Fred Wilson lit a fire today suggesting that certain bloggers need to step it up a notch to improve quality and be more like mainstream journalists.
A fair point if spoken generally, although I’d argue that the quality of reporting done by many bloggers today, at least in the tech space, is equal to or better than most mainstream journalism. I think this is particularly true when we’re talking about breaking, non-embargoed news, where contacts and inside sources matter more than having all the time in the world to think about, research, write and edit an article. His point, therefore, should have been that all news writers need to step it up a notch and aim for better quality, which is sort of like saying nothing at all.
Normally I wouldn’t take issue with the statement, except that it was partially aimed at us. Wilson specifically called out our Erick Schonfeld for his post on social gaming platforms, as well as Matt Marshall at VentureBeat for a post he wrote about Like.
Wilson’s first gripe is that Matt, in his post about Like, didn’t give enough credit to competitor ThisNext. His second – that Erick, in his post on Zynga and SGN, suggested that the “two companies are neck and neck like Hillary and Obama,” when “Zynga is almost an order of magnitude bigger.”
Wilson fully discloses his conflicts of interest in the post – that he is a friend to the founder of ThisNext and an investor in Zynga. At that point, of course, a lot of the credibility behind his opinions comes into question. The two bloggers he is attacking have no conflicts with these startups.
He fails to realize that both Matt (San Jose Mercury News) and Erick (Fortune, Business 2.0) are seasoned mainstream journalists who’ve made the crossover to blogging. So his whole argument about blogging v. mainstream media loses yet more steam.
In reading the articles, it seems to me that Matt did an excellent job of highlighting a recent surge by Like while still noting relevant competitors. Erick’s post, which I am more familiar with, is in my opinion above reproach. Erick notes the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms and suggests that developers will ultimately make a decision as to which, or both, they will join. Erick also interviewed Wilson for the post and quoted him in it.
So what this really comes down to is this. Wilson didn’t like the coverage. But instead of simply disagreeing with and rebutting the points made in the posts, he went after the reputation of the writers themselves. That would be inappropriate even if he was right. But the fact that he was both conflicted and wrong makes it inexcusable.
Wilson failed to uphold the very standards of integrity that he demands from others. He failed to contact Erick or Matt before writing, and didn’t seem to have the facts to back up his argument. In a twitter exchange between us on this issue, he defended his sloppiness on the fact that he’s a blogger, saying “if you are a blogger you can say what you think, once you become a journalist, you have a different standard.”
Now, frankly, I’m confused. Bloggers can say what they think, but journalists can’t? I think what he’s trying to say is that Erick and Matt are no longer bloggers and now need to hold themselves to a higher standard – one that Wilson explicitly doesn’t hold himself to. That sounds like hypocrisy 101 to me.
Also, in a comment to his original post, he says “Erick didn’t get it wrong…but i think he missed the opportunity to get it right.”
How can you be both wrong and right at the same time?
Wilson partially retracted his post in a follow up, saying that he was sorry for singling out Erick and Matt, and saying that he “didn’t mean to take a shot at either of them.” But he then goes on to say that the whole exercise was a good one, since it started this great conversation on the issue.
That’s no apology, Fred. An apology would include you admitting that both posts were well researched and well written pieces. And that it was wrong to attack the reputation of these writers just because the conclusions reached by them were different than your own.
One last note. In the comments Fred says it isn’t even debatable that SGN is not a real company. From what we hear on the street, some very high profile venture capitalists are willing to bet some serious money that he’s wrong.
Update: Mathew Ingram says I went a little too hard at Fred here. I don’t necessarily disagree. Fred tends to come at people pretty hard, so I went hard back. But some readers won’t know that, so it’s worth pointing out.
Erick is like the best writer ever.
“But instead of simply disagreeing with and rebutting the points made in the posts, he went after the reputation of the writers themselves.”
Ah, yes the joys of intelligent, reasoned, online discussion. Never seen that happen before.
Please get some educated scientists in here. This post is annoying and just meant to drive traffic. I am tired of these Digg-made posts, that Michael and his 10+ Digg accounts love so much.
The real problem is somewhere else: the not standardized way we measure success of a startup. Just follow the discussion about Myspace and Facebook. While Myspace is worldwide growing at an incredible speed (with incredible revenues)…Facebook solely makes the news at Techcrunch (with a few exceptions).
I think Wilson made a good point: At one point you have to decide whether you turn Techcrunch/Venturebeat into a NYTimes or if you rather direct it into a yellow press paper.
Second one certainly drives more traffic…and it seems that Michael and some of the writers prefer it that way. (would be interesting to see if Techcrunch pays their writers by generated traffic
)
Classic display of egos hiding facts, Fred points out at Erick probably wantedly or just citing an example, and Mike does what he is best at, use his hugely popular techcrunch to get down to personal abuse, naming him hypocritical, wrong and conflicted. I guess you need some counseling Mike before your ego becomes too big for you to carry around. I guess staying out of all attention for some time would help you. Think of the days when you started TC and the humble attitude you used to carry around, correcting yourself when pointed at. Hope that helps
A blog is a blog and if it wanted to be part of MSM it would give a clear message about it.
Otherwise, it is an opinion of a certain person or group of like-minded people that may be biased (it’s a blog, remember?), may be a rant against some person or company, may not follow the MSM rules of article writing, may be just a bunch of random thoughts etc.
These differences from MSM makes a blog something special that will be visited by people who are interested in its content. These differences make the blog popular and keep it alive.
As soon as a popular blog will change its style, direction, things/events it covers, it risks losing part or all of its audience because this would be a change of its fundaments. The way a blog is keeps people coming back to it – this is what made the blog popular (if it is popular).
If TC or any other tech blogs I visit daily was to switch to the dry MSM style, I am not sure if I would visit it as often as I do it now…
There is so much absurdist irony in this whole affair, that I had to join the fray and blog about it: http://rapspace...rely-journalism
Peace,
MMG
What I can’t figure out is why Fred thinks he’s just a blogger. Is it because he donates his earnings? He’s been doing this since 2003. He’s probably in top 100 technorati (although I haven’t looked). That’s about as problogger as it gets and he failed to follow the rules.
In the end, the companies he was trying to pump up get more PR than they would otherwise, so the VC wins, even though he loses.
He is right, about TechCrunch at least.
The writing on this site is filled with errors, typos, and many times, just opinions instead of facts for the sake of saving time.
Get higher quality writers and pay them more.
Pot calling the kettle black. You guys never learn.
Michael,
Fred should fund a company to meet his “standards” for blogging about start-ups. Would it be a good investment? Or does controversy help the bottom line?
I side with Wilson, who has a good point. TechCrunch and other sites have tremendous power and influence and should do fact-checking and other information quality assurance activities.
Fred Wilson is nauseating. His opinions are often so wrong, yet he’s so arrogant, who would want him as an investor?
Blake – do you think that, maybe, we got to a position of influence based on the quality of the writing we do?
@Michael
I agree with you in general – but I do think Wilson still brings up a few good points that you have to recognize.
TechCrunch and other super-blogs (VentureBeat, GigaOm, etc) are well beyond personal blogs. In that sense – they have a responsibility to get things right and produce quality content.
But as you noted: So do all journalists. For me “blogging” isn’t about WHO is behind the words, blogs are just a CMS – a really easy one that anyone can use.
Your bloggers are journalists (they get paid a professional salary). The problem is – as you noted – you guys cover a very fast moving space: Technology. It’s understandable that you have to use anonymous sources, tips, etc. But you have to recognize that you are taking a risk whenever you do that – and if people call you out on it, take that criticism.
On a side: One project I work for is called NewsTrust.net: Think Digg meets Poynter – ie: You don’t just “digg” articles – you rate them based on journalistic integrity. Perhaps Techcrunch could get some good feedback with this tool on where you can improve (and that’s not a potshot at Techcrunch… as you noted: All journalists can improve).
Once a blog is too professional (i.e. sanitised) it becomes boring. Thats what newspapers are for. It is the rough, honest edges that makes blogs worth reading. As an Australian (not sure if it goes for other countries) I find it constantly amusing to read articles in a newspaper that have obviously been sourced from blogs that I have read not weeks, but usually months earlier. If TechCrunch improves its standards it will be time to read something else!!
The article is a direct stab at the mentioned. I call it behind the screen mean. I used to have a business partner that was so nice in person but put him on a keyboard and wow, what an asshole. I figure he wasn’t very popular or social as a child so this was his way of trying to get even. What he really needed was a good ‘ol Texas ass kicking. My wife is a journalist and she’s the first to admit that journalists know a little about alot. Bloggers know alot about a little and simply write their “opinion” you have to take it with a grain of salt. To this day, i’ve not met the perfect person and don’t plan on it. MA had to call him on his post, that’s what you do when you get old and experienced. The young guy would just bitch about it. Brush it off, sip some tequila and move on. Life is good.
I have to comment here. Fred is highly conflicted, and he is also a VC. In general, this should be making him fearful of bloggin, as the risk of events such as these might effect LPs in some way and also might damage credibility. Setting aside the LP risk, Fred operated very poor judgment in attacking these bloggers, which in this case should be referred to as “Reporgers”, as they are producing quality and fact-driven content which many eyeballs are tracking and reading. Fred, if anyone noticed his blog, is tracking and reporting some false-driven information – which is fine, so as long as he won’t be bashing others who reports to higher standards than he is. For Fred, I would hope that this is not the product of trying to help poorly performing portfolio companies.
Arrington, people like you talking about conflict of interest makes no sense.
MA wrote “do you think that, maybe, we got to a position of influence based on the quality of the writing we do?”
Yeah, and you’re losing it with the quality of the writing you do too. Take a look at GigaOM for quality, Mr. I-wanna-be-the-Perez-Hilton-of-the-tech-blogs Arrington.
I have word that Fred was slapped down by his firm. Consider his public profile nipped in the bud.
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings.
To provide useful information, please click to view
Bose headphones
ghd Hair Straightener
Women is Dakota
Sundance UGG Boots
Thank you!