Techdirt. Stories filed under "bloggers"

Senator Lindsey Graham Apparently Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve 'First Amendment Protection'

Mike Masnick — Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:59:21 PDT

Senator Lindsey Graham made an interesting slip of the tongue recently, saying that he's not sure if bloggers deserve first amendment protection:

"Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves," he said. "Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times."

Now, as many people will rightly point out, within the context it's pretty clear that he spoke imprecisely. He was discussing a potential shield law for journalists. He wasn't really suggesting that bloggers might not deserve any First Amendment rights. I'm pretty sure he'd agree that they do, in fact, have the right to free speech. Instead, he's referring to another part of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.

But, I'll argue that even in that context, the statement is really no less ridiculous. For years, Congress has debated a shield law for journalists, which basically allows them to protect their sources without legal liability. And each time it's debated, this issue comes up, with some in Congress seeking to carve out "new media," always using the same bogus rationale, arguing that if "bloggers" get shield law protection, then it means anyone can refuse to give up information on anyone else, by claiming to be a blogger.

This is hyperbolic and untrue.

As we've pointed out, there's a simple way to solve that problem: just make the shield law cover acts of journalism rather than target journalists. Many people may not be journalists by profession, but still, at times, perform journalism. And it's not that difficult to figure out which is which. Otherwise, you're carving out a special class of people in an arena in which people doing the exact same thing would face different rules.

And the problems of trying to carve out "journalists" instead of acts of "journalism" become pretty clear, pretty quickly. The last time the shield law concept was being debated, Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein tried to add a carve out that made it clear that Wikileaks should not be protected by the law. And that should scare people. Because when the government can magically decide that this kind of journalism is protected, while that kind of journalism which embarrasses the government is not protected, then you no longer have freedom of the press. At all.

So Senator Graham's question is quite ridiculous. The "Freedom of the press" needs to cover all acts of journalism, not just those who qualify as "journalists" under an amorphous standard, which is likely to be whether or not a court believes a certain publication is "legit" enough.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Former Maple Leaf GM Sues Bloggers For Posting Rumors About His Firing, Spreads Rumors Far & Wide

Timothy Geigner — Tue, 14 May 2013 13:50:19 PDT

By now, you probably know the Streisand Effect storyline. Obscure person X says something famous person Y either doesn't want known or doesn't like, famous person Y sues or threatens to sue, thereby vaulting the entire episode into a media spotlight it wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise. Whether that disliked information is true or not, the entire point is that what amounts to a massive overreaction doesn't achieve the ultimately desired effect. True, it can take a thick skin to ignore some of the nonsense that occurs on the internet, but it's for the best.

You know who I would have thought would really have thick skin? A guy who had played hockey and had, up to recently, served as an executive in the NHL. Turns out I was wrong, since former Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke is pissed about rumors of why he was fired spreading online, so much so that he's going to court.

The former general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs filed a court action Friday alleging defamation against several unidentified Internet commenters believed to have authored and spread rumours about his dismissal.

“Brian has decided that it is time to stop people who post comments on the Internet from thinking they can fabricate wild stories with impunity,” read a letter penned by Burke’s lawyer Peter A. Gall of Heenan Blaikie LLP. “Brian is determined to find the authors of the lie about him and those who have circulated the lie. He is pursuing them in court and will obtain orders compelling them to pay damages for their illegal actions.”

The rumors in question suggested that Burke had been fired over an affair with a reporter covering the team and had had a child with said reporter. As it turns out, this wasn't at all true. If ever there was going to be something on the internet to piss you off, that one might be it. The problem, of course, is that the bloggers in question appear to be obscure netizens with no following at all. Almost nobody knew of the rumors -- and for the few who did, it was really no different than some random fans at the bar or in the stands tossing around silly rumors. Until the lawsuit, that is. Hell, most of the bloggers haven't even been identified beyond screen names to date, since they aren't important or followed enough for anyone to know anything about them.

The defendants, whose identities are currently unknown to Burke, are listed only by their online usernames: “NoFixedAddress”, “CamBarkerFan”, “Lavy16”, “mbskidmore”, “Tulowd”, “Loob”, “Naggah”, “mowerman”, “Aaronp18”, “Steve”, “KaBoomin8”, “THEzbrad”, “Slobberface”, “Poonerman”, “isolatedcircuit”, “Kanada Kev”, and “sir psycho sexy”.

Now, I know what you're thinking: surely, Tim, you are "sir psycho sexy." Well, I'm not. My other handle is "jock itch mcglitch" thank you very much. But at least THEzbrad's website has been identified, now that he's written a response to the lawsuit. I give you one person that Burke's lawyers claim acted with "actual and expressed malice and had the intention of damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation.”

Up until three weeks ago very few people had visited this blog. If you are one of my new readers you are probably aware of my current situation. Recently I have been involved in a lawsuit regarding a post I made on this blog earlier in the year. That blog post was merely speculation; just a rumour I heard and had read on hockey forums... It needs to be noted that the blog post I made specifically stated that what I was writing was based on speculations and that it was just rumours...Hopefully, Brian Burke and Hazel Mae will read this and understand how I feel, and what my intentions were. I want to sincerely apologize to them for any personal or professional damages my actions may have caused them.

That's the kind of malice you can really sink your teeth into, amirite? But, the bigger point is that this guy also made it quite clear that what he was posting was a rumor in the original posting, rather than a statement of fact. Could it still be defamatory? Possibly -- especially with Canada's stricter defamation laws. But consider the context, and think about how this was really little different than some fans at a bar tossing around some rumors which no one actually paid any attention to. If it's defamatory, it's fleeting and meaningless. But, when we see a public person bring a spotlight to themselves over obscure information, even if it's not true, what we end up with is him reminding everyone that he is willing to sue over rumors. Of course, the end result might just be that people also reconfirm that he was fired for just being a really crappy GM. Nicely done.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ridiculous: Vietnam Sentences Musicians To Jail For Songs That Protest Government Actions

Mike Masnick — Mon, 5 Nov 2012 03:17:37 PST

We talk a lot about the importance of free speech here in the US, and worry tremendously about any efforts to chip away at such free speech rights. Even as we worry about how free speech issues are dealt with at home, we're very aware that most other countries have significantly less respect for basic free expression concepts. It's somewhat horrifying to learn that last week, a court in Vietnam sentenced two Vietnamese musicians to years in prison for writing, recording and posting online some "protest" songs:

Both were accused of posting songs on a Web site of Patriotic Youth, a opposition group based overseas. Mr. Tri, 34, who uses the stage name Viet Khang, has criticized the government in his songs for not taking a harder line against China in territorial disputes. A video for his song, "Viet Nam Toi Dau" ("Where Is My Vietnam?"), has become a YouTube hit, with 700,000 views. Mr. Binh, 37, recorded the song "Courage in the Prison" ("Nguc Toi Hien Ngang") in support of an imprisoned blogger, Nguyen Van Hai. The song urges people to mount nonviolent protests.

And we're not just talking about a few weeks in prison, either. Tri got four years and Binh got six years. Binh's situation is especially ridiculous since his song is about an equally ridiculous prison sentence for a blogger. Basic political dissent is important to any free society, and to completely lock people up over some rather straightforward protest songs (that don't advocate violence or anything like that) is really quite horrifying. The US, thankfully, has condemned these sentences, but this is an issue that more people need to know about and speak out about.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

Mike Masnick — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:25:00 PDT

So, there's been this slightly weird tangent in the Oracle/Google patent & copyright dispute, in which Judge Alsup -- for reasons that are still not clear to anyone -- ordered both companies to disclose the names of any "authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case." Both sides made filings last week, with Oracle disclosing -- as was already public -- that it had blogger Florian Mueller on staff as a consultant, and mentioning an Oracle employee who blogged about the case. Google, on the other hand, told the court that it hadn't paid anyone to comment on the case at all, but did mention that in the course of its regular activities, it does give money to various companies, some of whom may have had employees who commented on the story. Judge Alsup came back earlier this week and told Google it didn't try hard enough and to find some names to name.

Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names... including mine! Yes, I know that we've had some haters declaring for years that I'm a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I'm named in the section about CCIA -- the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did. Here's what the filing states:

The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64. See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents).

And, yes, CCIA has commissioned a study by my company (Floor64) which I co-authored. And that's, uh, public knowledge. Here's my post back in January announcing the Sky is Rising report, in which it says, upfront, that it was sponsored by CCIA. And, of course, you can go check out the Sky is Rising report yourself directly, which has a nice big CCIA logo on the front. Hell, if you want, you can also donate some money for the ebook version -- and it, too, will come with the CCIA logo.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Google. Google is a CCIA member, as are a bunch of other companies. And, honestly, if you'd asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it's an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more. However, it appears that Oracle is not a CCIA member, though I only learned this today from the filing, which also notes that Oracle and Sun used to be CCIA members. So, I'm not sure what any of that says about anything.

And, of course, if the point of this exercise is to uncover "shills" who are really speaking on behalf of companies without disclosing it, once again this argument falls down. My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed. And that continues up until today. I will regularly call out Google for patent and copyright behavior that I believe is bad. And that's because I say what I think. The editorial content of this site has never been for sale, nor will it ever be. Because the only way I survive in this business is with my reputation.

Also, I'm not sure what's with the Friendfeed link in the filing. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about Friendfeed, which I thought was shut down after Facebook bought the company. But I believe my Friendfeed just sucked in my Twitter account and Techdirt's Twitter account into a single feed. And apparently it lives on without my knowledge.

Separately, because all of this struck me as interesting, I remembered that we did some work with Oracle too! And, just as with what we did with CCIA, it was disclosed publicly at the time. Oracle (along with Intel) sponsored a section of our site, and a series of webinars that we did. And yet, Oracle did not disclose me in their original filing and I don't believe that they filed a new filing here either. Of course, as with CCIA, our relationship with Oracle did not include them having any say in editorial either. In fact, with the order as broad as it was from Judge Alsup, I'd argue that there's a much stronger argument that I should be in the Oracle filing than the Google one. But, of course, Oracle didn't include us because it was a random blog sponsorship thing they did a while back which had nothing to do with editorial (or even intellectual property issues).

In the end, this comes right back to some of the concerns that were raised about Judge Alsup's broad order in the first place. If you want to find tenuous connections, they exist. In fact, Google's filing lists out a bunch of other names (including many people who I know or consider friends), almost all of whom have a long, long history of holding the exact same positions, and where the connection to "Google money" is, at best, weak.

Like many folks, I was curious to see who would be named on both of these lists, but the order was so broad that it seems to have swept me up into it (on one side, though a broad reading says it would make more sense for me to be on the other one!), and that's silly. I'm a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of -- and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

You Don't Need A Mythical Club Membership To Call Yahoo's Patent Threat Against Facebook Desperate

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:06:32 PST

We just wrote about Yahoo admitting to the world that it was done and cooked as an innovative company when it chose to threaten to sue Facebook over patents. Plenty of other commentators wrote similar stories. We've all seen this pattern before: Company that used to lead the market, but has become an also-ran, suddenly pops up with patents to sue the hot new thing. It's a sad statement of a company that just can't compete any more. However, in a really, really bizarre screed, hedge fund investor Eric Jackson seems to suggest there's a crazy conspiracy of hypocritical bloggers making these statements.

It should be noted that Jackson has a bit of a reputational stake here: four months ago, he specifically called on Yahoo to do exactly what it's doing now. So, now he seems to want to defend this turf, but his argument is bizarre and nonsensical. It starts off with a crazy conspiracy theory about how Silicon Valley bloggers have a special "clubby" relationship with VCs:

If you’re a blogger, you play nice to keep future sources happy (unless you’re someone like Kara Swisher and reached another level of appreciation/admiration). If you’re a VC, what makes your $10 million check more valuable than the next guy’s? Of course, you’re going to be nice. It’s all about access for these non-engineers. If you’ve been black-balled in Palo Alto – whether you’re a VC, blogger, or PR person — what advantage do you have?

Considering that I am a "Silicon Valley blogger" and have been around and doing this longer than anyone he mentions, I find this curious. I know it's become a popular talking point lately -- this supposed close relationship between VCs and bloggers -- but I seem to get by just fine without such relationships (yeah, I know some VCs, but I don't recall ever using one as a source, other than on information they stated publicly -- so not as a "scoop"). As for "what advantage" you have, if you don't have VCs feeding you information, that's a ridiculous question. Plenty of blogs have advantages in the community of readers they have and the analysis and insight they provide. Jackson seems to believe that the way a blogger can provide value is by being first. He's wrong.

He follows this up with an argument that doesn't make any sense at all -- something about the fact that new nominees to Yahoo's board are all from New York... and that means something crazy about the "negative reputational effects" it would have on anyone in Silicon Valley to serve on Yahoo's board. I have no idea what this means. I can't think of any negative reputational effect it could possibly have. He also mentions the "open secret among Silicon Valley elites that Yahoo! is in great need of reform." Wait. That's an "open secret"? How about it's not a secret at all. It's common sense to anyone who has watched Yahoo fade from glory and fail to actually keep up in the marketplace. Suggesting all this stuff about "open secrets," "Silicon Valley elites," and "reputational effects" just makes it sound like there's a conspiracy going on where there's none. Someone has hit the paranoia sauce hard.

What does all of this have to do with patents? I have no freaking idea. And neither does Jackson, who transitions with the grace of a rhinoceros ballerina, by simply switching to the patent question and insisting that this somehow "proves" the nonsense he just spouted.

But the vocal, nonsensical, and hypocritical response this morning to Yahoo! serving Facebook notice that it’s in violation of 10 - 20 key patents by several Silicon Valley watchers takes this clubbiness to new heights.

A bunch of veteran Silicon Valley observers, who know damn well what Yahoo's move is a sign of, isn't evidence of any "clubbiness." It's evidence that a bunch of people who know this space have seen this train wreck before. He then attempts to explain the "two big problems" with people pointing out that Yahoo's actions are a bad sign.

The merits of their assertion that anyone claiming intellectual property rights is somehow a “troll” and “not innovating.” When did we decide that IP is reprehensible? I missed that lesson at blogging school.

Er. It's not "blogging school." It's just Silicon Valley (and history) in general. We believe in innovating in the marketplace, not fighting in the courtrooms for the most part. A study last year suggested that somewhere between 70% and 80% of folks in Silicon Valley are generally distrustful of patents. I learned that by paying attention to reality. Not blogging school.

Should no company be able to “innovate” something without it immediately being copied by dozens of other firms? Is mass copycatting preferable to having rule of law saying someone should be able to come up with a new idea — as recognized by an impartial third party — and then have that idea protected for some period of time (not forever)?

Actually, there have been studies and research that suggest that despite Jackson's mocking rhetoric, indeed, yes, the ability to copycat is preferable to monopolies on ideas. Why? Because merely being a copycat isn't particularly effective. First movers have an advantage, and you win in the marketplace not by copying, but by out-innovating and providing something better. Even better, as others copy you and try to out innovate you, you get to learn from them too. And thus, innovation accelerates. That's a good thing.

If Sarah Lacy et al. find IP so reprehensible, I would ask them: are you arguing for Silicon Valley to be a place much closer to China where Internet firms can engage in mass copycatting immediately as a normal course of business? Is that what you want? Is that what your sources at Facebook, LinkedIn, Digg, and all the other great Web 2.0 companies of the future want?

It's already the normal course of business for the most part. We see copying happen all the time, and history has shown that's where much of Silicon Valley's innovative nature comes from. And I have no idea what the sources at these companies want -- but in general, yes, most of the folks I know in Silicon Valley seem to prefer to compete in the marketplace. I was at a roundtable of entrepreneurs not too long ago, meeting with some federal officials, discussing patents, and the officials seemed to expect that everyone would talk about the importance of more patents. Instead, every single entrepreneur talked about how patents were a distraction and a hindrance to their business. Multiple entrepreneurs talked about how they didn't care if people copied them, because they understood their own customers better and were already ahead in the market. Jackson seems to ignore all of this.

The obvious hypocrisy between these Valley-types criticizing Yahoo! and yet whistling past the Cupertino graveyard with Apple is what’s really galling to me. If all of you are so incensed by a company protecting its IP rights, why are you not picketing in front of Tim Cook‘s house? Hasn’t Apple pursued this line of defense/offense for its business most aggressively of anyone in the Valley?

Er... we've criticized Apple's patent strategy plenty and have done done so for years.

It goes back to clubbiness. One of the rules of the Valley is that no one criticizes Apple (or Google for that matter).

Geez. I guess all those blog posts above don't exist. And, honestly, that's just crazy talk. I know tons of "Silicon Valley bloggers" who criticize Apple (and "Google for that matter") all the time. Just for the hell of it, since all the links above are about Apple, here are some criticizing Google too, for "that matter."

Does Jackson even read the blogs he's slamming?

And for those saying that Yahoo! caved to Wall Street pressure to launch a patent fight now against Facebook prior to its IPO, this avoids looking at some key facts. Starting in 2005, Yahoo! began to make a concerted effort to develop its patent portfolio. According to PatentVest, Yahoo! was granted 20 patents in 2002 by the US PTO, 50 in 2006, 80 in 2008, 300 in 2010, and 325 in 2011. One of the key IP lawyers at Yahoo! in 2006 left the company shortly thereafter to take a more senior job at Google doing the same thing.

All companies in Silicon Valley recognized this trend and began investing in protecting their IP starting in 2006. Yahoo! was one of many doing this. When Yahoo! began growing its portfolio, it was before anyone realized Facebook was going to be the size it is today. Of course, Yahoo! famously tried to buy Facebook for $1 billion in 2006 — which was seen as an outlandish number to pay at the time by the blogosphere.

This is a convenient rewriting of history. While he's right that many companies in Silicon Valley started investing heavily in obtaining patents around that time, it wasn't to use them as an offensive weapon -- but as a defensive weapon against silly lawsuits from dying companies... like what we're seeing with Yahoo today.

Which brings us to today. Yahoo! has a case against Facebook. It might have cases against others in the future. Yahoo!’s owned by its shareholders – not the clubby bloggers of Silicon Valley.

Let the bloggers do what they need to do to protect their self-interests. Yahoo! will do the same.

But that's the thing: this strategy never works. That's what the bloggers were saying. Because we've seen it. The companies that start suing more nimble, more successful competitors over patents, always end up failing in the long run. That's why it's a clear indicator of a company that's done innovating. Breaking out the "sue over patents" folder is a key sign of a company that knows it can't compete. Because when you can beat the competition by innovating, suing over patents is always seen as a waste of time.

Shareholders in Yahoo -- and Jackson admits that he is one -- may get some short term benefits, if it happens to get a chunk of cash from some company, but when a company that fits Yahoo's profile starts suing over patents, it's a clear, clear sign that it's time to short that stock. The company has given up.

And I'm still wondering when I get invited into this supposed "club."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

AP Finally Launches NewsRight... And It's Righthaven Lite?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:09:51 PST

A few years back, the Associated Press announced plans to try to DRM the news, with an announcement that was mostly astounding for its technical cluelessness. It took nearly three years, but the project (now officially spun off from the AP -- who is still the largest shareholder) has been announced as "NewsRight," and is being described as an attempt to get bloggers and aggregators to pay up for "profiting" off the work of the AP or the other newspaper partners of NewsRight (including the NYT, McClatchy and others). Of course, the devil is in the details, and no matter how many details I read, this whole thing still doesn't make any sense at all.

At best, it appears to be Righthaven Lite. It doesn't sound like they'll totally pull a Righthaven, where their first move is to sue, but rather (from the various vague descriptions) it sounds like NewsRight will be going around simply trying to get blogs and aggregators to buy a license. But here's the thing: on what legal basis? That's the part that's not clear. Much of what blogs and newspapers do is simply not infringing (even if the AP likes to pretend it is). There may be some extreme cases where there is infringement, but most standard cases seem like classic fair use. And that's where it gets worrisome that this turns into a legal shakedown -- whereby sites are pressured to pay up just to avoid a legal fight, no matter how strong the legal position of these sites might be.

But, much more to the point, nothing in this plan appears to be about adding value. That's the key way to determine if a business model is heading in the right direction, or if it's really just someone trying to "free ride" on the work of someone else. NewsRight appears to be the worst kind of free rider, honestly. They're not adding any value -- they're just demanding people pay up to avoid a negative cost (the legal threat). Also telling? The company admits that half the staff is... lawyers, and that appears to include the company's CEO. When your 11-person company employs multiple full-time lawyers, you're not innovating. You're abusing the law. This seems like a complete disaster in the making -- and not because "information wants to be free." But because NewsRight doesn't appear to provide anything of actual value to sites. All it does is carry a big stick around and say, "pay us if you don't want to get whacked." I'm sure some sites will pay, but it's difficult to see how this adds anything of value to the world.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Should Shield Laws Protect Journalists? Or Journalism?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:50:36 PST

Mathew Ingram has some excellent coverage of a bad ruling in Oregon, wherein a blogger was found not to be covered by the state's shield law (protecting her ability to hide sources) because she wasn't affiliated with some big media organization:

...although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.

Mathew's post covers a number of other recent cases that have been more broad in saying who counts as a journalist. And, of course, there have been attempts at creating a federal shield law for journalists.

But what really strikes me about this, is that a ruling like this seems to be looking at the wrong issue. It's not about whether or not it protects journalists, but whether or not it protects journalism. That is, in a few similar rulings, it always seems to come down to the affiliations of the person -- with the claim from some that if they're not working for a "media organization" then it means that "everyone" is protected by the shield law. We can discuss whether or not everyone should be covered by such a law, but even that misses the point (in a big way). The fight isn't over who should be covered, but what. The point is to protect journalism. And journalism is defined by the action, not the person or their affiliations. Anyone can do journalism -- associated or not. This does not mean that everything is journalism, however.

For example, I've noted plenty of times that I am not a "journalist." However, at times, I most certainly engage in journalism.

This can be true of almost anyone. If what they are doing for the sake of gathering some information is in the process of gathering that information to better inform the world of a subject, I think it's fair to call it journalism. However, that does not make the protections so broad that everything can be kept secret. In such situations, information can be revealed when it was not done specifically for the purposes of informing the public.

Unfortunately, this distinction between journalism and journalist seems to get lost all too often in these discussions, and it's why we get bad decisions like this one.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New Head Of UK's Newspaper Regulators Thinks Bloggers Are A Bigger Problem Than Phone Hacking Tabloids?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:58:41 PST

The Guardian has an interview with Lord Hunt, who has just taken over the UKs newspaper regulatory organization, the Press Complaints Commission (quite a name). Most of it is fairly tame to boring. But then... at one point, Hunt talks about all the wonderful journalists he knows and how they're lovely upstanding citizens determined to get to the bottom of every story etc. etc. etc. And the Guardian reporter challenges him a bit:

But, I counter, surely the major problems occur because of the tabloids? "No," he replies, "I think the greater challenge is with the bloggers, whether it's Guido Fawkes or whoever."

The question, clearly, refers to some of the recent phone hacking scandals in the UK, in which the News of the World hacked into tons of phone voicemails to get stories and did all sorts of other hugely ethically questionable things. I'm unaware of any bloggers, let alone all "the bloggers" combined, who have done anything quite that egregious. And, of course, a blog is just a software platform. Lumping together everyone who uses that single platform doesn't make much sense. But, then again, someone who thinks that "the bloggers" are somehow a bigger problem for government scrutiny than those hacking into phone systems... well... I guess it's asking a lot to expect him to "make sense."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Associated Press Chairman Signs Up For Righthaven, Begins Suing Bloggers

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:01:23 PST

Well, well, well. Remember back when the Associated Press threatened bloggers for quoting snippets of AP articles? Is the organization considering dipping its toes in the Righthaven waters? The Las Vegas Sun reports that Righthaven has signed up Media News as a client and has sued a blogger on behalf of the Denver Post, after the blogger apparently reposted a Denver Post column by Mike Rosen (with a link and credit). This is interesting for a few different reasons. First, it was just a few weeks ago that the Denver Post published a cryptic "reminder" about copyright that had a bunch of people scratching their heads. I had thought about mentioning it at the time, but it seemed so utterly lacking in context, that there wasn't much to say. I guess the Righthaven lawsuit provides context.

But, much more interesting is the Associated Press angle. You see, the CEO of MediaNews is one Dean Singleton. The same Dean Singleton is also the chairman of the board of... (you guessed it!) the Associated Press. He's also been their leading champion for the AP's backwards-looking bunker "lock everything up" mentality and its "DRM the news" strategy. So, if he's willing to partner with Righthaven and transfer copyrights to that company in exchange for suing bloggers, should we consider this a warning shot that the AP will be next? I'm sure that Righthaven would love that, though lately Righthaven's legal strategy hasn't looked so strong.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies

Mike Masnick — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:14:44 PDT

There was an amusing post this week at TheWrap.com discussing how the various Hollywood movie studios are confused about the basics of social media and Twitter. You may remember (or, maybe not), back in 2003, when Hollywood suddenly started blaming text messaging for certain movies failing, because some kids would go to a movie, realize it sucks, and quickly warn their friends to stay away. Of course, Hollywood blamed text messaging, instead of the fact that they made a crappy movie, and couldn't rely on their old methods of squeezing a ton of money out of people before word got around. In the age of Twitter, of course, this has only increased, so the studios started blaming Twitter, calling it "the Twitter Effect" and proceeding to freak out about it.

This new article points out that "The Twitter Effect" doesn't really appear to have any impact at all, but does mention that studios are trying to jump on this "Twitter" bandwagon by "buying trending terms" on the site. But watching the movie studios try to figure out this whole social media landscape can be pretty funny. Adam Singer sent over an email he just received from Warner Bros. asking him to join its "word of mouth marketing team" in which the studio would pay him to say nice things about Warner Bros. films:

Hello,

I am a part of the Warner Brothers word of mouth marketing team and recently came across your blog! Your blog uniquely stood out as dynamic, informative and highly creative. We are seeking bloggers that are passionate about entertainment to help us engage your readers with content that would be interesting to them.

We would like to have you join our WB Word marketing team to let fans know about our latest releases and relevant content/products. As a member of the team, you will be asked to display photos, clips, and stories on your Blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The best part is you will get paid! Additionally, we may even debut event previews and new content so that fans like you get to enjoy it first.

Here's a tip for Warner Bros.' "word of mouth marketing team." If it's really "word of mouth marketing," it probably doesn't require you to pay people to talk about your bad movies. And, of course, depending on how the various bloggers on the "team" indicate their relationship with WB, the studio may be opening itself up to FTC problems.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

CNN Claims 'Something Must Be Done' About Anonymous Bloggers

Mike Masnick — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:45:49 PDT

If you follow political news even slightly, by now, you've probably heard about the whole Shirley Sherrod incident, involving an edited video of a talk she gave, which took her quotes out of context and made it appear she was saying exactly the opposite of what she was actually saying. The original video appeared on Andrew Breitbart's website, so it seemed kind of odd in discussing this incident, that two CNN anchors spent the majority of a video segment attacking anonymity on the internet. The first two minutes just complain about the internet in general, aided by a typically cranky Andrew Keen, but after the Keen segment, Kyra Phillips and John Roberts focus on the fact that people won't put their name behind what they say online: Of course, anonymity had nothing to do with this incident at all. All of the players were known, so it seems odd to pick on anonymity. On top of that, both Phillips and Roberts seem woefully clueless on the subject of anonymity and liability. Roberts notes that Keen told him about companies that try to ruin other companies by posting false information online. What companies? He doesn't say. Where's the proof that this is happening? He doesn't say. Why the companies who have had falsehoods spread about them by other companies haven't sued for defamation? He doesn't say. In fact, Phillips falsely implies that there are no remedies for this, and suggests it's ridiculous that people have "freedom of defamation." She goes on to say that something needs to be done, and implies that the law needs to change, saying "something's going to have to be done legally," and that there needs to be "accountability." Um.... except defamation laws already allow people to sue over anonymous falsehoods. You would think that newscasters arguing over this point would know the basics like that.

But an even bigger point, as raised by Glenn Greenwald, is the fact that CNN relies on anonymous quotes all the time. It doesn't take long to find articles on CNN that quote anonymous officials. For them to rage against "cowards" who won't stand behind what they say, and then to regularly quote "anonymous" sources, seems pretty damn hypocritical. Phillips claims anonymity online is "very unfair." Phillips also attacks the media for "giving anonymous bloggers credit or credibility." But again, CNN quotes all kinds of anonymous sources all the time.

Later on, Roberts suggests anonymous blogging "has its place" and suggests that place is Iran and North Korea. But not the US. The authors of The Federalist Papers are rolling over in their graves.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guardian Picks Up Blogger Who Escaped From Murdoch's Paywall

Mike Masnick — Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:02:14 PDT

This is amusing. The UK's The Guardian has been a strong advocate of keeping online news free and has pointed out how paywalls are generally a very, very bad idea. Of course, its competitor, Rupert Murdoch's The Times of London has famously put up a paywall. Right when that happened, we noted that a blogger for The Times had chosen to part ways with The Times, as he had no interest in having his own work hidden behind a paywall where it harmed his own, personal brand. It seemed likely that other top journalists would look for positions that were better for their own careers as well.

Now, in a bit of a snarky move towards The Times, the Guardian has agreed to start hosting the blogger who left The Times. Yes, the Baby Barista blog has jumped from The Times, to its own site, to The Guardian in the course of a month.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

AP Sues Others For Copying Its Reporting, But Has No Problem Copying Bloggers Without Citation

Mike Masnick — Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:41:46 PDT

You may have seen the story we recently had about a woman suing Google after she got hit by a car while following Google Maps' walking directions. In that post, we linked back to Danny Sullivan's post about this story at Search Engine Land (where he noted that Gary Price had tipped him off to the news). In our post, we recommended people read Danny's full writeup, highlighted some of the points he made and added a bit of our own analysis. Of course, it's a hot story, and so lots of other publications wrote up their own versions of it as well, and Danny is now pointing out that the vast majority of mainstream publications did not credit him at all with breaking the story -- some of whom even used the images that Sullivan created in their own stories without credit.

Of course, the one I find most interesting is the Associated Press. The story published by the AP basically repeats a lot of what Danny put in his report, but fails to mention that Danny had the story first, and did a lot of the journalistic legwork in understanding what the story was about. Now, I've gone over this issue before in the past: and I don't see any legal reason why others should be required to cite their sources, but do believe it's the neighborly thing to do, and tends to lead to goodwill back in your direction as well.

But, when we're talking about the AP, this is an organization that has sent DMCA notices and threatened a blogger with legal action for linking to AP stories along with a headline and a short (35 word) excerpt. This is the organization that has claimed it was planning to sue others for creating similar stories and specifically sued All Headline News for supposedly rewriting its stories. This is also the same AP that thinks it gets to define fair use, and that means that any use of 5 words or more is not fair use. This is the same AP that claims that creating an entirely new artistic work based on an AP photograph is, in no way, fair use.

Yet, this AP has no problem making use of Danny's original reporting, without even so much as giving him credit?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Writer Splits From Murdoch's Times Of London To Avoid Being Hidden Behind The Paywall

Mike Masnick — Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:19:57 PDT

With Rupert Murdoch's The Times of London going behind a paywall, we're already seeing some of their writers bailing out. A bunch of folks sent over the news that the writer of the Times' legal blog, Tim Kevan, has set up shop on his own blog, outside of the paywall. He admits he has nothing against The Times for putting up a paywall, it's just not something he wants to be a part of:

I have today withdrawn the BabyBarista Blog from The Times in reaction to their plans to hide it away behind a paywall along with their other content. Now don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the decision to start charging. They can do what they like. But I didn't start this blog for it to be the exclusive preserve of a limited few subscribers. I wrote it to entertain whosoever wishes to read it.

We've seen this before. Back when the NY Times had its old paywall around its op-ed columnists, there were plenty of stories of those columnists complaining about the lockdown. And, of course, when Newsday, in New York, put up its paywall (which infamously brought in just a few dozen subscribers), one of its top columnists quit, after publishing an open letter about why paywalls are a bad idea.

This does bring up yet another example of where paywalls can hurt. Even if they do get subscribers (a big if), it might not do much for a writer's own reputation if his or her work can't be read more widely. In an era where an individual's reputation is pretty important in the journalism world, many good reporters and columnists might not want to get stuck in virtual obscurity behind a paywall.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Blog Commenter Was Not A Journalist

Mike Masnick — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:20:00 PDT

While lots of attention was paid to the claims that the confiscation of Gizmodo reporter Jason Chen's computer's would "settle" whether bloggers are considered journalists, the details in that case suggest otherwise. However, a much more important case on that particular question was decided late last week. It's the case of Shellee Hale, which we've covered in the past. Basically, Hale posted some information claiming a security breach at another company. She revealed this information as a comment on another site -- and when she was sued, the company demanded she reveal where she got that information from. She claimed that her sources were protected, as she was a journalist.

The court ruled against her, saying that because she had "no connection to any legitimate news publication," her own investigations weren't journalism. That's troubling for a variety of reasons, especially given the wide latitude in determining what constitutes a "legitimate news publication." Hale appealed, and unfortunately, the ruling last week from the appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling:

"Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media," wrote Superior Court Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo.

The court also claimed that her activities were not journalism because they "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity."

Again, this is problematic. In an age of participatory journalism, people who do journalism don't need "an established connection or affiliation with any news entity." They can easily establish one with various sites, or they can simply set themselves up as a "news organization" on their own. Furthermore, as technology has changed the whole process of journalism, there's an awful lot about journalism today that "exhibits none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process." That's because the news process is constantly changing -- such as its expansion into participatory efforts these days. This ruling is troubling in that it looks backwards, not forward. It's also a reminder that rather than various broken state laws that shield journalists, it really is time for a federal shield law to protect journalists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Could Gizmodo's iPhone Scoop Settle Whether Bloggers Count As Journalists?

Carlo Longino — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:13:00 PDT

If you were anywhere near a techy site on the internet last week, you probably noticed the sensational story of how a prototype of a forthcoming iPhone got left behind in a Silicon Valley bar, and eventually ended up in the hands (and on the pages) of gadget site Gizmodo. Given Apple's history of cracking down on new product leaks, it wasn't too surprising to see the company ask for the phone back, nor to hear rumors that police were looking into the matter. However, it was a little surprising to read today that California police have seized computers and other gear from one of Gizmodo's editors, breaking down his door in the process. The COO of Gizmodo parent Gawker Media alleges that the search was illegal, as the editor is protected under California's shield law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources. Gawker founder Nick Denton says the case should let us find out if "bloggers count as journalists", but that's not completely clear. The shield law exists to protect unnamed sources, not to let journalists commit crimes (such as receiving stolen property) and then cover them up under the guise of their work. So while the case may not settle if bloggers are seen as journalists in the eyes of the law, it should settle once and for all that age-old question of whether or not an iPhone prototype left in a bar by an Apple employee constitutes stolen property.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sports Journalist Blames Fat, Cheeto-Eating Bloggers For The Decline Of His Trade

Carlo Longino — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:00 PDT

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video in an apparent state of inebriation using some pretty colorful language (via Barking Carnival) to describe former Cowboys coach Bill Parcells and NFL draft prospect Tim Tebow. The video, as you might imagine, became pretty popular, prompting Jones to clarify that he was having a "social moment", and when he says somebody "isn't worth a s**t", it's a "familiar, caring term of endearment". Lots of old media news outlets ran with the story as well, prompting quite a reaction from longtime Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen, who pilloried his own station for running the story:

That story we had earlier tonight about Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, if that's what it is (and our news director thinks it is), is yet another example of the decline of journalism as we once knew it. Our business now, too many times, is a fat kid in a T-shirt in his mother's basement, eating Cheetos and writing his blogs -- and we make it news. Jerry Jones in a bar, being Jerry Jones, is not news to me. And the fact that some creep slides up to Jones, records the conversation without Jones knowing, then tries to sell that recording -- and that becomes news -- is an embarrassment to us all."

Clearly Hansen is working on his entry for this year's Buzz Bissinger Award For Achievement In Grouchy Sports Journalism. He characterizes the decision to run the story by his station's news director as: "Public figures are fair game, and our game is reduced to following the lead of others." Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock decries this as yet another horrible example of "gotcha journalism", saying that it's no wonder athletes don't want to talk to the media when they run stories like this.

But isn't that the real crux of the issue? Many sports journalists appear to be afraid to do anything that might jeopardize their access to athletes and their teams, so they've supported the PR efforts to carefully craft the outside appearances of sports figures, and are largely hesitant to do anything to upset these appearances. Hansen calls this sort of story evidence of the decline of journalism, but it's really the result of sports journalism. Stories like this become popular and notable among the public because they're so out of character for anybody within professional sports. Other pieces have called Jones' behavior in the video "just Jerry being Jerry." And you know what? That's fine. The content of the video isn't even really that objectionable -- and perhaps has some interesting insight into the fact that Jones might have hired Parcell solely for PR value, something which seems to have gone unacknowledged among the mainstream media. But it's only these reporters, who have been let inside the magic curtain, that know that. The public at large sees the staged media persona of somebody like Jones, and then this video differs significantly from it, making it interesting.

Whitlock says sportswriters "owe Jerry Jones an apology and all sports fans an honest explanation of why athletes/celebrities have every right to avoid us." That makes it sound as if the goal of sports journalism is to be friends with athletes, to buy into, and to help build up, the carefully crafted, positive images of athletes -- not to cover the world of sports. That's what makes the downfall of somebody like Tiger Woods so sensational and so interesting to the public. But it seems reasonable to ask that given the intense media interest that follows someone like him around, why didn't the story of his escapades break sooner? It wasn't until the situation became irretrievably public -- like the Jones video -- that the mainstream media ran with it. These stories break in blogs because their writers aren't beholden to the same model, and often don't care about being so close to their subjects. Whitlock alleges that sports figures like Jones "can't be human." That's not the case at all; rather the mainstream media often doesn't make any effort to show them as human, making these rare moments where they're seen without their protective PR cover so dramatic, and so compelling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

More Bloggers Suing For Gov't Press Passes

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:59:00 PST

We recently wrote about how a lawsuit filed by three alternative publication reporters against NYC for denying them press passes to NY Police press conferences ended in a settlement with NY setting up new rules for getting press credentials. There was a fair amount of back and forth in the comments, with some still believing the lawsuit was sound, even though we had trouble with the idea that the lawsuit had any merit at all. However, it looks like that result may have inspired others as well. A blogger in Maryland is now suing the state for denying him a press pass. The article is long and detailed -- and it does sound (yet again) like the government should have issued the guy a press pass, but does that make the lawsuit sound?

Let's take an extreme example. I write for an "alternative publication," but if I requested a press pass from the White House, I would totally expect to get turned down. There is limited room in such press conferences, and the White House has every right to determine who gets that access. Same with the NYC police and the Maryland General Assembly. I agree that perhaps these gov't organizations should have a clear process and clear standards for who gets let in, but I can't see how it's a free speech violation to deny press credentials under these circumstances. They're not saying these people aren't press, or that they can't publish whatever they want. They're just saying they don't get to enter the building as press.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Viacom Warns Bloggers: Post Clips Of The Daily Show And We'll Sue [Update: Or Not!]

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:04:00 PST

Update: A comment from someone at Viacom says that The Hollywood Reporter got this story wrong. He correctly noted that we accidentally called their PR guy a lawyer (fixed), but now says that the quote is not about suing, even though that certainly seems to be the implication from the quote. Perhaps I'm missing something. However, Viacom now says:

We have always tried to be as permissive as possible when looking at what might be fair use, and we haven't changed our approach at all. Frankly, fair use works for us. I can't recall a time we've ever sued a blogger for the use of a Comedy Central clip, and there's no reason to believe that would be more likely to today.

That's an interesting quote from a company suing YouTube for a billion dollars for a lot of fair use clips (including some that Viacom itself uploaded), but ok. We'll take it at face value. Now, here's the original post:

Viacom owns Comedy Central and its hit program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The show makes frequent use of fair use exceptions in copyright to show TV clips from other TV stations as part of the show. But apparently, Viacom and its lawyers think that fair use is only okay for big studios. With the news that Viacom is pulling The Daily Show and The Colbert Report off of Hulu in favor of its own sites, a Viacom ~~lawyer~~ PR guy threatened to sue any bloggers that posted unauthorized clips of the show. When asked by The Hollywood Reporter if it would go after bloggers posting clips, Viacom responded:

"Yes, we intend to do so," says PR rep Tony Fox. "My feeling is if (websites) are making money on our copyrighted content, then that is a problem."

Now, it's true that the video players that each of these shows use on their own official sites do allow for embedding -- but they also have limits (and the player is definitely clunky). But, in response to Mr. Fox, isn't The Daily Show making money off of other's copyrighted content? Why isn't that a problem?

It's really rather disgusting to see big studios like Viacom pretend that fair use only exists when it's in their favor.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:10:04 PST

The FTC's highly questionable disclosure rules have been in effect for a bit over a month now, and it appears that even the FTC doesn't understand who they apply to or how they apply. And that's the problem. Apparently, someone noticed that actress Gwyneth Paltrow lavished praise on a resort in Marrakech, Morocco, and wondered if Paltrow had paid for her stay there -- noting that it was the grand opening of the place, with lots of stars -- and Hollywood publicists asked about this said there was "not a chance in hell" that someone like Paltrow paid to attend. In fact, they wonder if Paltrow was even paid for her "appearance." So, how do the FTC rules apply? She was pitching a place that most likely gave her something quite valuable for free. That should be disclosed, right? That was the whole point of the FTC rules, right? Well, maybe not. When asked about it, the FTC hemmed and hawed and claimed that "celebrity endorsements are different." Why? Because consumers might "understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff." Right, but wasn't the whole reason that these new disclosure rules were instituted in the first place that bloggers and others were supposedly (though, I believe it to be exaggerated) "always getting free stuff" too? Basically, these FTC rules sound like the sorts of things that are totally subjective, whereby the FTC can crack down on someone they don't like if they have nothing else to use, but will leave others untouched.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

TSA Withdrew Subpoenas On Travel Bloggers... But Serious Questions Linger

Mike Masnick — Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:40:19 PST

Last week, the news that the TSA visited two travel bloggers who had written about some rather obvious "security directives" that the TSA had refused to confirm publicly (i.e., that everyone boarding a flight to the US would get a pat down) got a fair bit of attention. Beyond just seeking their sources, the TSA agents had subpoenas and with one of the bloggers, were quite threatening and ended up confiscating his laptop (which was then damaged when it was returned). With the story getting so much attention, the TSA withdrew the subpoenas saying they were no longer necessary. While some are attributing this to the negative publicity received in the press, it seems more likely that they had figured out what they needed (especially with Steven Frischling handing over his laptop).

There are two other aspects of the story that remain in question and are somewhat troubling. The first is the issue raised by Danny Sullivan about Google's role in this effort. It came out in the early reports that both bloggers had received the notice from someone with a Gmail account. Google won't comment on whether or not it received a subpoena in this case, but it seems likely that it did. In fact, as Sullivan points out, Google -- unlike some other companies -- often seems quite willing to comply with such subpoenas without giving users a chance to protect themselves. This is the company's right, of course, but given Google's own positioning as a protector of user rights, you would think it would be a bit more aggressive on this front.

The second issue concerns reports that the TSA more or less forced Frischling to post a Twitter message, asking the guy who sent him the original email to email him again. Again, earlier reports had noted that Frischling had already deleted the email when the TSA agents had arrived. So, the suggestion is that they wanted to get him to email again. An "anonymous source" (so take it for what it's worth) is claiming that the TSA agents typed a message into Twitter asking the guy to send Frischling an email, but told Frischling to actually "send" the Twitter message, so they could deny that they had posted it.

Given all of this, it seems like there's a half decent chance that the TSA withdrew the subpoenas because it already had what it needed. It could get the guy's email from Frischling's computer after the guy emailed back -- and then could subpoena Google to find out who it was, without getting much pushback. The bigger question, though, remains why this is happening at all. The "security directive" wasn't classified. It wasn't secret and it was obvious to anyone who happened to fly into the US from a foreign country. If the TSA really thinks that keeping something like this secret somehow makes us more secure, it's even more messed up than previously thought.

And, once again, we're reminded why we should have a federal shield law to protect anyone engaged in journalism from having to reveal their sources.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reuters Blogger Questions Reuters Editorial Actions: Transparency In Action

Mike Masnick — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:14:46 PST

Well, here's an interesting one. There were reports last week claiming that Reuters had spiked a story about hedge fund big shot Steven Cohen after Cohen complained to Reuters management. While Reuters has since strongly denied the charge, it is interesting to note (as sent in by reader JJ) that at least one Reuters blogger complained quite vocally about this decision. The full blog post, written on Reuter's Hedge World blog is well worth reading. Here's a brief snippet:

As a news organization, all we have connecting us to our audience is our credibility. When we make mistakes, when we miss the point, when we fail to publish in a timely manner--each of these creates a little crack in that credibility. Once enough cracks form over time, the credibility is eroded and ultimately broken apart. At that point it doesn't matter how many orange dots you have swirling around your TV commercial or how intelligent you claim your information is. Once that bond is broken you're screwed.

Because Reuters is my company, there's a big part of me that hopes this incident has been blown out of proportion; that the blogs don't have the whole story. I fear that's not the case, however. The way it looks now is positively scandalous. And as a journalist it makes me almost physically ill to think about it.

I hope someone above me addresses the situation publicly, because lord knows not addressing it ain't working. Right now this incident is relatively contained (although it was the most viewed post on ZeroHedge as of Tuesday). But by next week, this will be all over the place--Romanesko, Drudge. From there it could get real ugly real fast.

And herein, I hope, lies a lesson for whomever killed Matt Goldstein's Steve Cohen story: When you make a decision like that, under those circumstances, the back story will get out. And the fallout from that back story will always, always be worse than the fallout from the story itself.

What strikes me as most interesting about this is that this Reuters post is still up. Reuters did not pull it. It does have an update link at the top to another blog that posted Reuters' denial (not even a Reuters page... which is also noteworthy). While I'm still curious about the decision to spike the story, I have to admit that the fact that a Reuters blogger was allowed to post this blog seriously questioning the integrity of Reuters management (his own bosses) lends at least some more credibility to Reuters itself. This is strengthened by the fact that the blog post has remained up as well.

Compare this to the stories that went around when the Associated Press was announcing its silly and totally useless attempt to DRM the news. At the time, I heard from a few different AP reporters who thought it was a ridiculous idea that made the Associated Press look bad -- but they weren't allowed to say that publicly, and had no real outlet to do so. Reuters and the AP compete pretty directly in the newswire business, and every time I compare them to one another Reuters seems to come out ahead in recognizing where the world is heading. If it is true that Reuters spiked the Cohen story, that would be quite damning and could make me question trusting Reuters, but how it's handled this news so far, and how it's reacted to its own blogger talking about the story is impressive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Virtual Goods, Scams, Investigative Reporting And The Media

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:11:02 PST

For many years, we've been quite skeptical of any business model in virtual worlds/social networks that rely on "buying virtual goods." That's because these are all based on artificial scarcities, and as we all know (hopefully, by now), relying on artificial scarcities for a business model is incredibly risky, especially once people realize the scarcities are artificial. And yet, over the past few years, a number of businesses have been built on this very premise. In fact, Silicon Valley is crawling these days with businesses built on selling virtual goods, and if you talk to many VCs about it, you'll quickly note that they're positively giddy over the fact that people are paying for this stuff. What they don't seem to realize is that it's unlikely to last.

In the last couple weeks, Mike Arrington, over at TechCrunch, did an amazing job calling attention to the widely known, but rarely discussed in polite company, dark underbelly to most of those business models: quite a large part of their revenue is based on scammy offers that effectively trick unsophisticated purchasers (often kids) into signing up for expensive subscriptions to things they don't want. I was at an investor "roundtable" a couple months ago, which was mostly bankers in suits, and they were laughing about just how gullible people are on these things, and it's great to see TechCrunch exposing them, and pushing the worst abusers to clean up their act. Of course, even when some, like Zynga, claim to be cleaning up their act, Arrington was able to dig up a video where Zynga's CEO proudly talked about the scammy tactics he used -- and then noted that these same scammy tactics showed right back up on Zynga, after the company promised they were gone. Those who use these kinds of tactics may find that while they "bring revenue now," it may be short-lived. Companies that focus on such abusive tactics live to regret it (just ask RealNetworks).

But, the really amazing thing, as pointed out by Dan Lyons/Fake Steve Jobs, in an amazingly un-Fake-Steve-Jobs-like rant, is to compare the series of writeups by Arrington with the love letter to Zynga and other "virtual goods" companies in the NY Times, which came out after most of Arrington's posts, and makes no mention of them at all. As Lyons/FSJ notes:

So: they walked into this shit-storm and somehow, by some miracle, managed not to notice the fecal matter flying all around them. It's like covering a football game that took place in the middle of the blizzard and neglecting to mention the weather.

Now, maybe they did all the reporting before Arrington's stuff broke. In which case they should have gone back and updated their info. Or maybe, just maybe, Zynga's PR people teed up a Times story as a kind of rebuttal to what Arrington was reporting. Either way, that's what ended up happening: Zynga used the Times to deflect the bad shit flying at them from Arrington. They need good press because they're hoping to cash out by going public next year. That story in the Times will be worth millions. Many millions.

Meanwhile, Arrington, still digging, blasted again on Saturday night, reporting that sleazy ads had popped up again on Zynga, despite promises that they would be taken down.

Um, New York Times? If you guys are still wondering why people are dropping their subscriptions and getting their news from blogs instead of you -- this is why.

After which, Lyons/FSJ notes:

And to all those people who go around wringing their hands and saying what are we going to do when the "real newspapers" all die and we have to get our news from Gawker and HuffPo and TechCrunch? Friends, I think we're going to be just fine.... What really cracks me up is how often I still hear people say that bloggers are mere "aggregators" and the "real journalism" gets done at places like the Times. Because time after time, blogs are simply beating the shit out of the newspapers. They're the ones who still dare to go for the throat, while their counterparts at big newspapers just keep reaching for the shrimp cocktail.

Of course, there's just a bit of irony in noting that Dan Lyons wrote one of the quintessential blog bashing articles four years ago, when he was writing for Forbes, at one point suggesting that blogger "journalists" were no different than notorious (NY Times) maker-up-of-stories, Jayson Blair. Nice to see he's coming around to recognizing things perhaps aren't so bad in the blog world.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Athletes Can Start Endorsing A Brand In Hours... But A Blogger Does It And It's A Federal Issue?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:23:00 PDT

As the FTC still wants to stick by its questionable guidelines concerning bloggers "endorsing" products, I found it interesting that the NY Times was profiling a new online service that more easily allows brands to sign endorsement deals with star athletes. Basically, they just need to fill out a few forms, and within hours, that athlete may be the face of the local car dealership. Now, I don't see anything wrong with this, but I'm curious as to why this is somehow okay, but when a blogger fails to mention that he or she got a book for free, the FTC will consider fining them? Does anyone actually believe that the star football player shops at the local Ford dealer?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Did The FTC's New 'Blogger' Guidelines Just Change The Way All Book/Music Reviews Must Be Conducted?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:01:00 PDT

A bunch of folks have been sending in the fact that the FTC has (as was widely expected) approved new rules on "endorsements" or "testimonials," including a section on bloggers or "word-of-mouth marketers." The end goal here is definitely admirable, but I question whether or not this ruling really makes sense:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that "material connections" (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers -- connections that consumers would not expect -- must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other "word-of-mouth" marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.

Again, the concept is definitely admirable. There's long been a fear that companies are effectively bribing people with free stuff in order to get good reviews, and the FTC wants people to reveal that info. But... does that really make sense? It seems to me like this could just create a totally unnecessary minefield for anyone who blogs. And why is this focused on bloggers and word-of-mouth marketers? Almost all book and music reviews in the mainstream press involve the books and music being sent for free - and there's never been any question of impartiality of most of those reviews -- but why are they now left out of these rules? Is every blogger who reviews a book going to have to disclose where they got it? What about music? Many music bloggers are sent mp3s by the record labels. Do they need to reveal who sent them stuff? Does that really matter?

The real question, from my standpoint, is whether or not the FTC is really needed here. If someone is constantly blogging positively about stuff they get for free, they put their own credibility at risk, as people realize that the products aren't actually very good. It seems like the type of situation that sorts itself out. Those who are constantly pushing products for questionable reasons hurt themselves and soon no one trusts them. Does the FTC really need to be involved in that process? In the meantime, I'm suddenly glad that we don't do reviews on this site for the most part. I do occasionally mention or review books, but I guess I'll have to mention when I buy those books vs. when I'm sent them for free (it's about 50/50), which seems pretty pointless.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story