Arrington vs. Arrington

Uh oh. Mike Arrington's at it again. Today in his blog, TechCrunch, he announced that he would divest his startup investment portfolio, claiming to avoid conflict of interest. Before the typical bashing of some of his competition, he paused to reaffirm his commitment to journalism ethics. From the post, The Rules Apply To Everyone:

"Conflicts of interest and ethical reporting are something that we are very careful about at TechCrunch. We write principally about new startups, and these companies are usually very nervous about early reviews of their products. We’ve been offered significant cash payments to write about some companies, which have always been rudely declined. We’ve always been extremely careful to disclose any conflicts of interest in our stories (which is usually that I’ve invested in a competitor). These conflicts are very rare. Despite that, some people have spread rumors that we’re dishonest in our coverage (from what we can tell, these usually start with an entrepreneur at a startup we’ve refused to cover, or gave a negative review to). All of these claims are false."

Noble words.

There are a lot of people, however, who would have issue with his claims. Sure, I could quote Dave Winer, or Allen Stern, or I'm sure Richard Jones of Last.fm has something to say, but forget those guys. Let's hear what Michael Arrington has to say. Here's a fun old chestnut from his CrunchNotes site:

"TechCrunch is different. TechCrunch is all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends. I genuinely like these people and want them to succeed, and they know it and therefore trust me more than they trust traditional press.

I am an active investor, board member and advisory board member with a number of startups. That isn’t going to change. I also write about startups. That isn’t going to change, either. Obviously people like what we write on TechCrunch or they wouldn’t come back. But no one should think TechCrunch is objective or conflict-free. We aren’t. We never have been. We never will be."

So, which Michael do you believe? The one who talks about ethics and journalistic integrity, or the one who makes truckloads of cash writing up his rich Valley buddies?

Twice the Hayter

Just came across this post from Hardcore Nerdity today. David Hayter, the screenwriter for the recently released motion picture Watchmen, has an urgent request. There's something he wants everyone who saw Watchmen last weekend to do--watch it again this weekend:

"Please go see the movie again next weekend.
You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again."

He's calling on his hardcore fan base to see this movie not once, but twice in a week's time. Here's what he's really saying:

"Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again. This film is important! A film about superheroes! With emotional conflicts! A film that I screenwrote! The adaptation was so strict to the graphic novel that I didn't really do that much! For the love of all that is good and holy, there's a giant penis in it! Give me 14 more dollars!"

This coming on the heels of Eliza Dushku pleading with viewers to stick with Joss Whedon's widely panned Dollhouse for six poorly scripted episodes before the series "took off." Gee whiz, guys, I've got an idea: why don't you make shows and then we'll tell you if they're worth watching (twice).

The Price Of Paying With Cash

Jason Calacanis made a bit of a stink today by offering to buy a suggested user spot on Twitter for $120,000 dollars a year. A lot of people were puzzled, amused, and offended by his garish attempt to purchase popularity outright. "But Twitter is free! And those spots aren't paid!" Well, yes and no.

Twitter, like everyone who uses it, is about self promotion, and helping those who help you. The New York Times is listed, as well as its fashion blog, The Moment. The NYT has done a lot of Twitter coverage, like this tutorial. Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco and California gubernatorial hopeful, recently gave a press conference announcing his intent to "Twitterize" SF, whatever that means. And TechCrunch, which I've bashed before (sometimes they say things that aren't the truth), issues regular positive writeups on Twitter and related start ups. They make Twitter look good, they get top user status, and everyone makes more money. You help us, we help you.

The only thing Calacanis did here was try to sidestep this secret handshake, this new media Cosa Nostra, Perhaps, ultimately, that was his point.

New Media, Old Jackass

There's a lot of guides and articles available on using social networking and new media for self promotion.  There however, aren't a lot of available information on how to not make yourself look like a complete toolbox while doing it.  Mostly our of personal frustration, here's a quick guideline for effectively utilizing Ye Olde Worlde Wide Web for personal gain.

You are a making a complete ass out of yourself if:

Facebook

-you maintain presence on Facebook solely to promote your blog/web service/loan company.  Online social sites work just like regular social sites.  So having membership in a social site is like going to a bar exclusively to sell home owner's insurance.  Don't be that guy.

-you ask why you were removed from some one's friend list.  There are only two real answers to this one:  either you're boring or you're a dick.  If you're not sure which one, you're probably boring.  

Blog comments

-you can't spell.  Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here; we all make mistakes.  But if you have a two sentence comment, sans capitalization or punctuation, containing 3 or more spelling and grammatical errors, a lot of people will think that you're 9 years old/ mentally challenged/Sarah Lacy. They just aren't going to take you seriously.  You don't even have to know how to spell-- just push the damned spellcheck button.  Please.

-Your post simply points people to your site.  I'm not talking about people who link to relevant discussions on their own sites, or people who use their site name as user name, I'm talking about stuff like this I just saw on TechCrunch:

Repeat this 40 or 50 times, and you're sure to piss everyone off and make sure they never visit your site.  Ever.  

Twitter

-you give your user name and password to someone else so they can send me twitter profiteering book advertisements under your name.  Congratulations; you're now a  Twitter whore; a prostitwit, if you will.

-you are a celebrity and it's very obvious you aren't managing your own posts.  Way to convey synthetic emotions to your fans.

-you are a celebrity who refers to a commercial product way to much.  Yeah, it's totally awesome how cool iTunes is.  How much are you raking in for that?

-you follow someone you haven't met on Twitter and then ask why they're not following you.  Maybe it's because you're an asshole.

Ahh... I feel better.

Lyons Loves Blogging to Hate Blogs

These days Dan Lyons is blogging again, with a purpose.  It seems he's upset that sometimes different blogs report the same information at the same time, and therefore irrelevant.  I guess I kind of see his point.  He writes for Newsweek, right?  I bet, somewhere in this issue, there's something about the economy.    You know why?  Because that's the news.  It's what you're supposed to be writing about.   Is Lyons similarly upset that all the mainstream news sites are talking about the economy?  Or that car sites are talking about the '10 models?  No.  So why the hate on blogs?  

Dan's hate for the blogosphere is nothing new.  In 2005, he wrote this, stating bloggers "are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective."   Lyons staked a tech career in the old journalism (even the online iterations of such) with Forbes and Newsweek, and this new wave of journalism must scare the hell out of them.  How can you compete with a bunch of caffeinated tech junkies twitching  in front of their laptops 24/7 for the hope of some PR trickle or leaked info when your magazine ships once a week?  The truth is, if tech bloggers were that irrelevant, we definitely wouldn't need Dan Lyons to tell us.

But the real paradox here is that Dan Lyons is one of the most infamous bloggers out there.  He wrote the acclaimed Fake Steve Jobs Blog, one of the most hilarious and and consistently witty blogs the Internet has seen .  Blogging may not have got him great wealth, but it got him notoriety, a book deal, and arguably helped him get in at Newsweek.  We don't know Dan Lyons for being really, really wrong  at Forbes, we don't know him for his novel Dog Days, we don't know him for his tepid tech-for grandma articles at Newsweek, we know him for Fake Steve Jobs.   Consider this:  When Lyons wants to tell the people how lame and redundant the blogs are, does he do it in his column?  No, he heads to his blog.