42 comments

• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  What Lam is a classic piece of posturing. By posing as rebels, they avoid actually having to *be* rebels. Nowhere are they actually asking hard questions of the companies which, at the end of the day, they should be. The "interview" with Gates that Lam is so proud of was, frankly, crap - yet Lam obviously sees it as some kind of scalp. (Headline - "Holy shit, did Bill Gates just say that Windows sucks?" Answer - no. But hey, you've got a great headline!)
  
  Nowhere are they breaking stories about things that the industry doesn't want you to hear. Nowhere are they exposing the real underbelly of the tech industry - and believe me, there is one.
  
  What they did wasn't rebelling against a cozy journalistic system: to do that would involve hard work. What they did was the easy option: do something dumb, get banned, act like you're sticking it to the man while accomplishing absolutely nothing other than increasing your kudos with an immature teenage crowd. You know, the ones who think that you're being a rebel when you dress the same as all your friends.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  I think that's a fair point, Ian. I would like to see some more
  independent and critical writing as well, rather than just the
  sophomoric pranks. But will I take the sophomoric pranks over the
  sanctimonious, lickspittle tech "journalism" that lots of other places
  go for? You bet. Plus it was funny as hell.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  But that's the point Mathew: you don't have to take sophomoric pranks *either*. What Lam is doing is no better than the lickspittlers (is that a words? :) ) because all he's doing is pointing out a problem and then doing *nothing* about it - when, of course, he's in a position to do a lot about it.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  I'm not sure it's fair to say he's doing nothing about it, Ian -- maybe he could be doing more. I'm sure we all could. And "lickspittle" is a fine word, invented by my pal Will Shakespeare :-)
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  I'm now going to spend ten minutes working out if "lickspittlers" is the plural of "lickspittle" :)
  reply
• 

  Scobleizer

  7 months ago

  Excuse me while I pee on Apple's booth to prove I'm "independent."
  
  This is total hogwash.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Come on, Robert. I said the prank was sophomoric -- but they hardly
  pissed on a booth. They turned off a TV, at which point someone else
  hit the remote button again and the TV turned back on. Besides, I'm
  not saying Brian's post justifies the prank -- I'm saying he's got a
  point about tech blogs, that's all.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  But the point is, Mathew - in what way is he doing something better? By doing something stupid and getting banned? That's progress?
  
  Of course tech blogs are up the arses of the manufacturers. You know what? If Lam is so indignant about it, why doesn't he do something about it? You know - like some real reporting? Of course, that would actually require doing some serious work... and wouldn't get him the page views that pretending to be a rebel does.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  I've already agreed with you, Ian -- don't push your luck :-)
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  I'm not pushing my luck - I'm sticking it to the man! :)
  
  /me runs off to turn off Mathew's TV
  reply
• 

  allen

  7 months ago

  you are so wrong mathew - what we DONT see in that video is what happened when they turned the tv off. so don't run to say that the person just turned the video back on. and you can tell that at least one person was audibly mad at what was going on. with these events costing TONS of money with lots riding on the line, the prank was not a prank at all.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Allen, if you know differently then please enlighten me. Did the TV
  not just go back on? As for people being audibly mad, of course they
  were mad -- pranks make people upset, and angry. That's kind of the
  whole point.
  
  And please don't bring up all the money that CES costs and how much is
  supposedly riding on the "deals" that are done there. We both know
  that trade shows are a gigantic boondoggle, and in any case Gizmodo
  said that Motorola laughed it off. Again, if you have any information
  to the contrary, please let me know.
  reply
• 

  allen stern

  7 months ago

  of COURSE motorola laughed it off - what else would be their official reaction? could you imagine them coming out with something strong against them? duh.
  
  how many times has your pc not gone on when you hit the button and you wonder why - yet it turned out the power cord fell out? if the tvs went off, i doubt people immediately thought the power button was off.
  reply
• 

  scrawledinwax

  7 months ago

  I know the tech blogosphere's view of academics, but what the hey.... I think what's being missed here is the difference between practical and discursive effects - the latter being how ideas circulate. The practical effect is what all the Giz-haters are focusing on - that this casts a pall on blogging, that it was unprofessional or that it was just plain rude. It's a perspective that focuses exclusively on maintaining a given status quo. But if one looks at the prank as both an effect and producer of ideas, then it makes a lot more sense - it's a rejection of the symbiosis between tech journalism and its object of analysis and the necessary idiocy that such symbiosis creates.
  
  No, I'm not saying that Gizmodo did this prank in order to stick it to the man. Far from it, they did it because of the masculine, juvenile subculture that exists in tech. But as Mathew so smartly points out, it doesn't make them any less right. What Gizmodo intended makes no difference whatsoever - the effects still remain. Fundametnally, you have to ask yourself what exactly is the function of new media? If the only purpose is to reproduce the ideology of the past in a new, fancier form - then not only can you count me out, you can also throw all the revolutionary potential of blogging out of the window.
  reply
• 

  allen

  7 months ago

  weren't you the one who recently done stole data from facebook? :)
  reply
• 

  scrawledinwax

  7 months ago

  Mathew, I think you've been a voice of reason in this kerfuffle. Yes, if Gizmodo wanted to make a point about the inanity of CES or the parasitic relationship between tech writers and tech companies, they could have chosen a more mature, professional way to do so. But - it still worked and got way more attention than a 'thoughtful, carefully prepared' blog post. Isn't that 'new media's' job? To shake up the establishment, point out its flaws, all while injecting a bit of fun into things?
  reply
• 

  Kevin Burton

  7 months ago

  Yeah.. I agree with Scoble.
  
  First, due no harm.
  
  It's one thing to write a negative opinion of a product to prove you're independent. It's quite another to actively sabotage presentations during a conference.
  
  At this point you're not independent; you're a pathogen.
  
  Good thing we have an immune system for these sort of things.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Jesus, Kevin -- with all this talk of sabotage, or "criminal acts" as
  you and Dave Winer were talking about on your blog, who's the one
  being unreasonable here? They turned off some TVs. Let's get a grip.
  Besides, like I said to Scoble -- I'm not saying Brian's post
  justifies the prank -- I'm saying he's got a point about tech blogs,
  that's all.
  reply
• 

  David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  7 months ago

  Matthew, I can't find a better word than "sabotage" for what they did at the Motorola presentation. Would you think it as amusing if it were, say, someone from Nokia or Samsung or another of Motorola's direct competitors who repeatedly interfered with Motorola's efforts to present...?
  reply
• 

  cortland

  7 months ago

  Puhleeze! Writers/reporters (msm, freelance, bloggers, etc.) are supposed to write about the news, not make the news. When Giz clicked off their first TV set at CES, they went from quirky online media outlet covering tech to losers more interested in inserting themselves in the limelight. Thank God those guys don't have to report "real" news...you know, wars, murders, natural disasters, etc. I can see it now, "Giz reporter picks up AK, goes after Bin Laden." Yeah, right.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  You're missing the point, Cortland. Part of the appeal of blogging is
  that bloggers become part of the news, and report on (or even
  influence) it as a result of being close to the ground. What Gizmodo
  did is totally in that spirit. As scrawledinwax points out in his
  comment, what's the point in having blogs that just reproduce what the
  regular media are already doing?
  reply
• 

  David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  7 months ago

  Matthew, they didn't make themselves part of the story: they were "the story", in its entirety. This story wouldn't have existed without their efforts to disrupt things.
  
  How is this different (other than the cowardly anonymity of it) than standing in the back of the crowd during a presentation and shouting out profanities from time to time, or firing off Nerf weapons at the presenter? After all, "no one gets hurt"...
  
  What exactly do you see the Gizmorons "reporting on" in this particular instance, other than themselves....?
  reply
• 

  cortland

  7 months ago

  Matthew says, "what's the point in having blogs that just reproduce what the
  regular media are already doing?"
  
  Uhm, maybe these A-list blogs should actually do some investigative reporting? Maybe asking some hard questions? How about an expose of what's wrong in tech?
  
  Turning off TV sets at CES is something my 3-year old would probably do. It's not something that any professional with the slightest bit of integrity would ever dream of doing.
  
  Of course, Giz won't report on what's wrong with tech - they proved they're part of the problem, not the solution.
  reply
• 

  antje

  7 months ago

  There is too much testosterone in tech.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  I totally agree, Antje. Feel like starting a tech blog? :-)
  reply
• 

  veverkap

  7 months ago

  I'm glad that you chose to jump in again, Matthew. These have been two of the most interesting posts lately. Both sides are defending themselves well.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Thanks. I agree -- lots of fodder for debate. Just how I like it.
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Toeman

  7 months ago

  Well, as a consumer electronics industry professional first and as a blogger second, I can safely say this much: they did not win influence with this move. What they did do was lose credibility and esteem within the industry. Remember, CES is their MAIN show of the year. They are a *gadget* blog, not Web 2.0, not social media, not anything but gadgets. This is like crapping in your meal, just not a smart idea.
  
  And if you still don't see the context, here are some parallels of two other "funny, harmless" pranks that might help...
  * Intermittently disabling your Internet connection while you are trying to write an important post. But that's not all, while you call your ISP, they videotape you yelling at a customer service rep, then post the video on the Internet, with the comment of "we couldn't help ourselves not to do it".
  * How about turning off the printing press at the newspaper one morning? After all, it *does* have an on button that you can easily push.
  
  Does it get less funny when it gets closer to your own livelihood? Mathew - I *love* your blog, but I feel you are betting on the wrong horse here.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Jeremy, I'm not betting on any horses here. I'm simply trying to
  point out that what Gizmodo did wasn't all that bad, or at least not
  as bad as everyone has been making it out to be. And I don't think
  winning influence through CES is what they have in mind. I'm hoping
  that they will win it with their coverage of actual technology -- not
  some bloated excuse for a trade show, where everyone writes about the
  same prototypes with the same slavish prose.
  
  We've been over and over the prank thing. I am not saying it was
  smart, and I'm not saying they were right -- I'm saying it wasn't that
  big a deal, and it was kind of funny. That's all. When it comes to
  pranks, journalists get pranked regularly when people pretend to be
  someone they aren't -- Frank magazine used to do it all the time. And
  yes, it can be embarrassing -- and funny.
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  7 months ago

  I read this and my first thought is Rick Mercer and his interviews of famous American and their knowledge of Canada - prompted by rick of course.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  "I'm simply trying to point out that what Gizmodo did wasn't all that bad, or at least not as bad as everyone has been making it out to be."
  
  And that's where we're in complete agreement. The Giz team don't deserve hanging, flogging, sacking, or trepanning. However, if I was Nick Denton, I'd have a few words about what was and wasn't the right way to get things done. And I wouldn't have let Brian effectively post something that makes him sound like Cartman talking to his mother as a "response" to the criticism.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Who knows -- a little trepanation might help.
  
  At the same time, though, as I posted in a comment on Read/Write Web,
  I kind of appreciate what Denton and Gizmodo and Valleywag do, even if
  it's "wrong." Part of what I like about blogs is the irreverence and
  mischieviousness and lack of respect for authority, which reminds me
  of the old Suck.com.
  
  Yes, they can be juvenile -- Valleywag most of all -- but they are
  damn funny, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. Why are we so
  quick to want blogs to become just like traditional media?
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  7 months ago

  Good points. I would never criticise Valleywag, for two reasons: first, Valleywag clearly sets up itself as a gossip sheet, and there's nothing wrong with that. Second, Owen's an old friend and he'll kill me if I slag it off :)
  
  But I think that the point is not that people want blogs to *become* just like traditional media: it's that we want them to be *better* than traditional media. People like Dave Winer and Robert Scoble see Gizmodo's behaviour as betraying their vision of what blogging could do, which probably explains the venom in their responses.
  
  To me, blogging is just a technical method of publishing: blogging is a printing press, not a manifesto. So I think my expectations about Giz's behaviour are set more by my expectations of good behaviour than anything based on their press credentials. Behaving like asses is stupid, no matter who you are. Behaving like asses and then using film of it to get page views is crass. Doing all that and then pretending you're on some kind of moral high ground - which is Brian's current approach - is crass, stupid, and reprehensible. It doesn't matter if you're a blogger, press, or just an ordinary person. It doesn't make you Satan, but I'm not going to applaud :)
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  True -- which is why it would have been better in a way if Brian had
  given everyone the metaphorical middle finger and said "up your kilt"
  or words to that effect, instead of trying to justify it with a
  meta-journalism argument.
  reply
• 

  Tom O'Leary

  7 months ago

  It's all subjective. Puritans think that anyone who drinks is doing something wrong. Who's moral compass should we run with? It's not that big a deal. A ban was the consequence. Fair enough. Sorted now. Get over it.
  
  Remember the prank when you'd stop to give your buddy a ride and then pull off when he opened the door of the car? Then you'd stop again a bit further up to let him in, only to pull off again. The next time, you'd say, "ok, ok, c'mon, get in" only to pull off again. The more you did it the funnier it was.
  
  Well, I remember one guy who thought that this prank (when done to him) was horrific and would hold a grudge against the prankster for weeks. Once, he fell out completely with one of his friends as a result.
  
  The moral: Humor is subjective.
  
  Some people take events like CES seriously. Others like to make fun of them. But jaysus, it's not like computer equipment was damaged or the event had to be canceled. There were some temporary 'glitches' caused by geek pranksters. Geeks are funny like that. Sometimes when you mix young geeks with stuffy shirts on the corporate playground, it will end in tears. C'est la vie.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  Well said, Tom.
  reply
• 

  anonymou

  7 months ago

  oh please. first off, you're falling into his trap. by writing anything about this silly affair, you're only sending traffic his way. secondly, lam's contention about this being some sort of "civil disobedience" is beyond pathetic. yeah, he's a regular rosa parks. this isn't about sucking up to corporations; rather, it's about honesty and integrity and acting like a mensh, not a sophomoric jerk.
  
  maybe it's a slow day, matty boy, but your "thoughts" are just rubbish. bring your game up a notch. the competition's gaining on you
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  First of all, any traffic I send to Gizmodo would be like a drop in
  the ocean, so save the advice. And second, Lam has admitted it was
  sophomoric -- that doesn't change his larger point, which you have
  failed to address. Bring your comment up a notch.
  
  And while we're at it, how about having the guts to put your real name
  on your comment? I put mine on the blog post you're so eager to
  trash.
  reply
• 

  Steve Safran

  7 months ago

  It really smacks of trying to have it both ways. If you're gonna pull a prank, say "Hey, we pulled a prank. Deal with it. Discuss." I'd respect that, even if I didn't think the prank was funny, which is subjective and can be argued to death.
  
  It's bad logic to argue you are "A" because at least you didn't do "B." So? Argue "A" on its own merits.
  
  The way to prove you're not "in bed" with companies is to report on them fairly, question their products and review their work in an unbiased manner. Agreed that these things can be a wank - but what's the message? Gizmodo is at least a wee bit guilty of biting the hand that feeds it. Agreed?
  
  In any case, I certainly wouldn't give you s**t for bringing it up in the first place. Do people not understand basic reporting?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  7 months ago

  That's a fair point, Steve, as I mentioned to someone else (can't
  remember who right now), Gizmodo's response does have a bit of "bait
  and switch" to it, which is an old rhetorical tactic. I almost liked
  it better before they posted the post-hoc rationale.
  reply
• 

  Bob

  7 months ago

  http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notag/tv+b+gone-2369...
  
  ...that's all
  reply
• 

  Mr Roberto

  7 months ago

  So the rule is, if you pull a prank then you're above being in bed with dirty corporations? If you say so. But why didn't Gizmodo turn down those press passes? That's what I want to know. If I'm an independent dude surely I wouldn't want to be tainted with junkets and door gifts and free passes for 11 of my staff.
  
  If I'm really an independent dude, I mean.
  reply