Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Mr Roberto — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:38:15 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

David "Lefty" Schlesinger — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:08:40 -0000

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....?

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

David "Lefty" Schlesinger — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:02:17 -0000

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...?

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:53:02 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

ianbetteridge — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:37:51 -0000

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 :)

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:15:01 -0000

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?

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

ianbetteridge — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:31:55 -0000

"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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

ianbetteridge — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:17:39 -0000

I'm not pushing my luck - I'm sticking it to the man! :)

/me runs off to turn off Mathew's TV

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

ianbetteridge — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:17:04 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Bob — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:40:35 -0000

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notag/tv+b+gone-2369...

...that's all

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:07:02 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Steve Safran — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:50:14 -0000

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?

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:30:01 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

StevenHodson — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:05:17 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

anonymou — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:57:07 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

allen stern — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:04:04 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:39:02 -0000

Well said, Tom.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Tom O'Leary — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:18:01 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:04:02 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

allen — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:49:00 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

allen — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:47:04 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:42:01 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

Jeremy Toeman — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:32:56 -0000

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.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:22:03 -0000

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

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

mathewi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:22:02 -0000

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