It's a very interesting read, and the perspective great.
I know both techies in question, but I don't read Techcrunch and I've never gotten into podcasts (something I need to change) so I've never gotten into TWiT.
Arrington is a class-A jerk. I mean, whatadick. 'what are you gonna do about? I don't think he's serious.' comments like that are rude and completely out of place.
I dont care how many millions Techcrunch generates, Arrington is a pompous wanker pure and simple. Always has been. Lacking in class and entirely full of himself. To question Leo's integrity is the height of irony.
First of all, what Arrington asked Leo was far from an assault on Leo's integrity.
Secondly, if you read Techcrunch on a regular basis you know that people are always on their ass about their disclaimers, "hidden interests", kick backs, etc.
With that said, I think running a site in that environment makes it pretty damn second natured to ask about any disclaimers right off the bat - which is exactly what Arrington did.
Obviously most people are on the bash-Arrington bandwagon, so to each his own. I have a buddy who actually met him at last years Crunchies Awards and said he seemed like a stand up guy, so who knows.
Regardless, Leo still flipped out. He could of just defused the situation instead of closing down the show with a sea of expletives.
Arrington didn't question his integrity, he simply asked Leo to disclose if he received a free unit from Palm or not prior to giving his options. A fair question in my opinion.
If you follow TC you will know that everybody gives Arrington shit about disclosure, and recently he has become very strong and out there in terms of keeping not only TC but others inline.
Lets face it, these bloggers getting free and comp units from hardware manufacturers and then going online and praising them is so full of shit. Its been happening in the tech biz for years now and its about time somebody cleaned it up. I am sick of reading sites that hardly ever give a negative review, or only do once in a while.
I actually thought that this was another Arrington dummy spit, but as much as I hate to say it, Leo was way out of line here and looks like a jerk to anybody but his one-eyed fans.
For the record, this is what I love about Icrontic. Very few places on the web that you can find a good civil and intelligently stated disagreement. Jared, Tom, I may agree that perhaps Laporte could have found a better avenue for airing his dissatisfaction with Arrington's comments, but we disagree on the fundamental issue that Arrington was being nothing short of a complete jerk. He basically suggested that Laporte is not trustworthy while acting as a guest on his network.
Remember when Tom Selleck went on the Rossie Odonell's show, and she pasted him for carrying an NRA card out of the blue? Its kind of the same idea (reversed roles, but same principal). A pod cast, like a TV talk show is a cross promotional opportunity. That is what the twit network is at its core, Leo gets interesting guests and tech talk, expands his audience, and in exchange guys like Arrington get to expand their brand. Techcruch has gotten alot from the twit network.
So, is it civil to accept the invitation to his show, on his network, to then criticize him on air? What does that accomplish? If Arrington had an issue with how Laporte handles his reviews, he should have taken it on his own merits, perhaps have the courtesy to investigate the issue off the air, and if he felt the need, write a blog about his findings, and what he does or does not feel predisposes the review industry, and Laporte specifically. Then don't accept your next guest slot. But you don't just go to a guy's house and call him out right there, especially when that guy is offering you a really generous opportunity.
Now, that all being said, I don't care if Palm sent Leo Laporte a free Palm, one week review terms, or not. Of course Palm wants Laporte to have a sample, he is a high profile tech journalist and self professed gadget junkie. Of course Palm wants Laporte to talk about the product. Of course Leo wants to use the product so he can intelligently talk about it. Of course they want his opinion, and they hope it is possitive, but do you really think Leo Laporte is going to risk his reputation by giving a false positive review on something just because he wants a free gadget? I seriously doubt it, and if he were doing that, we are all smart enough to see it, it would cost him credibility, and he would slowly loose his audience (ZDnet, where Gilmor is from, has had its ups and downs over the years by the way, frankly, I trust the consumer reviews on the site more than the paid professional reviewers)
If someone at Icrontic.com gets sent a review kit, to keep or not, do you in all honesty think that predisposes them to say all nice things about it, knowing full well, if guys like you or me buy into it, and find it disappointing, or misleading? If it happens more than a couple of times, who is going to be calling the reviewers out? Trust me, any good journalist knows its first responsibility is to the audience. I consider myself a consumer advocate. Few people have a lower tolerance for corporate politics and BS than I do, but I honestly don't see a problem with companies handing review samples to sources they deem credible. Leo Laporte has proven himself credible. There are pros and cons to just about every product. Things you like, things that could be improved, its the reality of it. Honestly, I think the smart tech vendors are sending it to reviewers in hopes of some improvement suggestions to pop up in the reviews. I don't think Palm went to Laporte and said, "hey, they only way you get one is to be nice." Too much at stake for both their reputations.
That being said, if someone wants to challenge that model, I am fine with that. Its a worthy question on ethics in reviewing product. I probably won't be swayed, but that is fine. What I have a problem with is the lack of courtesy and respect Laporte was granted. I generally try to find a polite way to deal with things when I am offended, but honestly, I could see myself doing exactly as Laporte in that position.
LOL, got me there, for the record, I only knew about it because it was on the 6:00 news later that day.
He was there to talk about a movie, TV show, whatever they normally do on talk shows, and she surprise attacked him for his status as a card carrying member of the NRA. Clearly not what he thought he was there to talk about, and it got awkward, and very rude (mostly her).
So no, I am not a Rossie fan for the record, and I have never watched "The View" either, and Oprah kind of scares me.....
Though it's harder for me to 'take a side' considering I don't pay attention to either of the journalists, I can agree with the fact that Arrington said things out of line. Like I mentioned above, his comments like 'what are you gonna do about it?' are not only rude, but completely pretentious and unnecessary.
If he needed to call Leo out, that's one thing, but his method of attack was not a good way of doing it.
Mirage, this has occured to me, but then I ask myself.... why?
Laporte has advertisers every week, he claims he has more offers than he can accept without bogging his shows down with advertising. Arrington's techcrunch is very popular and growing. Why rock the boat on a good thing? Especially if your Laporte, why risk your reputation? For a few extra clicks this week? Not saying its not a possibility, I am sure things like that happen, but I honestly don't think that's the case here.
I don't think simple declarations of "Xxx is a complete jerk" help the conversation very much, but I do feel that a look at the fundamentals usually sets solid ground from which to work.
Mike interjected 'Did you pay for it? Let's get the disclaimers out of the way first.' Then added 'So you're one of the few people who got a 'free' Pre amongst all those who wanted one?'
That's prodding. Probing. That's a serve. Leo has an opportunity to get disclaimers in the open, to return equally. If the appropriate reaction to everything that COULD be seen as impugning is to react disgustedly and aggressively and petulantly then human discourse is in peril.
Was Mike trying to expose Leo? If so, it was a poor attempt, and it failed.
Leo could have whacked back the question by saying what he first said, explaining the circumstances and conditions, and carried on. His front-footed dummy-spit is what people with rank do far too frequently and it forms the basis of intimidation for the future. If you can't rebuff a challenge with reason then there's something else going on.
No, I'm not implying Leo's on the take; I'm saying that he had a moment of misjudgement, or that he resents Mike more than he should, that he forgot his role as host, or something entirely unsuspected.
We all NEED to be challenged every day, from climate change science to 'have you done that thing?'.
Chill out; answer; explain; finished. Aggressive replies work to prevent future questions. That shouldn't be how we behave.
I don't think simple declarations of "Xxx is a complete jerk" help the conversation very much, but I do feel that a look at the fundamentals usually sets solid ground from which to work.
Mike interjected 'Did you pay for it? Let's get the disclaimers out of the way first.' Then added 'So you're one of the few people who got a 'free' Pre amongst all those who wanted one?'
That's prodding. Probing. That's a serve. Leo has an opportunity to get disclaimers in the open, to return equally. If the appropriate reaction to everything that COULD be seen as impugning is to react disgustedly and aggressively and petulantly then human discourse is in peril.
Was Mike trying to expose Leo? If so, it was a poor attempt, and it failed.
Leo could have whacked back the question by saying what he first said, explaining the circumstances and conditions, and carried on. His front-footed dummy-spit is what people with rank do far too frequently and it forms the basis of intimidation for the future. If you can't rebuff a challenge with reason then there's something else going on.
No, I'm not implying Leo's on the take; I'm saying that he had a moment of misjudgement, or that he resents Mike more than he should, that he forgot his role as host, or something entirely unsuspected.
We all NEED to be challenged every day, from climate change science to 'have you done that thing?'.
Chill out; answer; explain; finished. Aggressive replies work to prevent future questions. That shouldn't be how we behave.
Its a matter of trust that the journalist felt that he has earned. Why should Leo Laporte have to disclose where he got his review sample? After years of informing the public about technology perhaps he feels he has earned the right to let his viewers and listeners judge for themselves on his integrity.
Its a matter of trust that the journalist felt that he has earned. Why should Leo Laporte have to disclose where he got his review sample? After years of informing the public about technology perhaps he feels he has earned the right to let his viewers and listeners judge for themselves on his integrity.
Anyone who feels that tech journalists, once they get to a certain level, still buy all their own gear for doing reviews is just fooling themselves.
It's part of the process. Company A sends Reviewer B a sample product (whether to keep or return is entirely up to Company A), typically before launch, to have them voice their opinions. It's a social contract between Reviewer B and Public C that Reviewer B will be unbiased and review the item on its own merits. If Reviewer B had to continually buy each item, there would be no way any of them would be able to write more than 1 or 2 reviews each year, which is no way to keep eyes on your site.
For Arrington to imply that Leo looked favorably upon the Pre because he got one before many others is just retarded baiting at best, and malicious at its worst. In reality it falls somewhere in between, most likely.
It's even possible that Arrington meant it as a joke (the population of Pres pre-release was staggeringly small), and handled it badly when Leo reacted the way he did. Arrington's further statements were completely un-called for, and only served to further inflame the situation.
Also: Keep in mind that it was during a taping of the "Gillmor Gang", which is notorious for call-outs and rambunctious chatter, so tensions can run high to begin with.
Leo's been very up front about how he no longer accepts review (at least ones he doesn't send back within a short amount of time). Anything he uses he's bought. I completely agree with Cliff, he's got a history and his integrity in these matters should speak for itself, Mike was wrong to try to bate him that way. Don't get me wrong though, I am not a Leo fanboy at all but constantly see Mike being an asshole troll (and not the fun kind).
Okay, so Mike's a troll. I didn't know that. What he does jeopardises what he brings down upon his own head. But that's a completely different argument to whether someone has succeeded long enough never to be queried again. Thar be dragons.
It's the principle, gentlemen, the principle. If you feel that reputation or the zeightgheist insulates anyone from personal enquiry then I exhort you to review human history. We had a particularly unsavoury couple of episodes a few years ago. People forget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair
'No. Mike. It's a one-week return loaner. You making any other point?' Deflated and finished.
To be able to endure odium is the first art to be learned by those who aspire to power. (Or greatness, in Leo's case. )
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Cliff_Forster
Icrontian
Comments
With that said, I think Leo flipping shit was just stupid.
He freaked out over nothing. I mean FFS, if you are going to have Arrington on your show - you should know what you are getting yourself into.
< /e-drama>
Is having your integrity questioned "nothing"?
I know both techies in question, but I don't read Techcrunch and I've never gotten into podcasts (something I need to change) so I've never gotten into TWiT.
Arrington is a class-A jerk. I mean, whatadick. 'what are you gonna do about? I don't think he's serious.' comments like that are rude and completely out of place.
Has either one of them responded to the matter?
Secondly, if you read Techcrunch on a regular basis you know that people are always on their ass about their disclaimers, "hidden interests", kick backs, etc.
With that said, I think running a site in that environment makes it pretty damn second natured to ask about any disclaimers right off the bat - which is exactly what Arrington did.
Obviously most people are on the bash-Arrington bandwagon, so to each his own. I have a buddy who actually met him at last years Crunchies Awards and said he seemed like a stand up guy, so who knows.
Regardless, Leo still flipped out. He could of just defused the situation instead of closing down the show with a sea of expletives.
@USPLynx - They have both since apologized.
If you follow TC you will know that everybody gives Arrington shit about disclosure, and recently he has become very strong and out there in terms of keeping not only TC but others inline.
Lets face it, these bloggers getting free and comp units from hardware manufacturers and then going online and praising them is so full of shit. Its been happening in the tech biz for years now and its about time somebody cleaned it up. I am sick of reading sites that hardly ever give a negative review, or only do once in a while.
I actually thought that this was another Arrington dummy spit, but as much as I hate to say it, Leo was way out of line here and looks like a jerk to anybody but his one-eyed fans.
Clicks and Buzz.
Remember when Tom Selleck went on the Rossie Odonell's show, and she pasted him for carrying an NRA card out of the blue? Its kind of the same idea (reversed roles, but same principal). A pod cast, like a TV talk show is a cross promotional opportunity. That is what the twit network is at its core, Leo gets interesting guests and tech talk, expands his audience, and in exchange guys like Arrington get to expand their brand. Techcruch has gotten alot from the twit network.
So, is it civil to accept the invitation to his show, on his network, to then criticize him on air? What does that accomplish? If Arrington had an issue with how Laporte handles his reviews, he should have taken it on his own merits, perhaps have the courtesy to investigate the issue off the air, and if he felt the need, write a blog about his findings, and what he does or does not feel predisposes the review industry, and Laporte specifically. Then don't accept your next guest slot. But you don't just go to a guy's house and call him out right there, especially when that guy is offering you a really generous opportunity.
Now, that all being said, I don't care if Palm sent Leo Laporte a free Palm, one week review terms, or not. Of course Palm wants Laporte to have a sample, he is a high profile tech journalist and self professed gadget junkie. Of course Palm wants Laporte to talk about the product. Of course Leo wants to use the product so he can intelligently talk about it. Of course they want his opinion, and they hope it is possitive, but do you really think Leo Laporte is going to risk his reputation by giving a false positive review on something just because he wants a free gadget? I seriously doubt it, and if he were doing that, we are all smart enough to see it, it would cost him credibility, and he would slowly loose his audience (ZDnet, where Gilmor is from, has had its ups and downs over the years by the way, frankly, I trust the consumer reviews on the site more than the paid professional reviewers)
If someone at Icrontic.com gets sent a review kit, to keep or not, do you in all honesty think that predisposes them to say all nice things about it, knowing full well, if guys like you or me buy into it, and find it disappointing, or misleading? If it happens more than a couple of times, who is going to be calling the reviewers out? Trust me, any good journalist knows its first responsibility is to the audience. I consider myself a consumer advocate. Few people have a lower tolerance for corporate politics and BS than I do, but I honestly don't see a problem with companies handing review samples to sources they deem credible. Leo Laporte has proven himself credible. There are pros and cons to just about every product. Things you like, things that could be improved, its the reality of it. Honestly, I think the smart tech vendors are sending it to reviewers in hopes of some improvement suggestions to pop up in the reviews. I don't think Palm went to Laporte and said, "hey, they only way you get one is to be nice." Too much at stake for both their reputations.
That being said, if someone wants to challenge that model, I am fine with that. Its a worthy question on ethics in reviewing product. I probably won't be swayed, but that is fine. What I have a problem with is the lack of courtesy and respect Laporte was granted. I generally try to find a polite way to deal with things when I am offended, but honestly, I could see myself doing exactly as Laporte in that position.
...Cliff?
He was there to talk about a movie, TV show, whatever they normally do on talk shows, and she surprise attacked him for his status as a card carrying member of the NRA. Clearly not what he thought he was there to talk about, and it got awkward, and very rude (mostly her).
So no, I am not a Rossie fan for the record, and I have never watched "The View" either, and Oprah kind of scares me.....
Man card still in tact!!
Though it's harder for me to 'take a side' considering I don't pay attention to either of the journalists, I can agree with the fact that Arrington said things out of line. Like I mentioned above, his comments like 'what are you gonna do about it?' are not only rude, but completely pretentious and unnecessary.
If he needed to call Leo out, that's one thing, but his method of attack was not a good way of doing it.
Laporte has advertisers every week, he claims he has more offers than he can accept without bogging his shows down with advertising. Arrington's techcrunch is very popular and growing. Why rock the boat on a good thing? Especially if your Laporte, why risk your reputation? For a few extra clicks this week? Not saying its not a possibility, I am sure things like that happen, but I honestly don't think that's the case here.
It didn't appear that this was the only thing that Michael did to egg him on. I favor Leo and am happy he did it.
Mike interjected 'Did you pay for it? Let's get the disclaimers out of the way first.' Then added 'So you're one of the few people who got a 'free' Pre amongst all those who wanted one?'
That's prodding. Probing. That's a serve. Leo has an opportunity to get disclaimers in the open, to return equally. If the appropriate reaction to everything that COULD be seen as impugning is to react disgustedly and aggressively and petulantly then human discourse is in peril.
Was Mike trying to expose Leo? If so, it was a poor attempt, and it failed.
Leo could have whacked back the question by saying what he first said, explaining the circumstances and conditions, and carried on. His front-footed dummy-spit is what people with rank do far too frequently and it forms the basis of intimidation for the future. If you can't rebuff a challenge with reason then there's something else going on.
No, I'm not implying Leo's on the take; I'm saying that he had a moment of misjudgement, or that he resents Mike more than he should, that he forgot his role as host, or something entirely unsuspected.
We all NEED to be challenged every day, from climate change science to 'have you done that thing?'.
Chill out; answer; explain; finished. Aggressive replies work to prevent future questions. That shouldn't be how we behave.
Its a matter of trust that the journalist felt that he has earned. Why should Leo Laporte have to disclose where he got his review sample? After years of informing the public about technology perhaps he feels he has earned the right to let his viewers and listeners judge for themselves on his integrity.
Anyone who feels that tech journalists, once they get to a certain level, still buy all their own gear for doing reviews is just fooling themselves.
It's part of the process. Company A sends Reviewer B a sample product (whether to keep or return is entirely up to Company A), typically before launch, to have them voice their opinions. It's a social contract between Reviewer B and Public C that Reviewer B will be unbiased and review the item on its own merits. If Reviewer B had to continually buy each item, there would be no way any of them would be able to write more than 1 or 2 reviews each year, which is no way to keep eyes on your site.
For Arrington to imply that Leo looked favorably upon the Pre because he got one before many others is just retarded baiting at best, and malicious at its worst. In reality it falls somewhere in between, most likely.
It's even possible that Arrington meant it as a joke (the population of Pres pre-release was staggeringly small), and handled it badly when Leo reacted the way he did. Arrington's further statements were completely un-called for, and only served to further inflame the situation.
Also: Keep in mind that it was during a taping of the "Gillmor Gang", which is notorious for call-outs and rambunctious chatter, so tensions can run high to begin with.
It's the principle, gentlemen, the principle. If you feel that reputation or the zeightgheist insulates anyone from personal enquiry then I exhort you to review human history. We had a particularly unsavoury couple of episodes a few years ago. People forget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair
'No. Mike. It's a one-week return loaner. You making any other point?' Deflated and finished.
To be able to endure odium is the first art to be learned by those who aspire to power. (Or greatness, in Leo's case.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca