Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Gizmodo on integrity…

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

nomad — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:16:35 -0000

Gizmodo is Apple PR, no question about it. Whole blog-news getting stupid. We need to see how far this will go.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Jeff Bean — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:07:14 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Very Funny — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:16:00 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

scottjduffy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:37:40 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Steve M. — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:55:14 -0000

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.)

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

joflow — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:39:41 -0000

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?

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

frmad — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:34:34 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Curt Monash — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:27:05 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Robert Scoble — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:59:23 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Anton Mannering — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:45:35 -0000

Hello Pot, I see you've noticed the Kettle. Observe please you are similarly discolored... ;)

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Tom O'Leary — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:03:36 -0000

@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...

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Urkel — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:02:38 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Christopher Coulter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:27:45 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Wayne Schulz — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:16:20 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

MS — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:50:35 -0000

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....

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Ben — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:22:53 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Jerry — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:04:43 -0000

@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/...

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)

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Paul — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:56:03 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Curt Monash — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:35:21 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

graywolf — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:03:05 -0000

>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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Garth — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:04:26 -0000

Spot on Robert.

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:43:41 -0000

Well-put, Scoble. The revolution continues...

http://gawkerdeathwatch.blo...

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

hooniebear — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:25:04 -0000

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...

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

JoeDuck — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:23:51 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo on integrity…

paul — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:18:49 -0000

Sombody pull the plug on his servers and let's see if he gets the joke....