Scobleizer: Scoble’s a shill … more details
domotica
· 2 years ago
We are on podeverything age.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
PodTech pays you. Intel pays PodTech. Intel pays you.
Saying it's not true is like saying that any employee of an ad-supported company is not paid by the advertiser. But no one quibbles about this: it is appropriate to say the advertiser is paying the employees of the company.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
"Just throw a gadget blog or two under the bus."
Wow, that morphed quite a bit, didn't it? Clearly you are sh!tting your pants about this because you look like an @sshole. It's been about 5 posts later, and you are still trying to project: "I made a funny" while everyone ELSE is saying: "what a prick."
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Goebbels: good point. But there's a difference in client expectations. One video was done to Intel's specs, and with their prior restraint. The other was done to my specs, with no prior restraint.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Goebbels: I removed that line. I want this post to stay on the disclosure issue.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
So? My point has nothing to do with that. My point has to do with your proclamation that it is untrue. It is not untrue. Which you now agree is a good point.
Have fun continuing to sh!t on yourself. Maybe Maryam can pick up some Depends for you.
Also, the difference doesn't seem that great to me. Both serve as advertising to Intel.
Shillbuster
· 2 years ago
Hypocritical! Where is Dave Winer with the outrage over this fiasco?
Robert spams Engadget and Gizmodo for Intel with craptastic videos thens pouts when they didn't kiss your ass like you enjoy. Scoble you lost a long time reader. Buh Bye.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Shillbuster: have fun. I always love threats of unsubscription from people who won't even sign their own names.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Goebbels: when I say "paid" I mean the expecation of something in return. General Motors "pays" the cast of "Lost" through its advertising but doesn't expect the cast of Lost to mention General Motors in the next show. Unless they "pay" for THAT.
So, I was "paid" but I wasn't "paid." Got it? :-)
Preston
· 2 years ago
Darn, those mean A-list blogs still didn't link to your "boring," unedited videos. How dare they! It's clearly crushing the little guy! The little guy and his boring videos! They clearly don't get this whole blogging revolution thing.
Guy Pelletier
· 2 years ago
The speed of the blogosphere will eat you up when you blog without thinking. The ability to write your thoughts down for the world to see is one of the great things I like about blogging, you happen to be not only a A-lister but the man who is creditied with giving Microsoft a face. All of this means, the mistakes you make, no matter how small, will be amplified beyond what is normal and you end up trying to answer people like Goebbels.
The problem as I see it is, is that it is easier to tear somebody down than to overlook the mistakes made.
The Forbes thing did not impress me, the Channel 9 thing did, the fact you recognize the mistakes and correct them publicly, impresses me the most.
Guy
Guy Pelletier
· 2 years ago
Man I wish I could edit my comments sometimes: The problem as I see it is, is that it is easier to tear somebody down than to overlook the mistakes made.
Try to say that 3 times fast ;)
Guy
Robert Dewey
· 2 years ago
Ah yes, the good old unsubscribe threat... I see it everyday on every blog. I'm surprised RSS is still around and kicking with the number of people "unsubscribing".
Then again, maybe it's always the same person who is continuously "unsubscribing".
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
Nope, I don't get it. I'm aware of the hairsplitting you are trying to perform. I am not aware of how that mitigates the issue, the lack of disclosure. If there was no issue, PodTech wouldn't be scrambling to change how it appears on their site, you wouldn't be doing disclosure now after the fact, PodTech wouldn't be issuing statements.
There is an issue. And you cannot claim ValleyWag's calling out the issue false.
And none of this mitigates this previous statement: "In all the excitement of MY videos not getting linked to enough, I made the mistake of not more prominently sharing a much better video that PodTech produced with Intel."
Yes, you say "produced with", but you were telling us that an advertorial should be hyped and viewed more than the video you proclaim is free of a need from a disclaimer despite the fact that you are now disclaiming it.
P.S. Do you think smiley faces do anything for you? They went out about 4 years ago even with the 14 year olds.
Preston
· 2 years ago
Let's see what Fake Scoble has to say about all this:
Goebbels: you're right. We should have done disclosure better. No doubt about that.
So, does the New York Times put in every article a disclaimer that they are writing about an advertiser (they do when they are getting paid to write something, but they don't on most articles)? Aren't you asking for us to have a higher level of disclosure than they do?
The other thing is PodTech puts its corporate sponsors right on the home page for everyone to see. We don't try to hide from that fact. Everyone could see that Intel was a corporate sponsor of ours.
Michael Markman
· 2 years ago
The New York Times doesn't say, "we're sorry we ran a story on page one. We'd much prefer you to read this ad instead."
Mikal
· 2 years ago
In light of all the comments regarding the length of your video and the need for editing. I hope you listen to your customers and audience and begin editing your videos. Explaining why you don't edit your videos isn't an excuse for not editing your videos in the face of overwhelming customer feedback calling for it. I really hope you enjoy unparalleled success with PodTech and I feel more polished content is the answer even if it leads to less content. (This is a different marketplace than Channel 9)
Min
· 2 years ago
PodTech to go bust in 3,2,1....
Lawrence R.
· 2 years ago
Robert, don't you have an equity stake in Podtech? I don't think you can get away with saying you weren't paid. C'mon, don't insult the intelligence of your readers.
LR
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
"Aren’t you asking for us to have a higher level of disclosure than they do?"
No, I'm asking you to stick to your own standards of disclosure. You failed.
I'm not concerned about a 155+ year old institution that has firmly established its policies through transparency and experience.
I am concerned about someone who proclaims to be a "pundit" and who frequently vehemently expresses himself on these issues within a new "mode" of media who simultaneously wants to act like its new and different and yet the same and analogous falling all over himself and acting out like a petulent child.
I think the newest ValleyWag story gets the real point. This story isn't about you trying to spin the non issue of blogs not linking. It has to do with the fact that PodTech, and by extension you, have very little credibility, reach, and impact.
Gus Moore
· 2 years ago
Scoble’s no shill. Your long videos are my favorite things to watch on the Web. Keep up the great work!
Shillbuster's a dork. He's probably a shill from Valleywag.
Jim "Genuine" Turner
· 2 years ago
If I'm Intel I'm happy as a lark. Let's see, I have to go with the "so what?" test here. Worst case scenario, they paid you to come out and video a launch of a new product or service. So what? I watched the whole video, and we'll get to that point in a minute, but I didn't hear you advocating that their company was better than any of their competitors. Was the video biased somehow? Not that I could tell. Now about making me sit through that long podcast. That in itself was a feat. I have no interest at all about that level of geek, but I was interested after a few minutes about the inside of a corporation. Yeah I still don't know the difference between chip leakage and diaper leakage, but Intel has been splattered all over the blogosphere in every geek filled room and anyone with a computer run by their flux capaciter or whatever it is. I say more than mission accomplished. As to your lack of disclosure, oops, lesson learned, let's move on to the next exhibit.
Michael Letterle
· 2 years ago
Frankly the 9min video seemed more like an ad made BY Intel then FOR Intel. So it was pretty obvious they paid for and authorized that.
I would think it would be clear that a company offering another company exclusive access to one of their major announcements (an announcement they believe is one of the most important computing announcements in 40 years), they're doing it for financial reasons. It's in their best interest to encourage it gets covered, even by using monetary incentives.
The only questions that are relevant are:
1. Did Intel pay you (Robert Scoble) directly (in cash or gifts) to cover their announcement?
2. Did Intel request you ask certain questions and not ask others? Did you comply with their requests?
3. Did Intel have editorial approval over the video before it was posted?
4. Do you kick little puppies after you're done reading the comments on your blog? Do you enjoy it?
Most of these you have answered, and in the negative. That's good enough for me (provided it's true).
Paul Fabretti
· 2 years ago
Who died? Let's put this into bloody perspective.
If anything this is just a lesson that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You want to know what REALLY sucks?
I pay £100 to the BBC for my TV license to allow me to watch TV and to help them produce a website whose content EVERYODY else in the world can read.
For FREE, I can log onto the net, open my google reader and read all the stories that the blogosphere is reporting on and watch in amazement as the BBC picks the most newsworthy ones from it and often doesn't link to the source of the story...and I payt for it.
Don't get me on the fact that everyone else in the world can also read the bloody story that I have to pay for...
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
Michael, as I see the disclosure issue, the question is: did PodTech and Scoble do anything to answer YOUR questions before being called out on it?
Answer: NO!
Would they have?
Who knows, probably NOT.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
>>1. Did Intel pay you (Robert Scoble) directly (in cash or gifts) to cover their announcement?
No.
>>2. Did Intel request you ask certain questions and not ask others? Did you comply with their requests?
No. They did say they wouldn't be able to answer some questions, though. I asked anyway and you get to see their refusals in the video.
>>3. Did Intel have editorial approval over the video before it was posted?
No.
>>4. Do you kick little puppies after you’re done reading the comments on your blog? Do you enjoy it?
No puppies were hurt in the production of this blog.
Herschel
· 2 years ago
Robert, I comment here and there and you know that I generally enjoy and learn from your content. However, you are close to being flat wrong here. On October 19th I asked you in comments "Are you getting paid by any of these companies for doing these interviews?"
I asked that question because I want to understand your relationship with your employer because it goes to your ultimate sense of neutrality when you "report" through your interviews. When you were at Microsoft I understood your employment relationship and could place the appropriate filter on your information.
With this gig you have said Segate supports you, so I know that anything you do with Segate needs to be filtered appropriately.
Goebbels has a valid point that you are employed by Podtech and any customer they have is ultimately paying your salary, bonuses and ultimately your stock options. Your actions reflect upon Podtech's releationship with its customers. If you said "Intel 45nm technology is inferrior to IBM/AMD I bet there would be issues. So you say you are independent of the Intel pressure, but really, you are not.
The New York Times has a huge policy book for reporters, editors and managers. This policy is in place to protect and ensure that reporters and editors are not swayed by any means because their integrity can never be questioned.
You are the reporter, editor and manager and therefore you are subject to greater sense of disclosure of your material and relationships.
Herschel: openness is messy! That's for sure. You make a good point. My defense is that all our corporate clients' logos are on PodTech, so anytime you want you can look over there and see my potential conflict of interests.
Duncan
· 2 years ago
Robert, I guess I'd speak for a lot of people when I say how extremely disappointing this is. You claim that Intel didn't have veto, the video was unscripted and unedited, but do you *HONESTLY* believe that your great scoop was simply luck? Knowing that you were indirectly on the Intel payroll (via Podtech), knowing that you were indirectly paid to do the video....Intel fed you that scoop because they wanted to use YOU as a conduit for the dissemination of the information. You were used, plain and simple. Don't for one minute think otherwise, Intel is a huge organisation with a massive PR/ Marketing Department. They could have used anyone to break that story, the chose you, it was intentional...indeed at a guess I'd suggest that they were trying to utilise you in a Web 2.0/ video play, after all, what better way to control the information than to feed it in this way. Unfortunately as a consequence your protests about the lack of links sound like you doing Intels bidding, after all, Intel would have had an expectation that your video would have been the point/ reference for this information, not the NY Times. You can protest all you want about editorial integrity, end of the day Intel still used you, and I'm sure your not so naive as to not see that.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
>>It has to do with the fact that PodTech, and by extension you, have very little credibility, reach, and impact.
I have enough credibility, reach, and impact to keep pulling you in here every day. That's enough for me.
Michael Letterle
· 2 years ago
Goebbels,
Show me someone asking PodTech or Robert if Intel paid for the 9min video and either of them refusing.
While I admit that it can look bad for PodTech and Scoble, there's no evidence of bias here. Scoble didn't do an article bashing AMD, his coverage of Intel didn't change because of PodTech's relationship with them. He's been pretty open about what happened, even if he had to be "caught" first.
Remember, this is new to Robert, yes he's been a blogger, but he's in a very new position I think. He's not just an employee, he's the VP of a corporation. A position of responsibility he may not be all use to, especially with the level of exposure he has now. I trust he's learned his lesson from this, and we'll have all kinds of disclosure now at the end of his videos.
Robert,
A suggestion...post an edited version of your videos at PodTech, but link to the unedited versions here. Nothing is stopping you from doing a professionally (or semi-professional) edited version and simultaneously releasing the uncut version. It could be "The ScobleShow" and "The ScobleShow: Unrated Version".
keith newman
· 2 years ago
Yo Fools, The argument should NOT be about who was paid for what the did write/produce or NOT. RS, you better than anyone knows this is a New World Order of media and the lines are blurred beyond distinction, the only thing that does (and should matter) is the quality of the content (and what is Quality???) an old saying from Media 1.0 is that you get the audience you deserve - and on that score you and podtech seems to be doing just fine...
Keith
btw - i wasnt paid to write this but awhile back i did pocket a few greenbacks and health bars from podtech.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
"I have enough credibility, reach, and impact to keep pulling you in here every day. That’s enough for me."
But not to get me to PodTech.
"Show me someone asking PodTech or Robert if Intel paid for the 9min video and either of them refusing."
Why? No one has asserted such a thing. I can show you Scoble's posts concerning his alleged disclosure policies. I can show you he completely failed them entirely on this matter. I can show you that he's still trying to make some wiggle room for himself now that he's exposed. I don't care about bias (none of this would be an issue if he didn't spend the weekend crying and crapping himself.) I don't care if he's new to this (it's his own problem; he left his former position for the "future" -- that future doesn't have to leave me giving him a break, that future can kick his @ss too). I don't care if he has more responsibility... or rather I do, that makes him more culpable -- he cannot separate himself as merely the guy making a lame film, he is also the company.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
Keith, the point is this started with a quality of content issue and everyone replied with a collective "meh." These other issues have arisen because Scoble has been stamping his feet crying while posting smiley faces for the weekend.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Duncan: >>You can protest all you want about editorial integrity, end of the day Intel still used you, and I’m sure your not so naive as to not see that.
OK, I'll go with that. On the other hand, every CEO uses me. I've done more than 120 videos so far and gotten access to a lot of interesting stuff that most other bloggers/videobloggers haven't gotten access to.
If AMD wants to give me a tour of their fab and explain how their stuff is better than Intel I'll be over there ASAP.
Paul Roundy
· 2 years ago
“I have enough credibility, reach, and impact to keep pulling you in here every day. That’s enough for me.”
Do you ever worry that this whole Podtech adventure and the changes to your blog and blogging style are diluting your personal brand and that the statement above won't be true forever?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Goebbels: >>I can show you he completely failed them entirely on this matter.
And I already copped to that on this post. I agree. I would have liked to have seen a much better disclosure on this particular video.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Paul: I started down this journey because I like to write about tech. I started with 18 readers. I enjoyed it then. I enjoy it now. If I end up someday with only 18 readers (and, I will, everyone dies in the end) it'll be just OK with me.
In the meantime I'll just try to have interesting conversations with interesting technologists and get those up in the best way I know how.
By the way. I've been in this role before. I was in this role at UserLand. I was in this role at NEC (an exec from Microsoft bought our first Tablet PC from me because of something I wrote on NEC's behalf). I was in this role at Microsoft. Now I'm in this role at PodTech.
michael arrington
· 2 years ago
ooof. Robert, let's go have a beer.
lubos motl
· 2 years ago
I think that there is no issue here. Scoble is very good about being open and now the blogmob is piling on. Certainly the no name comments are hiding which means they are anti robert... the content was great. the blog discussion could have been better but everyone wanted to go after scoble directly
Nick Denton
· 2 years ago
How many people started watching the 40-minute Intel video, and how many got to the end?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Michael: or two!
Nick: how far did you get?
Eric Rice
· 2 years ago
Heh, you could run for office now, cuz you got the raging hordes.
This is why I feel much value in the idea writing snide comments ahead of time, providing the list as a service for your blog commenters. So they don't have to.
You should make that a test case. Write a blog post, close the comments, but you write all the comments, good and bad. Use different names, use the textbook answers.
Ahhh to be jaded by it all.
Matt Kelly, PodTech News
· 2 years ago
What many don't know is that PodTech received a majority of it's funding from VC's and only gets a portion of it's operating funds from corporate underwriters like Intel. If you are looking for disclosure, in addition to Intel, Robert would have to include a long list of VC's and all the underwriters listed on the PodTech site who through their financial support, help make the content possible.
Eric Rice
· 2 years ago
Oh and on Valleywag: More Bat Boy, plz.
Goebbels
· 2 years ago
"What many don’t know is that PodTech received a majority of it’s funding from VC’s and only gets a portion of it’s operating funds from corporate underwriters like Intel."
Yes, we know you have very few advertisers.
"If you are looking for disclosure, in addition to Intel, Robert would have to include a long list of VC’s and all the underwriters listed on the PodTech site who through their financial support, help make the content possible."
i.e You do not intend to provide full disclosure.
Matt Kelly, PodTech News
· 2 years ago
#47: You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but apparently Goebbels none of the time.
Aaron
· 2 years ago
It's not about whether Intel had veto power over your video or your questions. It's not about whether the video was edited or not.
It's about whether you have a financial incentive to make Intel look as good as possible in your reporting/vlogging.
Clearly the answer is yes -- you have an equity stake in, are paid by, and are the most visible face at PodTech, a company that's been hired to produce PR material for Intel.
I daresay if you'd written a piece pointing out how Intel desperately needs a breakthrough like this because they're having their lunch eaten by AMD, your company might lose that PR contract.
You can insist your work is unbiased until the cows come home, but as long as that financial incentive is there, anything you say about Intel and its competitors must be viewed through that lens.
Thank you for finally coming clean on all this -- it's just a shame it took a public flogging for it to happen.
Sanj
· 2 years ago
The fact is that this Intel fiasco with PodTech is not really that new in terms of highlighting PodTech's blatant violations of integrity.
PodTech needs to be distinct about sponsored or semi-sponsored content. PayPerPost got dinged initially for failing to force bloggers to disclose when something is sponsored or not, but PodTech has been dodging this for quite some time. Passing off advertorial content as original programming is simply unethical. Period.
Seagate's earnings review? Gimme a break. No one cares about Seagate. PT is only doing a piece with them because they pay you money, but you're not disclosing that fact anywhere in the piece. "Seagate sponsors stuff on PodTech." Done.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Aaron: >>You can insist your work is unbiased until the cows come home, but as long as that financial incentive is there
Did I say my work is unbiased? I think the whole point of what I've been doing here for six years is telling you I +am+ biased.
Would Intel invite me back if I just made it look bad? Probably not. But that's not what I do. If I think something is really bad I just don't go. I knew this was going to be an interesting story from the first time I heard of it.
PJ
· 2 years ago
Whatever Intel paid you they got ripped off. That is one excruciatingly boring video.
Jason B.
· 2 years ago
Robert, I think you are experiencing tension created by a winter depression. I've been a feed reader of your for quite a long long time and I've never seen you get like this. Here's my advice, leave all of your gadgets at home (maybe even your cell phone) get on a plane and find some place to wiggle your toes in the sand. Before you get back, get on the phone and order your self a nice 30" monitor from Dell (I just got one) and get some nice 2560x1600 rez beach photos to use as wallpaper. You can even bring your camera and then take them yourself.
You seem to have lost touch with why everyone enjoys reading you, it's the excitement that you have about technology, the bickering is best left for the old unhappy people of the Nytimes and WSJ. Get back to your roots man. Maybe reinvent yourself or something.
Matt Kelly, PodTech News
· 2 years ago
Well as long as we are on the subject of disclosure I'd like people's opinions. i was invited to the Detroit Auto Show courtesy of GM and received complimentary airfare, rooms and meals and was given access to high level execs to interview. I put in the write up a disclosure to that effect on all GM pieces I prodcued from the show. Was what I wrote enough? They didn't pay me any money, just provided transportation, rooms and meals. They were impressed enough with the GM podcasts to invite me back to the Chicago show. I take them up on their offer so I can get that access to GM execs, but also be able to do podcasts on other companies while there, and to then pass them on to my audience. I hope for feedback and then pass it on to those with whom I've established a realtionship with to help get an answer.
Dominic Jones
· 2 years ago
Sorry I asked. I thought you answer yesterday was very clear, so not sure how they screwed it up.
Who's paying is only relevant so that when linking or embedding a video, one can say: Here's a video Intel commissioned from Podtech, and here's one Robert did himself.
On your videos I assume I'm right that you don't let or aren't asked by Podtech clients to preview what gets posted and they're not edited (which is why they're long!).
Personally, I prefer your videos to anything short and slick, but only on topics that really interest me. If it's breaking news, I suppose shorter is better.
Kevin
· 2 years ago
It was pretty obvious from the first few seconds of the 9min video, that Intel had paid for it - 2 cameras, a microphone for the interviewer...
Those in the community that look at online video regularly could clearly see this.
Dominic Jones
· 2 years ago
Matt,
Doesn't worry me if you disclose. Perhaps just add that no one from the company was involved in the editing.
Of course, a lot depends on the nature of the content. If it's a piece that could be construed as propaganda -- like GM getting you to document all the great things they're doing for the environment -- then maybe you would be better off paying your own way and getting the other side of the story as well.
Curt
· 2 years ago
One of the reasons there is still a place for journalists is not because of any inherent superiority to bloggers, but because there is a clear set of behaviors that are standard for every journalist. If you are covering a sponsor, you disclose. It's not a topic for argument. If you don't disclose, you're breaking trust with the reader.
If you're maintaining that you were not obliged to disclose, then you are not a journalist, nor are you "journalistic" in any real sense. The wall between news and ads is one of the things that makes journalism what it is, when it's at its best.
If you're kicking back against people's apparent demands that you disclose, that's cool. I disagree with Shel about what makes a blogger "ethical." I think anyone can do any f/cking thing they want on their blog. (Or podcast.) But each action has an equal and opposite reaction. You can't claim exemption from disclosure and then insist you be taken seriously as a credible source for information.
Matt Kelly, PodTech News
· 2 years ago
Thanks for the feedback Dom!
MadTechie
· 2 years ago
Goebbels:
From your comments it seems that you are fairly emotional about this incident. How about coming clean and stating your affiliation/bias so we can put the proper "filter" on your comments.
Do I think it sucks that Robert failed to be 100% transparent? Sure. Do I care? Not really. Will I keep reading him? Of course. I don't form my opinion based off one source. Do you? It would be careless to take things for face value that you find on the web. That goes for blogs, websites, wikis, and online rags like Valleywag.
Don't think different. Just think critically and you'll be fine and won't have to get so worked up about someone else's mistakes.
Robert Dewey
· 2 years ago
I agree with "MadTechie" - is this really that big of an issue? What's the motive? As a general reader and no affiliation, I have no reason to be pissed off or emotional - what's yours, Goebbels?
Kirk
· 2 years ago
Considering everything going on in this country and the world it sure seems like some people are getting very upset about something very small in the scheme of things. Personally I've really enjoyed most of the videos you've done since joining Podtech and will continue to do so.
Cheers! Kirk
LayZ
· 2 years ago
"I have enough credibility, reach, and impact to keep pulling you in here every day. That’s enough for me.”
What should me more concerning to you is do you have enough credibility, reach, and impact to be puling people into PodTech after this.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@54. Doesn't matter if they paid you directly. They compensated you, and PodTech by comping your travel. So, I gotta believe GM expected some "pro" coverage for their investment. Are Road and Track, Car and Driver, Automobile reporters and editors compensated by automakers in the way of airfare, hotel and meals for coverage of the auto shows? I think not, but I could be wrong. It all depends on how impartial you want to be perceived. If you want to be used as an extension of the marketing arm of GM, that's fine. The viewer should know there is the potential of partiality in your coverage.
Bruce Boughton
· 2 years ago
For those who said "who watched the whole thing?", I did. It was very interesting.
It goes without saying that Intel invited Robert for their own purposes--why else would they invite someone to video their fab which has no camera signs posted everywhere? However, that does not mean that Robert towed the company line. I watched Jason Lopez's video on Podtech afterwards, and boy was it boring! That's paid-for advertising and it shows.
I like the ScobleShow cos it's goofy. You get unedited views of companies, which gives you far more insight into the company than some slickly edited advertisement. That's the appeal of Scoble, at Microsoft, and now at Podtech. Your goofiness lends credibility to your videos.
As to the length, I think on the whole you get it about right. For the casual techie, they may be a bit long, but for someone who's really interested, the length is about right.
I don't want to get into the whole linking business, because IMHO the blogosphere is way too up itself. Just keep producing good content and you'll keep getting viewers. It's a simple as that.
Karoli
· 2 years ago
MadTechie speaks with reason. There is way too much heat in these comments; very little light. It's not a huge big hairy deal. Valleywag be damned.
Ted
· 2 years ago
As much as you may not want to admit it, you've lost all credibility and respect.
Your way was paid by Intel
Your videos, which no one care about anyway, were not "paid" by them, but you were only there in the first place because they are your company's sponsor.
Pathetic. If I were you I'd quit spinning and just tell the truth.
Naked conversations. HAH!
Robert Dewey
· 2 years ago
Ted;
"Your videos, which no one care about anyway"
It's not good to start a conversation off with invalid "facts". I enjoyed the videos, as did other (tech) members of my family. In fact, if you even read some of the posts, you would see others also enjoyed the video(s).
Sorry Ted, I quit reading your post after that statement... Anyone who starts off with an ignorant statement doesn't deserve the time of day...
Guernica
· 2 years ago
I've threatened it many times before, but now I'm really unsubscribing from your feed. Scoble, you have long demonstrated that you are immature and have a very false sense of your own importance, but I at least respected you. Your John Kerry-like equivocating on this issue has cost you that respect. If you say something important, I'll see it on TechMeme or one of my other feeds, but as for continuing to listen to your whining on a daily basis, you can count me out. How stupid do you have to be to cry about how other, more successful blogs don't link to what turns out to be an undisclosed paid commercial? And then to add insult to injury by complaining that Engadget then linked to a real article about an Xbox stolen from a cancer patient? You may not think it's as newsworthy as your commercial, but why Engadget would give a damn about your opinion I have no idea. I'm done with you.
G.
Robert Dewey
· 2 years ago
^^ another unsubscriber? or is this unsubscriber number one trolling around again?? :)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Could every shill commenter please include a full financial disclosure with every comment.
There are so many twists and turns in things like this, and often there are things you are not allowed to disclose.
There are things I have done with Intel in the past that I could only recently talk about, as they normally have 5 year NDAs on everything.
I am sure the same is true for lots of VC related items, not just who invested, but who else they invested in, and the contacts such connections provide, such as exclusive content.
@Robert - get the Podtech guys to install my Disclosure Policy Plugin. That way they can have a context related disclosure within the content and not forget about it.
Dominic Jones
· 2 years ago
I don't see any other bloggers being as open as Scoble. Everyone has hidden agendas and biases, but you will rarely see them admit as much. Sure, Robert knows how to create a buzz. He does it deliberately sometimes. But I don't know of many bloggers who are as honest as he is.
And, yes, his interviews are boring if you're not interested in the content. But if he covers something you really have an interest in, 41 minutes will feel like it's not enough. I've gotten that feeling after a couple of videos I've watched.
Om Malik said in his video that Robert is a real blogger, while he (Om) is just a reporter trying to be a blogger. He's right.
Schlomo Rabinowitz
· 2 years ago
This is crazy stuff! Sure, disclosure is nice and all, but really... do you have to attach a PDF of your income tax filing to every blog post?
I can think of issues I would want full disclosure for; like maybe why and who benefits from us being in a war. But disclosing who pays for what on a video technology site seems excessive. Or maybe I just don't take all of this seriously enough. What do I know, I just make media. And yes, some people pay for me to make it.
Two words: "Whoopdie" and "Doo"
But you know as well as anyone, Robert; just keep on keepin' on and the audience will follow. Just like the backchannel will constantly complain.
Andrew Eisner
· 2 years ago
I have to come to Robert's aid here, not just because I like and respect him but because in all the years I spent in computer journalism, this issue always came up. As long as advertisers pay the bills, readers will always suspect the reviewers are biased in their favor. Hey folks, welcome to the real world, it's not ideal but it works pretty well. Have things gotten a little fuzzier in the age of new media? Maybe a little but I have to say Robert got his start by telling it like was despite what his employer (Microsoft) might have wanted him to say - he's got my vote!
Ted
· 2 years ago
Robert Dewey, I didn't say the videos weren't entertaining or watchable, I just said no one cares about them. Which may be hyperbole but is different from saying they are not well-made, interesting etc.
My reason in saying that is to say that the videos themselves are not the point.
You have a blogger asking people to remember blogging is all about by linking and reminding people where your links come from.
Well, another facet of blogging is being 100% on the level. This is not a tech magazine, this is not "computer journalism". It's a blog, it should be outspoken and it should remind us what the circumstances of the content's creation are. Robert has admitted he failed to disclose, but he's still trying to spin this as it looks bad. I say he has lost credibility and will have to work hard to get it back.
Vijay
· 2 years ago
So what if you are paid... the videos have interesting content. Eventually its up to the viewer to make up his/her mind. It doesnt make Robert Scoble any less effective...
Keep Going !!!
Dawn Douglass
· 2 years ago
This whole thing reminds me of the attacks against Christians. When a Christian gets caught in a sex scandal or whatever, everyone goes crazy. But if a secularist does the same thing or worse, nobody cares, or else they jump to defend the guilty party. Why? Because of the perceived hypocrisy and the chance for the attackers to say, "See! You think you're better than us, but this proves you're worse!"
Robert, the irony is that if you continue to struggle to stay pure in this impure world of advertising-backed media, you'll remain a huge target for vicious assault. Having standards is hard. If you treated your blog like a newspaper or a tons of other websites and blogs out there, and had advertisements all over it, nobody would care about this Intel molehill that people are trying to make into a "got you!" mountain.
SIGH
Hang in there.
Dawn Douglass
· 2 years ago
btw, I just now went to valleywag for the first time to see their story. Big ads all over it. What a surprise. :-P
LayZ
· 2 years ago
Scoble, the timing of events would be interesting to know. Did Intel come to PodTech and propose the "professional" video (commercial) and as a result you saw an opportunity to do a longer piece on their fabrication process? Or did PodTech pitch the idea to Intel? Who make the payment proposal? PodTech or Intel?
Jeff S
· 2 years ago
Dawn: Um, Clinton.
"But if a secularist does the same thing or worse, nobody cares, or else they jump to defend the guilty party."
A longer list of "secularists" that have been caught in the moralizing trap of "American values" can be easily found. So, I'm not sure the issue being discussed here is analogous at all, or if it is, the analogy really should be rethought.
Robert: Disclosure is not a mole hill or a mountain. It's a communicative pledge so that we, your public, understands the fidelity of your discourse.
Without disclosure, even if it seems tedious or trivial, your just another voice in a sea of paid shills. I'm not accusing you of being a shill btw, since this has very little to do with you as a person (e.g. your wed site is not a diary or a personal correspondence with friends).
I would also say that signing one's name (or not doing so) seems like a flimsy distinction on which to respond to comments. Names are not identities, and anonymity is not a cowardice.
Matt: what you describe is money, e.g. compensation, both in direct (free meals, travel, lodging) and indirect form (cultural cache). Disclosure is nice I guess so we know, but it's a pretty blatant conflict of interest. A bad but useful analogy might be, "Hi, I'm writing a review of your casino, and you should let me eat for free, sleep for free, gamble for free, and an interview execs so I can tell my readers what I think of your casino."
hugh macleod
· 2 years ago
Lesson to be learned from reading these here comments: When the shit hits the fan, don't let anonymous trolls HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER in the conversation.
They have nothing to lose, trying to tear you a new one. Nor will they stand accountable for their actions.
Without accountable identity, you owe them nothing. So use that delete button with impunity, I say.
My only add to this whole thread is, "boy, people really spend LOTS of calories tearing other people down instead of making new things."
You're a nice enough guy, from the few times we've met. I applaud you for trying to bring a non-PR-flavored view on businesses. Your work has been interesting to those of us who work in and around the Enterprise technology space, and tech wonks in general.
See you Feb 8th?
Zane
· 2 years ago
I love you!!!!
Karoli
· 2 years ago
I cannot believe the sanctimonious cries piling on here. You people need to go blog about something important, like how Louisiana is still being screwed by the Feds and may never get those levees shored up properly, or how rotten it is that there are still starving homeless people in the world.
Getting your panties in a bunch over whether or not Robert Scoble was directly or indirectly paid by Intel is just silly. These "voices of the pure blogosphere" just blather. Quit being silly about this and consider things that are important.
I swear, as much as I love reading tech blogs, it just drives me crazy when the 'high horse riders' climb up and start flogging.
Dawn Douglass
· 2 years ago
Jeff S.: Clinton just proves my point. Secularists flocked to defend Clinton, whom they saw as one of their own. If George Bush seduced a young and emotionally fragile intern in the Oval office, do you think those same people would be saying, "Oh, it's just sex" and "Everybody lies about sex." Yeah, right.
vlidi_01
· 2 years ago
Like you so far all thought that CEOs talk the holy truth, and especially so when presented with recording equipment? it is just that reading between the lines of data they pack for media, when and how they do it, and the history and the current balance of powers in the market, we all can interpret what could be really expected and what they think is really important to get hold of... OK, so we now know who pays, and learn slowly that everybody pays for their own promotion. Like somebody genuinely did not believe that that wasn't the case from the vey beginning? ... I mean, whoever's doing it, we would get exactly the same output, crafted for us to get it. And Scobble is already doing it. I agree the change of style would be refreshing, but I'm more for maintaining the disinformation flow uninterrupted, for my own paranoid amusement. So nothing really changes for me...
Anti
· 2 years ago
"Ethics are for other people." -- Bobby
Mike Woodhouse
· 2 years ago
Just a thought - could there be mileage in posting "full" and "edited" versions of your footage? Thing is, I don't have time to watch much stuff at 40-60 minutes a time, but I would love to watch an edited highlights (with or without laugh!) at say 5-8 minutes. If I wanted more, I could step up to the full deal when merited.
And if the price is that the edited version is biased by your viewpoint, then OK, fine, whatever. After a few years I think I know roughly where you're coming from and I can de-bias as necessary. It's no different from watching the BBC or whoever.
Tim
· 2 years ago
Goebbels posts a comment complaining about Scoble's latest posts.
In related news, Pacific Ocean found to be "wet." - Tim
Robert John Ed
· 2 years ago
As a marketer, it strikes me funny that this really will boost your readership; despite all the complaints about some sort of disingenuous action by Robert here. I'm not denigrating that either, because I'll be one of the new readers. Is any news good news for bloggers? Don't get me wrong, the integrity of ANY writer regardless of stature or credentials is on the line every time he puts something out; but if I were Robert (well the other Robert) I'd be wearing a shit eating grin about this. The people who respect you will still respect you, while the people who casually observe tech and valley stuff will bring you a bevy of new readership. Publicity, good or bad, the same to a blogger.
Paul B
· 2 years ago
Robert, just cop it on the chin mate and move on. A couple of weeks from now and will any of us really care about the "failure to fully disclose"? Hell no, they'll be looking for your next clip/your next blog post - either to watch/read and enjoy, or just rip apart.
In the end we've all done things we regret and I think you're actions over the past few weeks, whilst up-and-down like a yo-yo, show that you're human. A quality I sure admire. And to be honest, I've been in a few arguments where I've said 'hold on, I could be wrong here' too.
I appreciate what you do! I don't always like you're content, or agree with your views but in the end I know with you, the 'comments' are always open. I'm sure, good or bad, you appreciate that feedback too!
Sunil Choudhary
· 2 years ago
Really appreciate the efforts you put in. Dont let minor annoyances bother you.
All Comments
Saying it's not true is like saying that any employee of an ad-supported company is not paid by the advertiser. But no one quibbles about this: it is appropriate to say the advertiser is paying the employees of the company.
Wow, that morphed quite a bit, didn't it? Clearly you are sh!tting your pants about this because you look like an @sshole. It's been about 5 posts later, and you are still trying to project: "I made a funny" while everyone ELSE is saying: "what a prick."
Have fun continuing to sh!t on yourself. Maybe Maryam can pick up some Depends for you.
Also, the difference doesn't seem that great to me. Both serve as advertising to Intel.
Robert spams Engadget and Gizmodo for Intel with craptastic videos thens pouts when they didn't kiss your ass like you enjoy. Scoble you lost a long time reader. Buh Bye.
So, I was "paid" but I wasn't "paid." Got it? :-)
All of this means, the mistakes you make, no matter how small, will be amplified beyond what is normal and you end up trying to answer people like Goebbels.
The problem as I see it is, is that it is easier to tear somebody down than to overlook the mistakes made.
The Forbes thing did not impress me, the Channel 9 thing did, the fact you recognize the mistakes and correct them publicly, impresses me the most.
Guy
The problem as I see it is, is that it is easier to tear somebody down than to overlook the mistakes made.
Try to say that 3 times fast ;)
Guy
Then again, maybe it's always the same person who is continuously "unsubscribing".
There is an issue. And you cannot claim ValleyWag's calling out the issue false.
And none of this mitigates this previous statement: "In all the excitement of MY videos not getting linked to enough, I made the mistake of not more prominently sharing a much better video that PodTech produced with Intel."
Yes, you say "produced with", but you were telling us that an advertorial should be hyped and viewed more than the video you proclaim is free of a need from a disclaimer despite the fact that you are now disclaiming it.
P.S. Do you think smiley faces do anything for you? They went out about 4 years ago even with the 14 year olds.
http://scoobietron.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/do-...
So, does the New York Times put in every article a disclaimer that they are writing about an advertiser (they do when they are getting paid to write something, but they don't on most articles)? Aren't you asking for us to have a higher level of disclosure than they do?
The other thing is PodTech puts its corporate sponsors right on the home page for everyone to see. We don't try to hide from that fact. Everyone could see that Intel was a corporate sponsor of ours.
Explaining why you don't edit your videos isn't an excuse for not editing your videos in the face of overwhelming customer feedback calling for it. I really hope you enjoy unparalleled success with PodTech and I feel more polished content is the answer even if it leads to less content. (This is a different marketplace than Channel 9)
LR
No, I'm asking you to stick to your own standards of disclosure. You failed.
I'm not concerned about a 155+ year old institution that has firmly established its policies through transparency and experience.
I am concerned about someone who proclaims to be a "pundit" and who frequently vehemently expresses himself on these issues within a new "mode" of media who simultaneously wants to act like its new and different and yet the same and analogous falling all over himself and acting out like a petulent child.
I think the newest ValleyWag story gets the real point. This story isn't about you trying to spin the non issue of blogs not linking. It has to do with the fact that PodTech, and by extension you, have very little credibility, reach, and impact.
Shillbuster's a dork. He's probably a shill from Valleywag.
I would think it would be clear that a company offering another company exclusive access to one of their major announcements (an announcement they believe is one of the most important computing announcements in 40 years), they're doing it for financial reasons. It's in their best interest to encourage it gets covered, even by using monetary incentives.
The only questions that are relevant are:
1. Did Intel pay you (Robert Scoble) directly (in cash or gifts) to cover their announcement?
2. Did Intel request you ask certain questions and not ask others? Did you comply with their requests?
3. Did Intel have editorial approval over the video before it was posted?
4. Do you kick little puppies after you're done reading the comments on your blog? Do you enjoy it?
Most of these you have answered, and in the negative. That's good enough for me (provided it's true).
If anything this is just a lesson that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You want to know what REALLY sucks?
I pay £100 to the BBC for my TV license to allow me to watch TV and to help them produce a website whose content EVERYODY else in the world can read.
For FREE, I can log onto the net, open my google reader and read all the stories that the blogosphere is reporting on and watch in amazement as the BBC picks the most newsworthy ones from it and often doesn't link to the source of the story...and I payt for it.
Don't get me on the fact that everyone else in the world can also read the bloody story that I have to pay for...
Answer: NO!
Would they have?
Who knows, probably NOT.
No.
>>2. Did Intel request you ask certain questions and not ask others? Did you comply with their requests?
No. They did say they wouldn't be able to answer some questions, though. I asked anyway and you get to see their refusals in the video.
>>3. Did Intel have editorial approval over the video before it was posted?
No.
>>4. Do you kick little puppies after you’re done reading the comments on your blog? Do you enjoy it?
No puppies were hurt in the production of this blog.
I comment here and there and you know that I generally enjoy and learn from your content. However, you are close to being flat wrong here. On October 19th I asked you in comments "Are you getting paid by any of these companies for doing these interviews?"
I asked that question because I want to understand your relationship with your employer because it goes to your ultimate sense of neutrality when you "report" through your interviews. When you were at Microsoft I understood your employment relationship and could place the appropriate filter on your information.
With this gig you have said Segate supports you, so I know that anything you do with Segate needs to be filtered appropriately.
Goebbels has a valid point that you are employed by Podtech and any customer they have is ultimately paying your salary, bonuses and ultimately your stock options. Your actions reflect upon Podtech's releationship with its customers. If you said "Intel 45nm technology is inferrior to IBM/AMD I bet there would be issues. So you say you are independent of the Intel pressure, but really, you are not.
The New York Times has a huge policy book for reporters, editors and managers. This policy is in place to protect and ensure that reporters and editors are not swayed by any means because their integrity can never be questioned.
You are the reporter, editor and manager and therefore you are subject to greater sense of disclosure of your material and relationships.
Ain't blogging a witch! Openness is so messy.
But I would still vote for you as President of the Internet (http://www.eclecticismo.com/hhblog/2007/01/pres...)
Herschel
I have enough credibility, reach, and impact to keep pulling you in here every day. That's enough for me.
Show me someone asking PodTech or Robert if Intel paid for the 9min video and either of them refusing.
While I admit that it can look bad for PodTech and Scoble, there's no evidence of bias here. Scoble didn't do an article bashing AMD, his coverage of Intel didn't change because of PodTech's relationship with them. He's been pretty open about what happened, even if he had to be "caught" first.
Remember, this is new to Robert, yes he's been a blogger, but he's in a very new position I think. He's not just an employee, he's the VP of a corporation. A position of responsibility he may not be all use to, especially with the level of exposure he has now. I trust he's learned his lesson from this, and we'll have all kinds of disclosure now at the end of his videos.
Robert,
A suggestion...post an edited version of your videos at PodTech, but link to the unedited versions here. Nothing is stopping you from doing a professionally (or semi-professional) edited version and simultaneously releasing the uncut version. It could be "The ScobleShow" and "The ScobleShow: Unrated Version".
Keith
btw - i wasnt paid to write this but awhile back i did pocket a few greenbacks and health bars from podtech.
But not to get me to PodTech.
"Show me someone asking PodTech or Robert if Intel paid for the 9min video and either of them refusing."
Why? No one has asserted such a thing. I can show you Scoble's posts concerning his alleged disclosure policies. I can show you he completely failed them entirely on this matter. I can show you that he's still trying to make some wiggle room for himself now that he's exposed. I don't care about bias (none of this would be an issue if he didn't spend the weekend crying and crapping himself.) I don't care if he's new to this (it's his own problem; he left his former position for the "future" -- that future doesn't have to leave me giving him a break, that future can kick his @ss too). I don't care if he has more responsibility... or rather I do, that makes him more culpable -- he cannot separate himself as merely the guy making a lame film, he is also the company.
OK, I'll go with that. On the other hand, every CEO uses me. I've done more than 120 videos so far and gotten access to a lot of interesting stuff that most other bloggers/videobloggers haven't gotten access to.
If AMD wants to give me a tour of their fab and explain how their stuff is better than Intel I'll be over there ASAP.
Do you ever worry that this whole Podtech adventure and the changes to your blog and blogging style are diluting your personal brand and that the statement above won't be true forever?
And I already copped to that on this post. I agree. I would have liked to have seen a much better disclosure on this particular video.
In the meantime I'll just try to have interesting conversations with interesting technologists and get those up in the best way I know how.
By the way. I've been in this role before. I was in this role at UserLand. I was in this role at NEC (an exec from Microsoft bought our first Tablet PC from me because of something I wrote on NEC's behalf). I was in this role at Microsoft. Now I'm in this role at PodTech.
Nick: how far did you get?
This is why I feel much value in the idea writing snide comments ahead of time, providing the list as a service for your blog commenters. So they don't have to.
You should make that a test case. Write a blog post, close the comments, but you write all the comments, good and bad. Use different names, use the textbook answers.
Ahhh to be jaded by it all.
Yes, we know you have very few advertisers.
"If you are looking for disclosure, in addition to Intel, Robert would have to include a long list of VC’s and all the underwriters listed on the PodTech site who through their financial support, help make the content possible."
i.e You do not intend to provide full disclosure.
It's about whether you have a financial incentive to make Intel look as good as possible in your reporting/vlogging.
Clearly the answer is yes -- you have an equity stake in, are paid by, and are the most visible face at PodTech, a company that's been hired to produce PR material for Intel.
I daresay if you'd written a piece pointing out how Intel desperately needs a breakthrough like this because they're having their lunch eaten by AMD, your company might lose that PR contract.
You can insist your work is unbiased until the cows come home, but as long as that financial incentive is there, anything you say about Intel and its competitors must be viewed through that lens.
Thank you for finally coming clean on all this -- it's just a shame it took a public flogging for it to happen.
PodTech needs to be distinct about sponsored or semi-sponsored content. PayPerPost got dinged initially for failing to force bloggers to disclose when something is sponsored or not, but PodTech has been dodging this for quite some time. Passing off advertorial content as original programming is simply unethical. Period.
Seagate's earnings review? Gimme a break. No one cares about Seagate. PT is only doing a piece with them because they pay you money, but you're not disclosing that fact anywhere in the piece. "Seagate sponsors stuff on PodTech." Done.
Did I say my work is unbiased? I think the whole point of what I've been doing here for six years is telling you I +am+ biased.
Would Intel invite me back if I just made it look bad? Probably not. But that's not what I do. If I think something is really bad I just don't go. I knew this was going to be an interesting story from the first time I heard of it.
You seem to have lost touch with why everyone enjoys reading you, it's the excitement that you have about technology, the bickering is best left for the old unhappy people of the Nytimes and WSJ. Get back to your roots man. Maybe reinvent yourself or something.
Who's paying is only relevant so that when linking or embedding a video, one can say: Here's a video Intel commissioned from Podtech, and here's one Robert did himself.
On your videos I assume I'm right that you don't let or aren't asked by Podtech clients to preview what gets posted and they're not edited (which is why they're long!).
Personally, I prefer your videos to anything short and slick, but only on topics that really interest me. If it's breaking news, I suppose shorter is better.
Those in the community that look at online video regularly could clearly see this.
Doesn't worry me if you disclose. Perhaps just add that no one from the company was involved in the editing.
Of course, a lot depends on the nature of the content. If it's a piece that could be construed as propaganda -- like GM getting you to document all the great things they're doing for the environment -- then maybe you would be better off paying your own way and getting the other side of the story as well.
If you're maintaining that you were not obliged to disclose, then you are not a journalist, nor are you "journalistic" in any real sense. The wall between news and ads is one of the things that makes journalism what it is, when it's at its best.
If you're kicking back against people's apparent demands that you disclose, that's cool. I disagree with Shel about what makes a blogger "ethical." I think anyone can do any f/cking thing they want on their blog. (Or podcast.) But each action has an equal and opposite reaction. You can't claim exemption from disclosure and then insist you be taken seriously as a credible source for information.
From your comments it seems that you are fairly emotional about this incident. How about coming clean and stating your affiliation/bias so we can put the proper "filter" on your comments.
Do I think it sucks that Robert failed to be 100% transparent? Sure. Do I care? Not really. Will I keep reading him? Of course. I don't form my opinion based off one source. Do you? It would be careless to take things for face value that you find on the web. That goes for blogs, websites, wikis, and online rags like Valleywag.
Don't think different. Just think critically and you'll be fine and won't have to get so worked up about someone else's mistakes.
Cheers!
Kirk
What should me more concerning to you is do you have enough credibility, reach, and impact to be puling people into PodTech after this.
It goes without saying that Intel invited Robert for their own purposes--why else would they invite someone to video their fab which has no camera signs posted everywhere? However, that does not mean that Robert towed the company line. I watched Jason Lopez's video on Podtech afterwards, and boy was it boring! That's paid-for advertising and it shows.
I like the ScobleShow cos it's goofy. You get unedited views of companies, which gives you far more insight into the company than some slickly edited advertisement. That's the appeal of Scoble, at Microsoft, and now at Podtech. Your goofiness lends credibility to your videos.
As to the length, I think on the whole you get it about right. For the casual techie, they may be a bit long, but for someone who's really interested, the length is about right.
I don't want to get into the whole linking business, because IMHO the blogosphere is way too up itself. Just keep producing good content and you'll keep getting viewers. It's a simple as that.
Your way was paid by Intel
Your videos, which no one care about anyway, were not "paid" by them, but you were only there in the first place because they are your company's sponsor.
Pathetic. If I were you I'd quit spinning and just tell the truth.
Naked conversations. HAH!
"Your videos, which no one care about anyway"
It's not good to start a conversation off with invalid "facts". I enjoyed the videos, as did other (tech) members of my family. In fact, if you even read some of the posts, you would see others also enjoyed the video(s).
Sorry Ted, I quit reading your post after that statement... Anyone who starts off with an ignorant statement doesn't deserve the time of day...
G.
There are so many twists and turns in things like this, and often there are things you are not allowed to disclose.
There are things I have done with Intel in the past that I could only recently talk about, as they normally have 5 year NDAs on everything.
I am sure the same is true for lots of VC related items, not just who invested, but who else they invested in, and the contacts such connections provide, such as exclusive content.
@Robert - get the Podtech guys to install my Disclosure Policy Plugin. That way they can have a context related disclosure within the content and not forget about it.
And, yes, his interviews are boring if you're not interested in the content. But if he covers something you really have an interest in, 41 minutes will feel like it's not enough. I've gotten that feeling after a couple of videos I've watched.
Om Malik said in his video that Robert is a real blogger, while he (Om) is just a reporter trying to be a blogger. He's right.
I can think of issues I would want full disclosure for; like maybe why and who benefits from us being in a war. But disclosing who pays for what on a video technology site seems excessive. Or maybe I just don't take all of this seriously enough. What do I know, I just make media. And yes, some people pay for me to make it.
Two words: "Whoopdie" and "Doo"
But you know as well as anyone, Robert; just keep on keepin' on and the audience will follow. Just like the backchannel will constantly complain.
My reason in saying that is to say that the videos themselves are not the point.
You have a blogger asking people to remember blogging is all about by linking and reminding people where your links come from.
Well, another facet of blogging is being 100% on the level. This is not a tech magazine, this is not "computer journalism". It's a blog, it should be outspoken and it should remind us what the circumstances of the content's creation are. Robert has admitted he failed to disclose, but he's still trying to spin this as it looks bad. I say he has lost credibility and will have to work hard to get it back.
Keep Going !!!
Robert, the irony is that if you continue to struggle to stay pure in this impure world of advertising-backed media, you'll remain a huge target for vicious assault. Having standards is hard. If you treated your blog like a newspaper or a tons of other websites and blogs out there, and had advertisements all over it, nobody would care about this Intel molehill that people are trying to make into a "got you!" mountain.
SIGH
Hang in there.
"But if a secularist does the same thing or worse, nobody cares, or else they jump to defend the guilty party."
A longer list of "secularists" that have been caught in the moralizing trap of "American values" can be easily found. So, I'm not sure the issue being discussed here is analogous at all, or if it is, the analogy really should be rethought.
Robert: Disclosure is not a mole hill or a mountain. It's a communicative pledge so that we, your public, understands the fidelity of your discourse.
Without disclosure, even if it seems tedious or trivial, your just another voice in a sea of paid shills. I'm not accusing you of being a shill btw, since this has very little to do with you as a person (e.g. your wed site is not a diary or a personal correspondence with friends).
I would also say that signing one's name (or not doing so) seems like a flimsy distinction on which to respond to comments. Names are not identities, and anonymity is not a cowardice.
Matt: what you describe is money, e.g. compensation, both in direct (free meals, travel, lodging) and indirect form (cultural cache). Disclosure is nice I guess so we know, but it's a pretty blatant conflict of interest. A bad but useful analogy might be, "Hi, I'm writing a review of your casino, and you should let me eat for free, sleep for free, gamble for free, and an interview execs so I can tell my readers what I think of your casino."
They have nothing to lose, trying to tear you a new one. Nor will they stand accountable for their actions.
Without accountable identity, you owe them nothing. So use that delete button with impunity, I say.
You're a nice enough guy, from the few times we've met. I applaud you for trying to bring a non-PR-flavored view on businesses. Your work has been interesting to those of us who work in and around the Enterprise technology space, and tech wonks in general.
See you Feb 8th?
Getting your panties in a bunch over whether or not Robert Scoble was directly or indirectly paid by Intel is just silly. These "voices of the pure blogosphere" just blather. Quit being silly about this and consider things that are important.
I swear, as much as I love reading tech blogs, it just drives me crazy when the 'high horse riders' climb up and start flogging.
-- Bobby
And if the price is that the edited version is biased by your viewpoint, then OK, fine, whatever. After a few years I think I know roughly where you're coming from and I can de-bias as necessary. It's no different from watching the BBC or whoever.
In related news, Pacific Ocean found to be "wet." - Tim
In the end we've all done things we regret and I think you're actions over the past few weeks, whilst up-and-down like a yo-yo, show that you're human. A quality I sure admire. And to be honest, I've been in a few arguments where I've said 'hold on, I could be wrong here' too.
I appreciate what you do! I don't always like you're content, or agree with your views but in the end I know with you, the 'comments' are always open. I'm sure, good or bad, you appreciate that feedback too!