So.
The Gillmor Gang was today. We started things off with a nice talk about Rajeev Motwani and his contributions to the community. That was nice.
Then Leo Laporte started talking about the Palm Pre, which launches today. That part of the show, which turned as ugly as a show can turn, is in the video clip embedded above. The unedited audio file of the show is here, you can listen to the pre show banter and the first bit about Motwani before the train wreck.
I ask Leo whether he bought the Pre or got it free and in advance of the launch, which I think is relevant because Palm is being very picky about who they give them out to. We were promised one but it wasn’t delivered. We suspect our critical coverage may be the reason, one other blogger I spoke to is in the same situation. Many of the pre-launch reviews are overtly positive, and we’re comparing those reviews where the journalist got a free Pre in advance of launch to the less cheerful ones written by people who had to pay for the device. Getting a high profile device in advance is a huge advantage, and is a conflict of interest that should be disclosed in our opinion. But the catch is this – as long as Palm sends out a letter with the device asking for it back in a week, it isn’t considered a financial conflict of interest. The fact that few people ever return them is rarely brought up.
Anyway, Leo lost it and shut down the show. I’ve had a lot of interactions with him and they’ve always been positive. Or at least I thought so. I wasn’t watching the video live during the show and I really thought Leo was joking until the very end (as did Steve Gillmor and Loren Feldman, who were chuckling in the video). My “what are you going to do about it” comment doesn’t sound so great in hindsight. But I really did just think he was joking around.
We’re under so much scrutiny at TechCrunch (read the last two paragraphs here) that i guess I don’t always stop and think about the fact that most journalists are never questioned, and don’t react particularly well when they are. We were once, for example, accused of a conflict of interest when we wrote a story about a product and I happened to be a “friend” on Facebook with the PR person for the company. So you could say I’ve had to develop a thick skin when it comes to questions about conflicts of interest. And I don’t consider asking a journalist to disclose if a device he says he loves was given to him for free or not as being a particularly trollish thing to do.
I’m bummed this has to be an issue on a day that we’re all mourning the loss of such an important member of our community. And I’m sad that my professional relationship with Leo is apparently over. I apologize to you, Leo. I didn’t mean to imply that you were being unethical. I just think that, given the story that’s brewing about favoritism at Palm, it was important to disclose whether you paid for that Pre, and/or got it in advance.
I think I’ll go take Laguna for a walk now and try this blogging thing again tomorrow. I know a lot of you are going to be commenting strongly on this. Comment moderation is going to be tight on this post, so keep it constructive.
Update: comment from Leo below:
Thanks for the post, Mike. Apology accepted. Now that I know what was going on in your mind, I apologize to you.
There seems to be something about the Gillmor Gang that just engenders over the top passion. I’m embarrassed by my overreaction. Peace.
Update: Here’s the unedited sound file of the second Gang yesterday.
you should mention in this article how 99% of the people who work for techcrunch have an iphone and have twitter, and thats a conflict of interest for the articles yoiu make. (100 per day on twitter)
I think you will find writing stories base on a financial or other form of incentive is a conflict of interest not merely being a user.
I’m also a bit confused. If signing up for a service or buying a product implies a conflict of interest, how are we supposed to review stuff?
Getting the product *free* (rather than signing up or paying for it like everyone else) is what they’re talking about.
So, Chad… By your analysis, TechCrunch shouldn’t review Twitter, Facebook, bing, Google, Flickr, free iPhone apps, or any number of other things because they don’t “pay” for them?
Ugh. Mike & Leo are both great guys, and do important work in the tech journalism world. I’ll be honest, this was hard to watch. Just no good all the way around.
I see both sides points, Leo’s reaction was WAY out of character for him.
We also use computers, use email, watch television, do a million other things. Better not write about any of those either, I suppose. What an idiotic thing to say.
Anonymous is fail 99% of the time.
+1 Chris
I agree. That makes no sense. By his standard, we shouldn’t even review air (as it is given to us for free). Just my 2 cents.
What kinda cheapass air are YOU breathing? Free air? That’s stuff’s full of carcinogens.
Says the guy who follows 78000 people.
Mike You do a lot of crazy things – but this wasn’t one of them – the question was valid and you never suggested any impropriety on leo’s part.
I completely agree. What Mike asked was a valid question to ask. If Palm sent me the Pre, I’m sure I would be inclined to say that I like it.
yeah but consider the comment was literally questioning the other guys integrity as a journalist. In journalism that’s all you got….. And the comment was being used to create ‘entertainment’. Bad call, apologise, learn and move on.
I suppose if somebody questioned my integrity, I would answer their questions to clear my reputation, regardless of their motive.
I *wouldn’t* swear at them and end the interview. That does not strike me as something somebody with integrity would do.
That might be true if you haven’t spent your life in the industry proving your integrity over and over again. Have you forgotten this is Leo Laporte we’re talking about? He’s never given anyone any reason to suspect a lack of integrity, and Arrington knows that, which makes his statement completely rude and out of line.
that is NOT questioning the guy’s integrity as a journalist…i see it as rather irrelevant though..for example, i never even care if mossberg is being floated stuff, whether it’s free product or advance views of free services and software…but asking the question seems quite harmless, and not sure why leo would get his panties in a bunch over it rather than simply reply yes or no…
anyone who listens to Leo regularly knows he always buys products, just for this reason. I’ve been watching/listening for years, and the Pre is the first time I remember him getting a pre-release unit. He usually goes and buys it just like everyone else.
its like being faithful to your girlfriend even when numerous chances came up to be unfaithful…but yet she somehow insinuates that you have cheated…..there’s a “hurting” feeling that comes with it….I know the feeling. And so I understand Leo’s reaction.
Mike, I’m not sure if this is the right term to use, but even from your posting above, it sounds like a touch of jealousy on your part in that he got one and you didn’t….I think it’s the wrong term to use here.
however, the part that really told your true feelings was the paragraph starting with “I ask Leo whether he bought the pre…” This paragraph actually implies that his integrity is invalid, especially the part you said “as long as Palm sends out a letter with the device asking for it back in a week, it isn’t considered a financial conflict of interest. The fact that few people ever return them is rarely brought up.”
Man that blew up quickly. Like a grenade with the pin pulled out.
Wow, excellent analogy.
Leo shortly after responded on FF:
“Just to be clear, I almost always buy the products I review, mostly because I don’t like “owing” the PR folks and I hate the “when are you planning on covering it” phone calls, but also to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. My policy is to always return the unit and buy one if I want to keep using it. In this case I accepted a review unit because I was concerned that I wouldn’t have one in time to review it on the radio show. It’s a 7-day return, as I told Mike. The proffer of a review unit IN NO WAY affects my opinion of a product. It is a standard industry practice to accept review units. Palm never implied or asked for a positive review and they know that if they did so I would never deal with them again. I’ve worked for 30 years to prove my integrity. Mike’s insinuation that I was somehow “on the take” with Palm was about the worst insult you can offer any technology journalist. It’s not true. It’s never been true. My opinions are my own and have never been influenced by any vendor at any time.”
I’m sorry but Mike, you were way out of line on this one. Leo is a HIGHLY respected journalist who has high morales. You know him well enough to see that. I think we all make mistakes, but this one was to great to be ignored. We will see what Leo does, but I think the way you broached the question was to aggressive.
I agree i was too aggressive, and he didn’t have context on the story brewing in the background about the possible shadiness around the launch. Part of the aggressiveness is just how the Gillmor Gang goes – it tends to roll that way with the personalities that Steve puts on the show. Part of it was because I totally thought he was joking.
But like I said above, I apologize to Leo. This wasn’t about whether his opinion was being influenced on the device. It was just about being up front with the audience on the conflict of interest.
So you might have done a little research about the Palm Pre, but you clearly didn’t think about the research over time you’ve done on Leo. You came across like a dick and this post should be an apology upfront instead of trying to put out a blog post that has the appearance of being news.
I think you should apologize in a proper public fashion. Either edit the “Ouch” post, or better still, write a new “Sorry” post.
But Mike, at the point you made the allegation, no “conflict” existed. He had said nothing positive or negative about the Pre yet. I think that’s what he objected to. If he had gone all gaga over the phone then you would have been right to question his motivations. Timing is everything my friend…
Did you miss the part where Leo said, “Love it! It’s quite impressive…”
Your chat with Leo on gilmore gang, Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Mike,
I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest, at least not for highly regarded tech journalists with high morals such as Leo. I honestly believe that even if they gave him the phone for free, to keep, if he didnt like something or anything about it, he would share.
As far as your “brewing story,” I think it was a completely wrong way to bring it up, as it seemed that you were shifting blame from Palm (who if your theory is correct, is in the wrong), to the journalists who are mostly trustworthy. I trusted Pogue’s early review of the iPhone even though Apple had given him one WEEKS in advance, and I don’t think of that as a conflict of interest.
Completely agree.
Second this.
The question was legitimate but the way you asked the question did come off as, he said, like a “troll” and “jerk.” It also openly questioned his integrity.
Also, he seems to be trying to answer your original question about disclosure when your follow up responses about other journalists not getting a demo unit come off as juvenile and that’s probably what set him off.
Anyway, no big deal. We’re all bound to rub each other the wrong way (by accident) every now and then. Hug it out and move on.
Full show here: http://www.arch...g2009.06.06.mp3
It was a great show until the final minute
“We were promised one but it wasn’t delivered.”
Wow that’s a salty laporte. Though its a completely valid quesiton I do have to say though that Arrington could have been a bit nicer. Laporte goes completely batshit though — seems like a lot of pent-up anger.
So definitely definitely not pre-planned Mike…? I don’t believe so, but others reckon so
I’m not sure how i’d feel if this was all staged to be honest..
Pre-planned?! Are you – or rather these others – kidding?
Like i said, i don’t believe it (in case you think i’m bullshitting about the others btw…see here: http://friendfe...-mike-arrington) …Whilst I don’t believe, it is obviously possible. So it would be great to hear a flat out “no” from one of them.
of course not. no. this entirely ruined my weekend. for fuck’s sake.
Cheers…
Its rather interesting, that you shut him down with one sentence. obviously hit a nerve. It was unprofessional how he handled himself afterwards.
Mike – 1, Leo – 0
Leo felt offended Mike because he felt you were accusing him of being dishonest. You of all people should understand that he’s not.
In such a young industry with so much turn over there’s something to be said about the sustained longevity and relevancy Laporte has displayed. The question is, does that buy him the default assumption of honesty? I think so, to an extent, but did it warrant that kind of reaction?
Don’t we expect the Leo Laportes and David Pogues of the world to get free shit before most people do? Isn’t that their job?
I think Arrington’s mistake here is that this is a phone review, not a murder trial or a contract negotiation. Interrupting a guy mid-sentence with “alright lets get these disclosures out of the way” is the kinda douchy move that makes people hate lawyers.
Mike has been slowly winding Leo up over the weeks, and this caused the bottle to explode
You have some history with Leo that you may intentionally or unintentionally omitted. He called you a troll a couple of weeks ago about some comments you made. I don’t remember the specifics well so I won’t recount. Perhaps you had a conversation with Leo about the earlier event?
no idea. really.
I think sometimes in a world of conflicts of interest and the like, some people find it hard to contemplate that some people are utterly beyond reproach and have thirty years of reputation in that regard
its seems like people above reproach would lose it when someone ask them to disclose a conflict of interest. that’s why I’m so confused.
I think it’s because you said “So you got a free Pre, you were one of the very few” after Leo’s disclosure. To my ear that can only be interpreted as insinuating an untoward relationship between Leo Laporte and Palm.
The implication is inescapable – ‘you got one and I didn’t because you’re a known pushover reviewer and I am a known tough and impartial reviewer’.
As a tech reviewer myself, I know that there is always a voice in the back of my mind reminding me that I need to keep reviews unbiased despite the fact that I have a cool gadget in my hands that a company was generous enough to send to me. It is always a difficult thing to work around and one of the more agonizing things about this job.
The last thing that I would want is for someone to accuse me of giving in to that bias, let alone ANOTHER JOURNALIST.
That, in my and quite likely many others’ opinions, is quite inexcusable and very much unprofessional.
Legitimacy is what we are all working for and scared of not being granted same and for someone to open up the question of that legitimacy in front of an open audience undermines all that tech journalism stands for. This is a topic that is just best not brought up as it simply has no redeeming value in its accusation nor subjectiveness.
Leo had every right to be p*ssed off, though his manner of addressing the matter was not professional either, admittedly.
Maybe Tech Crunch should compare its reviews of companies that sponsor it versus those that are similarly situated, but don’t sponsor TC. That would be an interesting exercise!
This strikes me as one of those moments that I am sure both parties wish they could hit the reset button on. I’m just impressed that they were able to get there so fast without any evidence of drinking. It usually takes a few vodka tonics before I can clear a room that fast.
Suggestion to Michael Arrington: If you think of Leo as your friend it doesn’t matter why he blew up – something is wrong. My suggestion would be to send him a note saying “sorry if I upset you” (and that needs to be done away from the spotlight)
i called him and left him a voicemail right after the show.
That’s a step in the right direction…
i hope u guys can work it out… there is nothing better than friendship. im sure leo is just having a rough day and this all is a big miss understanding. u both needs to let this passby just dont care wut other people say. pride kills everything
Oh well. I think a bit more decency on TV would be beneficial to everybody.
I think that Mike’s question was very near accusation and the re-action was rapidly insulting. Overall this does not give any of you any sort of credit.
PS: and we did not get to hear your opinions about the Pre.
Disclosure: when I got back from Virginia this morning a Palm Pre was waiting for me. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t know it was coming. It is only for seven days (I have to send it back).
Now, that said, I think it’s a valid question to wonder what Mike is wondering. It’s something I always ask myself when I get goodies from the industry. Did I get these because I’m too nice? I used to be on the inside with the Amazon Kindle team, for instance, then did a nasty review of the unit, and I haven’t been given a review unit since.
I did give the Palm Pre a nice review back in January at CES and have generally been pushing it pretty nicely for them since. I think it’s a great device and the first one I’ve seen that comes up to Apple’s standards for fit and finish. Getting the review unit today doesn’t change my feelings about that.
As for questioning Leo’s ethics, I’ve seen many times that his ethics are above question and I agree that getting your ethics questioned isn’t fun and isn’t something I take to kindly either. So I understand Leo’s response, too.
That said, I wish we could have a calm discussion about this issue, because it’s one that affects the coverage companies get. Often when I get free stuff, though, I find I’m actually harsher on the product, or, even, refrain from writing about it altogether because it just makes me feel conflicted because this argument, or one similar to it, plays inside my head.
Mike does poke at people, which is why I love him (even after he’s done that to me several times). He’s a good influence in our industry because he does make us think and gets us to talk about issues we otherwise wouldn’t talk about. It’s not always fun at the time, though.
Good observation. I’m just saddened that this all happened over a Palm Pre.
If any company sends review units only to those whose early coverage reflected positively, then shame on them. Review programs must be egalitarian and transparent. It’s one thing to accidentally miss someone on a media list, another to cherry-pick the recipients based upon coverage tone. And all reporters should be asked if they are interested before a unit is shipped.
Any company should welcome all third party reviews. Sure, positive coverage helps sales, but even negative coverage often contains real, actionable feedback that you’ll never hear from your suck-up employees or even customers. I can count on one hand the number of reviews I’ve felt were patently unfair over the years. Many more were critical.
As long as a review unit is for temporary use, I don’t see a conflict for the reviewer. Imagine if media outlets all had to buy everything they reviewed…the number of reviews of any given product would drop dramatically. How does that help consumers make educated purchasing decisions, especially for the more pricey electronics where legitimate reviews by credible sources are so extremely valuable?
Plus, many newer products, lacking brand power, may go unreviewed with no one ever discovering their great superiority.
I have no idea why TC didn’t get a Pre. Maybe an embargo concern?
Very unfortunate that this situation occured. Happen to think highly of both of you but I have to admit that I’m disappointed in Leo for losing it and you for instigating and being aggressive.
Best thing to do is kiss and make up ASAP!
Problem was speaking over the host, nobody likes for somebody to take over the show.
Definitely a major contributor.
FYI, Steve Gillmor is the host, not Leo Laporte.
Painfully over the top….
Wow, can’t say Ive ever seen leo like that. There has to be a bit more to it.
Of course there is more to it.
It’s like that movie “The Best of Times” “Reno Hightower is being an asshole, but when he’s an asshole, he’s the best quarterback in the whole state”
I would just let it go and let time heal it. It’s sad in a way because you and Leo have the utmost in integrity, and that’s why you both have successful businesses, but your just two different styles.
He had a right to be angry, but not that angry as to pull the plug. Plus it would have been far more valuable to have a real throw down debate about the Pre. Too bad it has to get personal.
Oh well, just let it roll. Time will iron things out.
Best,
Stephen Pickering
Odd. I didn’t think that questioning journalistic ethics and integrity is taboo.
It isn’t.
Yeah but Leo is not some hack on Fox News. He has never given anyone any reason to question his integrity before. Yes, Leo’s response was out of character but I find it very curious that his integrity would be questioned so flagrantly over a stupid little phone. There has to be a bit of back story here that neither Leo nor Mike are admitting to.
Mike you are jerk very often.. BUT THIS WAS TOTALLY FINE.. you behaved very well. I think the guy made a jerk of himself and he is the ones to apologize. Calling you assholes, jerks, trolls..
And I am glad you brought this thing up.
Leo’s and his army have a low tolerance for what they call trolling behavior. If you agree with them, no matter how you do it, you will not be slammed, disagree and do it more than once, you are branded a troll.
disagreeing ≠trolling
See, that’s where I am with this whole issue. At least Mike was completely professional, if a bit churlish. Leo – I don’t care *what* Mike said – immediately starts cursing, calling Mike a troll, and acting like a pretentious pr…well, I shouldn’t use that word here because it might get people mad, but he most definitely acted like one of *those*.
If I were Mike I would not consider someone who publicly curses me out and insults me on video for the entire world to see a “friend” (I keep seeing that word used here and I don’t know why – I don’t care if they’ve known each other for years and sleep over each other’s houses every weekend, that is not his “friend”).
That to me is simply a guy who seems to feel he’s more important than others and more entitled to his own opinion than others are to theirs. His behavior was a complete turnoff in every way imaginable. I don’t follow Leo anyway, never have, and after this, most likely never will.
Mike, if you’re a troll (you’re not), you are the best troll ever – keep up the good work, and don’t let people who think they are more important than and better than you hold you back (and maybe stop apologizing, too – he looks – and sounds- much more wrong here than you do).
I am a big leo fan and I work on wallstreet where conflict of interest is just a fact of the business. I believe there was nothing wrong with mike pointing out it was a review unit and I believe leo took this one to literally. By his own admission leo doesnt like to get review units for free for just this reason, so why would he take such offense to the fact that this was a review unit. Again, I am a leo fan and his integrity is stellar and it was obvious why he would take a review unit in this case. But, that said, if he didnt recognize the conflict exists, then why would he make a point not to take the 100’s of review items he is offered regularly. I say it again, I am a leo fan, but mike also asked if he was joking, so that shows that mike wasnt seriously questioning his integrity, he was just making the point, as they do on cnbc with any wallstreet person they interview, if there is a conflict and that is that. Mike apologized and I think leo will accept it and it will go down as just one of those things…..
I don’t like Mike’s tone either, but it helps to know more the person being questioned which is key to keep BS out of GG.
I actually like Leo, but this time I was expecting more from him, it was not a hard ball, he didn’t need to overreact.
i understand that you wanted to point out that he didnt have to buy the it so he probably is leaning a bit towards liking the Pre, but leo is highly respectable and is above bribery and the such. Many things have happened in the past that leo was professional enough to hold back but this one was larger and pushed him over the edge. i agree with leo in this but i see your point mike.
Hi Mike,
There are many situations in life that we learn from, this may be one you will and can look at over and over again for the obvious solution. I commend you for apologizing here but I would rather you apologized to Leo’s face before we read about it. That’s just me.
I know you are a passionate man and the profession you are in is not unlike a double-edged sword. Your damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
One of the things I have struggled with during the Gilmour Gang Show is the apparent disrespect you seem to have for those around you. I only have the show as my only source to pass judgment as I do not know you personally. I have learned in life that given enough time, waiting long enough, everyone shows you their good side. So I’ll trust you do indeed have a good side.
I recognize your job is to find truth, draw attention to you & Techcrunch for it’s success but I think you may want to consider a different approach. Or at least be more tactful in who your are accusing of ethical misconduct.
Having said all that, I should walk a mile in your shoes first before passing judgment but in this particular incident you were out of line.
I hope you can recover the relationship with Leo with a renewed level of respect for him and more importantly yourself.
Many Blessings,
Owen Greaves
Leo is being WAY too sensitive. Dude needs to humble himself – Mike you were not out of line at all. To me, Leo comes off as the turd.
He’s not being too sensitive. This was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Leo has thought of Mike as a troll for a while now.
well that certainly isn’t what he’s said to my face. I actually thought we were friends.
My brother thinks of my dad as a total ass. But that doesn’t mean he comes out and says it to the old man’s face. Everyone is a lot more careful about what they say to people they know (and especially those they know well) even if they try to be totally open and honest, and the reason for that is because at some level we’re all uncomfortable about how that person might react to our potential “betrayal”.
Mike, I don’t know you well at all, just what I see on here and various other things online. And so I’m not afraid to come out and say that sometimes, you really are a jerk. But if we went back a long ways, would I really be able to come out and say that to you, without being pretty pissed off about it first? Most people probably can’t do something like that.
My suggestion is that you and Leo go for beers at some point, get totally open with your opinions about each other, and get it all out. If there is a friendship there, it might be temporarily weakened, but in the end it’ll become a much stronger bond than it is today.
Mike, you should have asked if it was a loaner to be returned first. That would have easily avoided it. You should apologize to Leo.
well, the issue is more complex than that. As I said above, most loaners are never returned. But more important is just the fact that some people get units and some don’t, and that Palm seems to be deciding based on how positive they think the coverage will be. That’s the story that’s brewing, which has nothing to do with Leo, and which I would have talked about if the show hadn’t imploded.
I can see your point about non-returned loaners.
But I watched Leo’s review of the Pre and it seemed any positivity was well founded as everything was in full view. I’m an iPhone lover and it seemed genuinely well done. If there was any hint of fakeness to a positive review of the Pre just because of an early review, I would be critical of it.
Maybe your right that Palm decided who got them based on what review they might expect. I agree.
Still, saying that is an insult to Leo. Not everyone wants to be an extreme critic. That should be okay. Neutrality can be good. I was just kinda happy to see Leo’s video and close-ups.
Leo has been up front 100% from the minute he put the Pre on his desk still in its box. If you gave him about 5 more seconds before jumping him .. he would have told you it was a review unit.. and if you knew anything about Leo’s feeling on the phone thus far…its less than a glowing review. I guess its only fair that this week Leo kicked you off.. unlike a few weeks ago when you ran off like a child when Loren called you out on your contribution to the show.
Less than glowing? “love it” “impressive” Are you kidding me?
I think ‘blew up’ and ‘lost it’ might be a bit strong, but in years of watching and listening to Laporte, I’ve never seen him that pissed.
I think “blew up” and “lost it” are significantly understating what Leo did in that video.
New moon.
Leo said more then once that the phone was on loan and you kept going on how he got a free phone. Why isn’t this mentioned by you. It’s your fault saying Leo got a free phone when he didn’t get one!
Leo said this BEFORE Gillmor Gang. How as Arrogantington supposed to know this? Some people don’t sit there all day watching twit.
It still has “Michael Arrington is a troll…” on his wikipedia profile…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Arrington. Some ought to see to that…
Good call. Looks like several people have been adding that back in each time it’s deleted. I removed it again, we’ll see if it stays that way.
And if this was planned and scripted to generate traffic, I think there would have been a better script. There also wouldn’t be talking over each other. Leo was trying to explain he was going to go buy one, but would have to wait. Seems real enough.
Leo was not professional Period. This is not how you react in the industry.
He basically showed the world that he is a liability regardless on what show he is on.
A man in his caliber needs to deal with questions like that, he needs to have the stature, humor to circumvent stuff like that. Otherwise he is toast and anyone can punch that button if they want to.
Lets face it time moves on and those old guys just can’t keep up anymore. It’s not like it used to be, things are more rough, questions are being asked and you can’t get away with anything anymore.
To me it just shows that Leo’s days are numbered and he’s on the way out… if you can’t deal with comments like that, and just completely throw a tantrum.. being insulting… jesus I don’t want to be that guy’s wife… or family. Losing it like that….
“jesus I don’t want to be that guy’s wife… or family. Losing it like that….”
You’re seriously questioning Leo’s professionalism, while assaulting his personal life?
Oh please, how professional is anyone who launches into an ugly, unnecessary tirade over a simple and decently worded question?
Tech is this guy’s *work* so he should act “*work*manlike – professional. This isn’t some unknown dude who writes some unknown hacker blog from his mother’s basement who got lucky enough to get invited onto the show one day; this is one of the Faces of Tech for the last however-many-years – he should conduct himself in a manner fitting his stature in the tech world, not act like a kid ready to fight in the back alley with the guy in gym who just called him a dweeb. The public deserves better than to see him throw a fit simply because someone asks a question that jars his unhealthy ego.
Being ethical does not give you the right to act ugly because someone questioned your ethics.
If you want to get angry, fine, but at least leave the cursing, insults, and attitude (”turn the cameras off, we’re done”) out of it, if you don’t want to seem like the only person on Earth who could possibly think that much of yourself.
Even the other guys there didn’t believe Leo could mean a word he was saying and laughed it off until Leo made it painfully obvious that he was *really* throwing a fit; that should tell you something (that Leo was so out of line it’s almost unbelievable).
Now THAT’s trolling. Yeeha!
nooobsss don’t be so dramatic. Leo didn’t “lose it”. He got angry and ended the show as was his right. I don’t know what sheltered life you live but sometimes when a man gets angry he curses and tells other people to shove it. Sorry to crush your dreams about candy canes and puppet shows. If Leo’s a liability then I don’t want to be an asset. -Pete
Mike, you should apologize to Leo. You were trolling a bit
PS: First article on TC today without mentioning Twitter! WTF happened???
Don’t speak too soon. The day isn’t over yet. Plus I’m sure MG Siegler has several twitter posts ready to go before midnight.
Mike, you are on to somthing!
*I got a friend that works for Palm and i can confirm that it’s all a marketing scheme by Roger-McNamee. He is playing dirty…this is just the beginning of the story…!
isn’t that what PR is all about though? i can see it’s a bit shady of palm, but doesn’t every PR firm do this?
Michael, you were way wrong in that line of questioning. You cornered the guy right away. The guy wouldn’t say a phone was great because he got a demo unit. Everyone knows that. He’s been talking about wanting to get a Pre for weeks.
a blow up was necessary, that big of one? maybe not. i respect leo though.
micheal arrington has a valid question, but wrongly asked. i respect arrington as well.
I think it was a valid question, and maybe one that would have been answered shortly. There was something in your tone that implied familiarity with Leo and that it wasn’t intended to be off-handed – but the dialog went south from there.
The question was not out of line, unfortunately the way it unraveled put Leo’s integrity in question, but given that he blew up almost immediately, I don’t know that it could have been avoided.
Well you apologized, so the ball is in Leo’s court.
The comments on Leo’s Friend Feed announcement are pretty Deep, and extremely negative towards you Michael. http://tr.im/nFo2
Maybe this is a big straw that is breaking more than one just camel’s back?
If you wanna know what people think about you. Get your friend to tell you off and see who supports him?
Thanks for the post, Mike. Apology accepted. Now that I know what was going on in your mind, I apologize to you.
There seems to be something about the Gillmor Gang that just engenders over the top passion. I’m embarrassed by my overreaction. Peace.
Dude, now we should start a conspiracy theory about the apology. lolz kidding.
You’re all class Laporte.
Still the nicest guy on the internet.
Yep, we are very fond of Leo, he is a hero to millions – literally – of us tech geeks.
Funny Farm?
I’m guessing this was a “final straw” type thing Leo? Weird seeing everyone’s favourite tech uncle go off the deep end like that, seems so out of character.
I think Mike was overly agressive, though I’m not sure he was being as accusatory as it seems.
Anyway, a bit of drama for the weekend, everyone has kissed and made up and we can look forward to bitching about WWDC now
Mike asked a valid question in a unpleasant manner, you overreacted.
I love you leo, and I’m glad to see such a mike character exist in the industry at least.
I just don’t see how anyone could go off the deep end with the question Mike did, and that’s why the others were so dumbfounded.
Your response reminded me of the old-saying: The dog will howl, which is hit by the stick.
Upon reflection, we all have moments when we overreact.
The incident on the show was a more public overreaction than most, but completely understandable.
In fact, I’m glad this ‘incident’ brought Gilmore Gang to people’s attention, I’ve never heard of it before, but will sure follow it from now on.
Leo, you’ve already been Keyboard Catted.
http://www.yout...player_embedded
Mike, there is just something in the tone when you ask questions like this… it definitely sounded accusatory. Over the past year, I have heard Leo rave about the iPhone and offer skepticism about Palm on his radio show. So I don’t think he has his Palm lipstick and knee pads out. It seems like you are actually miffed that he got one one in advance and you did not.
I have never seen Leo have a run in.. I could be wrong on that as I have not seen every show. But it does seem that you have had a lot of issues where even seemingly random people spit at you. Chill.
I think GG could be one of the top tech podcasts up there with Twit or even higher, if it became more professional, more respectful. I know a lot of people like the edginess. If you’re going to be there, be there, and don’t leave after 10 minutes, and don’t call in from the airport and places like that or out in the wind in the middle of a field. If it wants sponsors it just be professional. I think even Loren was saying something like that last week (not about sponsors but being more respectful)
I listen to Leo’s shows quite often. And I know that he works tirelessly to be objective. Even with the advertisers on his shows he has no problem criticizing them and rejecting companies he doesn’t believe in. For weeks Leo has planned to wait in line and buy a pre, just like he waited in line and bought an iphone. He needed the pre for his national radio show this morning. On the radio show Leo and David Pogue discussed the good and bad of the pre. In the end Leo said he would put it second behind the iphone.
Did Leo overreact, maybe a little bit, but knowing how much Leo cherishes his objectivity and his good name I can understand. Arrington’s apology seems appropriate, hopefully they can work things out.
Mike, I agree with your sentiments and thoughts in the post. But, I know this situation will color future conversations you have, both consciously and subconsciously, and not only in the tech world, but, also other conversations outside the tech world. How you choose to approach future conversations in the tech world, and outside the tech world is your decision.
Actually, it there is a lasting rift it will be with Steve Gilmour, whose show it is and whom Leo publicly and arbitrarily kicked off his network at the drop of a hat because of what SOMEONE ELSE said.
Gilmour became a ‘collateral damage’ victim as it were.