his/her subjects, because they control access. Whether money changes hands is often secondary.
I can think of plenty of examples where writers of all kinds ARE unduly corrupted. But that's the point where I say "Judge us on our actual work."
CAM
frmad
· 1 year ago
This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirect1.blogspot.com/ for more infomation
joflow
· 1 year ago
Oh for crying out loud.
Let's be honest and stop trying to paint Gizmodo's prank as something more sinister than it is. Yes, they disrupted some presentations. They did it because it's funny, because they figured tech people would have a better sense of humor than most, and because CES is in and of itself a distraction to people in the industry, bloggers in particular. Comparing Giz messing around with some promotional displays at an industry event to your messing around with an actual working and functioning real-life system affecting real-life users is both silly and dishonest. You can argue that Lam's defense is ridiculous (it is), but don't act like the high road is where you're able to stand on this one, or that what they did was some heinous and deplorable act. Mid-20's industry nerds pulled a prank on other industry nerds, the world is not collapsing, and you've done much worse. Inflating their transgressions as to somehow eclipse your own disregard of social niceties as a back-stepping defense is asinine. Technically, they didn't break any rules or regulations, while you blatantly violated a TOS, in full knowledge of what you were doing. What they did is worse? Really?
Steve M.
· 1 year ago
OK, as if anybody cares, here's my take.
What Gizmodo did was funny -- in a juvenile way. It was also wrong. They were given press credentials, and so were expected to behave like journalists. Not doing so demonstrates bad ethics (and is also biting the hand that feeds you). Bad Gizmodo.
Lam's "defense" shows that he's in serious denial. If he'd said they were just trying to be funny and get some traffic, I'd at least commend his honesty. Saying he's trying to stick it to the man is as hypocritical as their giving TV-B-Gone a scathing "review" and then using one themselves.
I especially liked his line where he said, "you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things." How was that prank any of those? As Gideon said in post #1, trying to claim the high ground was probably the worst way to have handled this. Bad Lam.
Scoble, your defense of your Facebook prank isn't very convincing. You say that it's a poor analogy to compare what you did to what Gizmodo did, but then you in essence compare what you did to copying a page of a phone book and what Gizmodo did to turning off power to a hospital (post #65). Seriously?
Let's see. Gizmodo prevented a corporate flack from making a presentation; turning off power to a hospital could kill people. Yeah, that's a good analogy. (Can you hear my eyes rolling?) Bad Scoble.
Brian (post #7) asked how this was different from shutting off Gizmodo's servers. Seriously? Gizmodo is pretty much out of business as long as their servers are down. Does anybody believe any company at CES couldn't work around a monitor being off? Bad Brian.
Consider it another way. While Gizmodo did disrupt a presentation, how serious was that disruption? Suppose the TV had failed instead of being turned off. Do you really think a company would have packed up and gone home? I think the speaker would find a way to muddle through. (Hint: They're called "speakers" for a reason.) And, in fact, most did work around the problems as the video showed.
Again, I'm not condoning what Gizmodo did. They violated their journalistic obligation, but it wasn't as bad as others seem to portray. It's probably worse for their reputation as journalists (if anybody seriously considered them journalists) than it was for those companies.
As for ethics, both you, Scoble (in the Facebook prank), and Gizmodo acted unethically, although perhaps on a different scale. However, you gave your word (which is what agreeing to Terms of Service is) and then broke it. I don't read your blog very often (probably under five times), but you seem to talk about your son a lot. Would you be OK with *him* breaking his word like that? Bad Scoble.
Finally, joflow, I'm not sure that Scoble is saying the prank itself was horrible (at least, not initially). He was saying their *defense* of the prank was ridiculous. (Of course, his defense of his Facebook exploit is equally ridiculous.)
scottjduffy
· 1 year ago
One relevant tidbit I heard on TWIT this week. Gizmodo journalists are paid by the traffic the generate. So this stunt has put money in the pocket of the guy who did it.
And THAT is why you don't pay bloggers for traffic. You get high-traffic but image and reputation damaging crap for posts.
Very Funny
· 1 year ago
Screwing with Facebook = Very Funny
Screwing with CES= Hysterical!
Everybody lighten up, barely anyone knows about any of these things. I do, and they made my day(s), respectively.
Chill.
Jeff Bean
· 1 year ago
Is a guy with a camera who lets startup founders and geeks talk comfortably about their "cool" products a journalist? Seriously?
You can't slam content competitors in a space where "journalism" is an increasingly murky word with a definition that changes to suit a bloggers' / investors' needs.
There is no Code of Ethics in blogging. There's lots of opinion.
There is an official Code of Ethics in professional journalism, along with a professional organization charged with the charter of keeping the profession as clean as possible, in addition to the efforts of publishers, editors, reporters, ombudsmen and readers.
When someone is discovered crossing the journalistic Code of Ethics line, they are banished.
nomad
· 1 year ago
Gizmodo is Apple PR, no question about it. Whole blog-news getting stupid. We need to see how far this will go.
All Comments
There are a lot of ways they could have handled this.... moral highroad is NOT one of the ones I would have suspected or advised.
What can I say, they're keeping it "real."
(Does that now include me? D'oh!)
It was a stupid prank and more people should read our wordpress blogs where it's done for love and not for the money.
know what i'm saying?
Americo de www.ThunkDifferent.com
Convince me, because I'm on the fence.
Robert
"I will fill you in on our little secret: TVs turn back on when you press the power button a second time."
How is this different from, for example, a denial of service attack or some other type of disruption on gizmodo? Just like turning off the TVs, no permanent damage, just a temporary interruption, right?
I suspect that it's only a lighthearted prank if it costs someone else.....
And maybe it didn't cost the CES vendors much, I don't know, but one thing's for sure - Gizmodo profited. They are a money-making venture, after all. And now they want us to believe that they did this to "stand up to the man"? Talk about integrity issues....
I suspect Lam is right on in his criticism of most tech journalism and blogging - paid junkets ARE unethical, as are gifts or demo models that are not returned or otherwise disposed of according to a published policy - the problem is, his intervention doesn't really join that issue at all. It was just a mindless prank, and the arm waiving about the ethics of it is just a lame post-facto search for an excuse and justification.
Robert, you're right on target with this one. If I were in charge of CES I'd revoke all Giz credentials period, forever.
And then the defense blog posting just put it over the top. Talk about excuse after excuse. They should have just said "We were stupid and wrong to do that stunt, we apologize." And all would have been forgotten.
I haven't really considered the Hunter S. Thompson example, where Thompson clearly insinuated himself into the stories. However, that was Thompson's reason for being; he didn't turn around the next day and produce carefully crafted analyses.
And I already tweeted you about the Nokia thingie.
Too bad it's tied to someone who's motives are perceived as anything other than the fun pursuit of pranks.
OK, so we agree it was a stunt.
I understood you had an editorial purpose with Facebook and that you didn't harm their business. I don't agree that "data sucking, but no data sharing . . . is wrong". We accepted their user contract when we signed up. That said, with enough pressure they will change this policy and I'm all for that.
And I really don't think you are like the Gizmodo guys -- I hope I didn't imply it.
Now, please don't go running naked through MacWorld.
As a streaker, you're a great blogger. :) Please stick to what you're good at or at least turn off the live stream!
Thank you for your post. After just reading Brian's post, and all the follow-up commentary afterwards ... I felt like I needed to wretch. Who does Brian think he is, some modern day Che Guevara of tech? Please.
I expect that most people who think this is funny, have never had to earn a living working a trade show floor. Heck, they've probably never even had to make a living speaking in public! The "oh, it's not *that* harmful" argument I keep hearing is just sickening. Since when have we, as a society, degraded to the point where it's not a question of absolute right or wrong, but the quantity? So a little bit wrong, is ok? Let me know where I should start sending the junk faxes - after all, it hardly costs a penny to receive a fax, and no long-term harm is done.
Personally, I think they have gotten off far too easily. What should happen:
1) CES should expand their ban to include Gizmodo entirely for the next 3 years, and all Gawker properties for next year.
2) ANY and ALL companies impacted (Motorola, etc.) should immediately review their banner ad portfolios and have any ads with Gawker terminated immediately, and demand a full refund of any remaining balance.
3) Corporations that are sympathetic to the exhibitors that suffered at CES, should reject calls from Gizmodo editors when they call for information on a product announcement.
4) Other conferences (Macworld, etc.) should seriously consider limiting Gizmodo (and perhaps Gawker) press credentials to 1 person. Period.
5) Everyone else should remove Gizmodo from their RSS reader, and not visit their website, for a period of exactly 1 year from the date of their prank.
Has anyone registered BoycottGizmodo.com yet?
Too many people read Scoble's comments as Gospel. He does more damage than he will ever realize.
"Funny, back in journalism school I was taught that journalists were supposed to report the news, not make it."
I'm reminded of this image: http://terkeurst.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06...
and now i gotta go throw up...
Or as CES might say to Gizmodo (apologies to Coppola): 'We're both part of the same hypocrisy, *asshats*'.
Like your own news-making breaches of good journalism in the past, this too shall pass - and as you moved forward and continued to provide value to your readers, I'm sure that Gizmodo will continue to provide value to theirs.
My only take from all of this is a reminder that humor is subjective; and that when young geeks and corporate suits meet on the playground, it might well end in tears sometimes.
Unfortunately, it's exactly this sort of stuff that gathers crowds (and comments). The same stuff that drives the paparazzi to continue following Britney around. But, of course, you probably remember that other chapter from journalism 101 - Sex (and scandal) sells. Man bites dog and all...
As a result, Gizmodo's readership will probably increase as a result.
An apology might have helped but the spin doctoring and lashing out at the critics only further drives home the notion that this entire act was childish.
-Jeff
If namecalling their critics is the best defense they can come up with, it just goes to show how wrong they were in the first place.
The folks at Gizmodo did something foolish and juvenile, a Denial Of Service attack at CES. They need to be punished for it, and apparently they have been.
The fact that this has been done and a large stink has been made about it means it'll happen again.. and now we'll be back in a universe without universal remotes before you know it.
Getting a remote will be like getting a new chipped key for a car, only worse because 1/2 of the stuff will be obsolete in the 6 month half-life of a remote.
Tar and feathering might be a good idea, but it won't undo the damage. 8(
--Mike--
Well, except that the fact that you (as a high profile tech blogger) are telling the world that it's ok to disregard a business' TOS if they don't agree with them. Apparently, TOS are up for individual interpretation.
S
The Gizmodo kids need to realize that they're disposable.
http://scobleizer.com/2007/02/02/payperspeech-d...
Um, OK.
Right -- AFTER the uproar.
Ethics. Right. Next!
>>>Robert,
I am personally dosappointed that you have chosen to do this. To me Pay for Post represents everything that the book you and I wrote opposes. I wish you would change your mind. This will not help your reputation.
>>>Comment by shel israel — February 2, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
And the fact that you hold this even CLOSE to the same ethical lapse that Gizmodo had demonstrates just how bad YOUR ethics are. Thanks for sharing!
Their stupid stunt at CES hurt many bloggers efforts to be taken seriously.
Don't get all high and mighty with me. Your own words are right there:
>>>Why do it then? Cause I’m a capitalist
So is any pimp.
That you "decided" not to do it is due to outside pressure, not any ethics you think you have.
Again. YOUR ethics are unbelieveably bad if you think the two are even close enough to mention in the same thread.
Gizmodo is one thing. YOU preaching Gizmodo is what I'm addressing.
Sit down. You haven't a leg to stand on.
The prosecution rests.
It's not like Scoble invented Gizmodo's stunt. If you have no opinion on the Gizmodo matter itself we really don't care about your off-topic rants.
It's not just you, it seems like Giz fans all over the net are piling on the messengers everywhere. I guess Brian started it with his attacks in the post linked above.
Again, thats the rub now isn't it? You did hurt Facebook's ability to do business, so what if it was on a small scale? Automating a script in violation of their TOS hurts their business if only on a small scale, no amount of hand waving changes that.
So its okay to break the rules or interrupt a company as long as it has an editorial purpose? Thanks for letting me know, so I guess its okay to conduct a DDOS attack against a company(not saying thats what you did, just logically extending the argument) as long as it has an editorial purpose?
Stunts are stunts, and interrupting business is interrupting business and hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Dude were you around last week when you were ringmaster of the stuntosphere with your plaxo data scraping script?
I mean all of your fan boys may lap up the table scraps drivel and hang on your every word, but the real people see right through your hypocritical double talk, it's comical really
I wasn't the one who chose to get kicked out of Facebook and when I did I reported it pretty straightly, even owning up to my own breaking of the Facebook TOS.
Funny that now Facebook is buying Plaxo, at least that's what it looks like.
Glad you can see the difference between what I did and what Gizmodo did. Sigh. The two aren't even in the same UNIVERSE. But this kind of bull is what I've come to expect of you. Troll.
To your point about the gmail script, you obviously don't understand the technology involved yourself. Gmail keeps your contacts in one list that can be viewed on a very few screens, therefore to screen scrape that data takes a very limited number of server hits. Facebook does not keep your friends e-mail addresses and birthdays on one easy to access page like your gmail contact list. So in order to scrape that data takes many more page hits.
But again, thats not the point, you are trying to justify your wrong action by declaring the actions of the person you committed the wrong act.
Lets take it even further then robbery, someone murders someone, is it then okay to murder them because they murdered someone else? Of course not, but you're saying that because someone did something you can do it to them. That is dishonest, and its not a justification, but you can think I'm a troll all you want for pointing out your clear logical fallacy and hypocrisy.
Finally, how does Facebook buying Plaxo excuse your actions, this has never been about what Facebook does and always about what you yourself do.
We should keep blogger's past actions in mind when reading their posts (or even boycott them if we find them that offensive). But we can't silence criticism just because of an unrelated past grievance. I see every post attacking Scoble here as a way to move the discussion off topic and help Gizmodo weather the storm.
This thingie rox and it tox. That's all I know and that's all I care.
Think abot this for a mere nano-second. I have to actually stand in a freaking bank that has a ridiculous TV monitor blaring some ridiculous BS at me while I stand in line. It is demeaning. It sux.
With TV-B-GONE, Me, myself and I am in control at that stupid bank. ANd, yes, I know, change banks. I am doing that.
Cheers, Monte.
If it makes you feel better calling me a troll please do, but more and more people are seeing through you every day, stop with the trying to be famous for just being famous and actually do something noteworthy.
me I'm off to ponder how scraping and stealing data you don't have permission to take is more moral than turning off TV's during a presentation
I find what Gizmodo did deplorable, I also find what Scoble did deplorable, and I find it useful to ask just where advice is coming from.
Because THEY DO. Glad you can't see why.
>The comments serve to show that Scoble taking the moral high ground and calling for a boycott of Gizmodo is not intellectually honest as he is guilty of similar tactics himself.
The fact that you think anything I've done is similar to what Gizmodo did demonstrates FAR MORE ABOUT YOU than it does about me. Really sad.
>so you are only a journalist only some of the time?
Yes. Sometimes I'm a father. Sometimes I'm a lover. Sometimes I'm an opinion writer. Sometimes I'm reporting on a news event.
When I'm representing Fast Company at an event you can assume I'm a journalist. Especially if I have a press badge on, like Gizmodo did when they turned off those TVs.
When I'm spending my own money and vacation time to stand in line to buy an iPhone? Then I'm a dad, an enthusiast, and a blogger. Maybe even a journalist at times, but not a professional one (at least not there -- no one was paying me to report).
Let's see.
Is copying a page out of the phone book more or less ethical than turning off the power to a hospital or a factory or, yes, even a bank of monitors being used to create economic activity.
After all, the power switch can be turned back on.
To me they aren't even close.
I guess you're the kind of guy that says that speeding and murder are the same kind of offense. Why? They both are breaking the law.
Really? So hundreds of companies didn't introduce new products there? I guess introducing new products isn't news in your book, but it surely is in mine. Did anyone die? No, but economic activity was certainly interrupted and people's jobs COULD have been impacted. Is it wrong to turn off the power to a hospital to make a joke? Why/why not? Why is it OK at CES? By a journalist, no less?
So, will Gizmodo mind tomorrow when I turn off its servers in the middle of MacWorld? After all, servers have on/off switches and can be switched back on.
Its clear your moral compass just isn't the same as the average person and that the actions of others can be used to justify your actions.
Its only a matter of degree between what you did and what Gizmodo did, you broke a company's TOS a legally binding document, they broke the social contract by breaking a law(assuming that Nevada law makes what they did a crime), both are breaches of a contract of sorts.
In that way they are the same thing, both are deplorable the fact that you think your deplorable act is justified and there's isn't is all well and good, but both are breaches.
Guess what? You said that you fessed up to breaking their TOS, well Gizmodo fessed up to doing what they did at CES. Admitting you did wrong does not excuse actions. Theirs, or yours.
Is it more ethical to take a phone book which you were given permission to use on the premises of a building but which the terms of that use stated that you couldn't take it with you, as long as you return it a day later?
"I guess you’re the kind of guy that says that speeding and murder are the same kind of offense. Why? They both are breaking the law."
They are both bad acts, so yes they are both offenses. But this isn't murder and speeding, this is stealing $10 and stealing $1,000.
You cost Facebook money in server hits and violating the contract you had with them, they cost CES vendors money(arguably), they are the same offense on a different scale, not speeding and murder.
This topic is relevant to both topics as it very much matters whether someone doing these thing practices what they breach, opps, I mean preach.
The worst thing? This news completely overshadowed some really great stuff at CES this year like the first year of talking about how to use technology to help developing countries. I'd trade 100 gizmodos for one great third world infrastructure project, and CES showcased several this year.
I think there's a distinction between news and a massive gathering of companies to tout their latest wares. CES is a marketing event, when a company spends money there it's deducted from there income as a marketing expense (yay, my tax dollars help finance CES!!), reporting is not just covering a marketing event, it's digging ever so slightly deeper. Yes, Macworld is another marketing event and maybe a prankster can run interference on Steve's wireless mic (another promising vector of attack in the wild new world of presentation hacking...) In fact I wouldn't even think of Gizmodo as news for the most part, more of wry spin on the latest press release to cross their desks. The fact that they decided to turn off the TV's is actually the most interesting thing they've done in a while, and posting video with a by-line is certainly in the spirit of Gonzo journalism. I'm not sure how your moral compass works but it doesn't seem too difficult to draw a line somewhere between ruining a Motorola presentation and turning off the power at a hospital. My call on it is NO, not a good idea. Lot's of sick people, lot's of machines keeping them alive, machines need power so if I cut off the power people die. Bad move. Now if I'm the guy at Motorola and I'm angry at Gizmodo I need to have my head examined because I should really be pissed at Zander...
http://gawkerdeathwatch.blogspot.com/
Sadly it seems da "Giz" (oh please) has decided to appeal to drunken fratboy digg hive mind culture and ditch us old timers who still believe in the concept of journalism.
I hope the bonus cheque was worth it Mr Brain Lame.
Let's not confuse life safety with your/gizmodo's attempt to generate page views by being sensational. What they did was stupid and wrong but hey at least they fessed up, you however are still in denial.
Sheesh just admit you were be a dingus already you'll feel much better i promise.
Oh and yes I know when you want to make your thing look small you compare it to Big things like the government spends $75 on toilet seats and only $12 on school lunches, or if you want to make your thing look big you compare it things really small, like the government spends $12 on lunches but they only spend $1 on pencils so aren't school lunches overpriced. It's what we call framing your argument. You may able to distract some people by framing your argument and throwing in things like "power to a hospital" but again your mind tricks don't work on me.
Gizmodo's offense, as I see it, begins and ends with the misuse of journalistic credentials. Somebody did them a favor to let them in, which puts them in a very different position from those who bought floor space.
I also think they're over the top with the contempt they're expressing for the whole exercise. If you go skeptically to a press conference, then savage the in-your-opinion-dishonest speakers, that's one thing. But if they disapproved of the whole show in advance, they shouldn't have attended for the sole purpose of disrupting it.
Now, I AM the guy who got removed from the Plaza Hotel for attending a press conference he wasn't invited to, which became a big story in Electronic News and MIS Week back in the day. And Dave Brousell of Electronics News was the guy who gave me his spare invite. But that was just because I shouldn't have been excluded in the first place ... oh, geez. That was pretty much half my lifetime ago. I feel old.
CAM
Expect more of this, sadly.
@39. Robert, but at the same time you maintain that bloggers should be considered journalists. I seem to recall you supporting the cause of some nincompoop Josh Wolf that was jailed and trying to hide behind shield laws. http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/01/videoblogger-j...
reading through the comments it looked like you took the position that anyone with a blog (even a 12 year old writing about how Britney is getting a bad rap) is a journalist by the mere fact they have a blog. So, when is a blogger "just a blogger" and when is he a "journalist". Considering that anyone can consider pretty much anything "news" (At least that's the impression I get from watch local news shows)
So, you got to include yourself in the stupidest firestorm so far in the silly little world of tech blogging. Where are the aggrieved victimes? I'll bet the show organisers only acted after all the 'outraged' emails they got from bloggers/journalists/whatever. In the world of newspaper journalism, there are leader writers and humourous columnists. They're all working for a newspaper. I think you would like to be seen as the former, and it's pretty clear they see themselves as the latter, BUT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE. We read the whole paper. It's called balance. Light and dark. Serious and funny. See how that works?
So by all means comment on it, if you just want to be another ring in the circus. If I read your blog when you had something interesting to say, rather than when you engage in the kind of nonsense that makes you look like a pompous ass, I might come back and read you again. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.
So some bloggers run around a tech conference shutting down some monitors. It hurts some companies' business in a very minor way, but so what? You may find it funny or not, but nobody loses millions, nobody gets killed, so why bother to even worry about it?
Same thing with what Scoble did with Facebook. It doesn't even matter whether the whole thing was a stunt, or whether he broke the terms. The point is none of these things come even close to being "ethically wrong".
Just put your arguments on hold until something important happens, and enjoy your life until then. You guys are like children, seriously....
I've learned ages ago that railing against online oddballs and pointing out their creepy ways only draws attention, defense and longevity to their craze.
If a prank, trite and well-overdone, anyone could have done this, no setup, no creativity -- pranks have to be fresh, not a cliche.
But the vendors, not like this is a great big unknown. Anyone that didn't do good prep is borderline incompetent, or maybe it was all the Stalinist Union rules, having to hire some expensive Union to shut-off or tape IR ports up, at $200 per tape application.
Gizmodo trying to paint themselves to be on Woz level is like calling Ashton Kutcher a genius for getting a celeb to cry by telling them their mother was murdered in a home invasion.
Hopefully people stop making excuses for Gizmodo and just start ignoring them because I don't want the future of tradeshows to be about the crap that happens in the sidelines.
********BREAKING NEWS**********
Media (and perhaps American media most of all) is biased and competitive. Again, sex sells and all...
I can think of plenty of examples where writers of all kinds ARE unduly corrupted. But that's the point where I say "Judge us on our actual work."
CAM
Let's be honest and stop trying to paint Gizmodo's prank as something more sinister than it is. Yes, they disrupted some presentations. They did it because it's funny, because they figured tech people would have a better sense of humor than most, and because CES is in and of itself a distraction to people in the industry, bloggers in particular. Comparing Giz messing around with some promotional displays at an industry event to your messing around with an actual working and functioning real-life system affecting real-life users is both silly and dishonest. You can argue that Lam's defense is ridiculous (it is), but don't act like the high road is where you're able to stand on this one, or that what they did was some heinous and deplorable act. Mid-20's industry nerds pulled a prank on other industry nerds, the world is not collapsing, and you've done much worse. Inflating their transgressions as to somehow eclipse your own disregard of social niceties as a back-stepping defense is asinine. Technically, they didn't break any rules or regulations, while you blatantly violated a TOS, in full knowledge of what you were doing. What they did is worse? Really?
What Gizmodo did was funny -- in a juvenile way. It was also wrong. They were given press credentials, and so were expected to behave like journalists. Not doing so demonstrates bad ethics (and is also biting the hand that feeds you). Bad Gizmodo.
Lam's "defense" shows that he's in serious denial. If he'd said they were just trying to be funny and get some traffic, I'd at least commend his honesty. Saying he's trying to stick it to the man is as hypocritical as their giving TV-B-Gone a scathing "review" and then using one themselves.
I especially liked his line where he said, "you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things." How was that prank any of those? As Gideon said in post #1, trying to claim the high ground was probably the worst way to have handled this. Bad Lam.
Scoble, your defense of your Facebook prank isn't very convincing. You say that it's a poor analogy to compare what you did to what Gizmodo did, but then you in essence compare what you did to copying a page of a phone book and what Gizmodo did to turning off power to a hospital (post #65). Seriously?
Let's see. Gizmodo prevented a corporate flack from making a presentation; turning off power to a hospital could kill people. Yeah, that's a good analogy. (Can you hear my eyes rolling?) Bad Scoble.
Brian (post #7) asked how this was different from shutting off Gizmodo's servers. Seriously? Gizmodo is pretty much out of business as long as their servers are down. Does anybody believe any company at CES couldn't work around a monitor being off? Bad Brian.
Consider it another way. While Gizmodo did disrupt a presentation, how serious was that disruption? Suppose the TV had failed instead of being turned off. Do you really think a company would have packed up and gone home? I think the speaker would find a way to muddle through. (Hint: They're called "speakers" for a reason.) And, in fact, most did work around the problems as the video showed.
Again, I'm not condoning what Gizmodo did. They violated their journalistic obligation, but it wasn't as bad as others seem to portray. It's probably worse for their reputation as journalists (if anybody seriously considered them journalists) than it was for those companies.
As for ethics, both you, Scoble (in the Facebook prank), and Gizmodo acted unethically, although perhaps on a different scale. However, you gave your word (which is what agreeing to Terms of Service is) and then broke it. I don't read your blog very often (probably under five times), but you seem to talk about your son a lot. Would you be OK with *him* breaking his word like that? Bad Scoble.
Finally, joflow, I'm not sure that Scoble is saying the prank itself was horrible (at least, not initially). He was saying their *defense* of the prank was ridiculous. (Of course, his defense of his Facebook exploit is equally ridiculous.)
And THAT is why you don't pay bloggers for traffic. You get high-traffic but image and reputation damaging crap for posts.
Screwing with CES= Hysterical!
Everybody lighten up, barely anyone knows about any of these things. I do, and they made my day(s), respectively.
Chill.
You can't slam content competitors in a space where "journalism" is an increasingly murky word with a definition that changes to suit a bloggers' / investors' needs.
There is no Code of Ethics in blogging. There's lots of opinion.
There is an official Code of Ethics in professional journalism, along with a professional organization charged with the charter of keeping the profession as clean as possible, in addition to the efforts of publishers, editors, reporters, ombudsmen and readers.
When someone is discovered crossing the journalistic Code of Ethics line, they are banished.