Welcome to Glass House Sign in | Help

Scoble, Dare, Arrington: My POV

Couple of posts to review.

First out: Dare unloads on Mike Arrington. IMHO, cheap shot, not super grounded in reality, out of place for what Dare normally writes about.

Next up: Mike responds. Okay, he was rightly ticked off and didn’t pull any punches. But it got interesting when he said, bold mine:

This isn’t ok from anyone, and it really isn’t ok from a high profile Microsoft blogger. This is the second time Obasanjo has attacked us when we disagreed with him. It’s one thing to disagree. But it’s another to attack (first Wikipedia, then this F’d company comparison) when you face disagreement. And when you represent a company, whether you like it or not, you do it under their brand. In this case, given the weakness of Obasanjo’s argument, and the fact that he just had a one sided flame war with TechCrunchIT, his motives were clear. It’s time for Microsoft to stop this nonsense.

Multiple tweets ensue. Some are more cogent than others, but I would call them all more heat than light.

Finally, Robert Scoble weighs in, with an assist from Steve Gillmor. His point:

But the stone that made the scale tip is that you have employees out there who are attacking bloggers without consequences. That makes me feel unwelcome, which I really don’t need given all my other concerns about attending.

I’m going to tackle these things one at a time and give my perspective as someone who has been watching bloggers and blogging evolve over time.

1. Dare’s post is what it is. It’s opinion. The only difference between this post and about a gazillion others is that Dare works for Microsoft and has a relatively high profile blog. His blog is not hosted by Microsoft, and he’s previously noted that his views are not necessarily those of the company. If he was writing a movie review, nobody would care. But Dare, you need to step up – like it or not, you are a loud voice at the company, and you should think harder about that when you blog. With great power comes, etc. and so on.

2. Mike is right to be grumpy. I’m not very happy when people use part of what I’ve said against me either. But the link he made between Dare and Microsoft is not accurate. There is zero linkage between what dare thinks about TechCrunch and Mike and what the big M thinks. Less than zero. So Mike -- direct return fire where it goes – Dare – and don’t expand.

3. Robert knows better. Seriously. His experience at MS gives him a way better perch to opine here than anyone else, myself included. He knows that there is no omnipresent blogger watch at Microsoft, no person or team who scans/reviews/approves blog posts. What exactly kind of consequences should Microsoft be applying against Dare? Tell him to keep his non tech opinions off his personal blog? C’mon. Let’s say that the mythical blog squad moved in and cleaned out his office – you know what would lead Techmeme in the morning? “Microsoft silences blogger.” You know it. All the other voices, all the other tweets are reaction to what should be a non-event. Taking a hammer out now solves nothing and creates bigger problems down the line. Robert: come to PDC or don’t, but please go/don’t go for the right reason, not because of a spat like this.

Everyone else. Can we move on now? And yes, there is a lesson here – bloggers DO have an impact on the company for which they work, all protestations and sidebars on web sites aside. So companies out there should remember this, as should bloggers. I still think the common sense approach works. Think of it like this: you are getting up to make a speech in front of 150,000 people. You are introduced: And here is Sam Smith, famous blogger and employee of Corporation X! Think the audience is going to separate out what you say about topic 1 and topic 2 and what Company X does/thinks? I don’t. So keep things pure. If an individual is going to have a personal blog, keep it personal. If you are going to have a work blog, stay on topic.

BTW, this blog is a work blog, where I write about the changing nature of communications, and not so much about my day job leading the Microsoft account for Waggener Edstrom. And also about cooking with sourdough starter and sometimes about running, but you get my point. ;)

Published Monday, October 13, 2008 9:07 PM by FrankShaw

Comments

 

Steven Hodson said:

Just in case anyone is curious about the exchange that happened on Twitter between Michael and another "MS" blogger (Mossyblog) the full transcript is available on the WinExtra blog

http://www.winextra.com/2008/10/13/arrington-heats-up-twitter/

Just remember to bring your popcorn.

Also Frank I was going to write something along the lines you talked about but you have done a much better job - thanks

October 13, 2008 10:00 PM
 

Robert Scoble said:

October 13, 2008 10:39 PM
 

mattb4rd said:

This crowd of self actualizers are completely out of touch with what "regular" users care about. They act like a class full of nose-picking 1st graders.

I don't know who Dare is, and I'm just fine with that. Arrington's name I've seen around, but I'm not sure why his opinion on anything should matter to anyone. Again, I'm surviving just fine.

I follow Scoble on FriendFeed. He comes off sounding like he's saying "I'm Rick James, ***" half the time.

Summation; meh.

Matt

October 14, 2008 2:37 AM
 

Amybeth said:

I think this is a great post. My little blog has a mere 300+ followers so I'm not even in the same league with anyone here, but I've learned through first-hand experience that when you author a blog that more than say 20 people read regularly, you have to temper yourself from time to time. It's part of being responsible in the public eye and even though it stinks sometimes it comes with the territory.

October 14, 2008 7:00 AM
 

Herschel said:

Frank,

If I ever have a company that needs PR work, you're da mans!

October 14, 2008 7:03 AM
 

D. Lambert said:

Nice job.  The voice of reason is welcome addition in this case.

October 14, 2008 7:36 AM
 

Jim said:

Thanks for calling Scoble out.  Arrington and Scbole are only looking to drive blog traffic and both are pretty irrelevant to 99.9% of technology professionals.  

October 14, 2008 9:49 AM
 

Heather said:

Well done, Frank. My two cents:

I'm not sure why Scoble is involved other than maybe he can't help himself? He knows better than anyone that we (MS) employees are free to blog our opinions. Scoble had some unpopular opinions as an MS employee and wasn't censored. Shame on him. As a Microsoft blogger for 4+ years (whose subject matter is about 30% work and 70% personal), I have never (NEVER!) had PR or legal contact me about anything I have posted (and I'm hosted on msdn). If we had a blog-attack meeting every time someone said something negative about Microsoft....well, you can complete that sentence. :) Anyway, I think that Scoble is confusing a bloggers posts impacting a brand and an employer having RESPONSIBILITY for a  bloggers posts. 2 different things. The fact that MS employees speak their minds positively influences our brand. The fact that some of the opinions are considered off-base or some of the bloggers aren't as likable as others; that's the cost of allowing blogging in the first place. If all our posts are sunshine and light, we are seen as PR flacks (is that the right word?). If they are critical, then off with our heads. Frankly, the cranky bloggers are interesting, even if I don't agree with them. Anyway.

I don't agree with what Dare said. Don't know him personally but I know enough to tell you for sure that he and I won't be hanging out any time soon. So Arrington thinks he's a "jerk". There are jerks at every company. Someone in the tech industry being a jerk is not even remotely interesting anymore. Regardless, I think Dare was off base (but I wouldn't even have known about it if you weren't in my friend feed, Frank :)) His opinion, his right to express it (even though it seems to be some kind of personal conflict these 2 have going...reading between the lines)

Arrington acts like nobody has ever said anything negative about him before. That can't be so. Frankly, I enjoy TechCrunch and I thought the Camp Cyprus posts were hilarious. Perhaps some people didn' understand the humor, but I got it. But Arrington's reaction to Dare's post? Where to begin? a) paranoid b) self-important and c) bad blog karma. Microsoft is not plotting against TechCrunch or Arrington. OK, seriosuly, if we were, do you think that PR would choose Dare to be the mouthpiece? Think about that for a second. It defies logic. The deleting of comments on techcrunch, the nasty twitter conversations? Is Michael always like this or is he unraveling? So Michael can do whatever he wants on his blog and Dare can't? Just because he happens to work at Microsoft? I don't know Michael but it seems his argument is based on some hurt feelings or something. Yikes. He should take a step back and calm down (might I recomend pranayama?). The nastiness from Arrington in the exchange that Steven posts above is really beyond the pale.

Michael should give his readers more credit. Does he think that any of them actually blame the economic situation on him? See letter b) above.

As for moving on, I'll do it when they stop bickering. It's hard to look away. :) Thanks for the post, Frank. I agree with everything you say.

And for the record, this comment is my opinion and not the opinion of my employer. My employer couldn't give a rip that I have this opinion. But I haven't asked them and I won't. So it's my opinion that my employer doesn't care about my opinion, not my employers opinion. Really, I can't believe we still have to do this.

October 14, 2008 10:11 AM
 

Robert Scoble said:

Heather: you are right, I was never censored at Microsoft, but I was "talked to" whenever I attacked someone else and was asked not to do that. I also always knew that what I was doing in public was reflecting on others and would cause them potential pain, even with a disclaimer on the blog.

If  you read my book I detailed how many people got fired and it was partly because they forgot that they were public representatives of their company, even if they tried to say they weren't. At NEC I saw an executive get fired for a newsgroup post he made and he didn't even have NEC on his post or his email. (It was a racist remark that got back to the bosses).

That's what got me going more than anything.

October 14, 2008 12:00 PM
 

FrankShaw said:

Lots of good points in the comments here; my take continues to be that good judgment wins out in the end, whatever the forum.

October 14, 2008 12:06 PM
 

Heather said:

Robert: So maybe someone could have a word with Dare. Are those the "consequences" that you referred to in your blog post? How do you know that hasn't already happened? That's very different than censoring or firing him. Put yourself in his position. You said things that cheesed people off (I remember being cheesed off myself, but I just used my unsubscribe button). How would you like it if they started a personal and public campaign to get you fired and then censored those that didn't agree. It all seems very childish to me.

Maybe Arrington should have let the ridiculousness of Dare's argument speak for itself. Point to the post and let his readers comment. This all would have been over and he would have looked like the champion.

I didn't read your book. But just because "many people" got fired doesn 't mean it was the right thing to do. Haven't we learned from the past? I would really hope that in your book, you did not endorse firing as the way to deal with unpopular blog posts. And I see a distinct difference between someone being racist and just writing a jerky blog post.

So maybe Dare should have exercised better judgment. We can agree on that. Do you think the reaction was justified? The personal attacks? The censoring of comments? The name calling twitters (or tweets, or whatever they are called....I'm not into twitter).

Look, I can understand if you don't want to weigh both sides because maybe you don't want to tick Michael Arrington off. It's trendy to come down on Microsoft.  I really hope that's it (well, kind of). Because you used to be a bloggers-blogger. And though I have not kept up with your blogging the past few years, your perspective seems very different now.  

October 14, 2008 1:16 PM
 

Scott Barnes said:

This is a complete waste of time to be openly honest. I regret ever being apart of it and I wish Robert would just stop playing the wounded animal everytime he gets caught stiring the pot.

He saw there was some cheap fame to be had on this one, injected himself into the fight, Frank then amplifys the behaviour (which for our PR i'm shocked at) and in the end, it just continues to encourage this behavior?

To recap:

- This post just validated Robert's behaviour for one.

- Continued the TechCrunch drama beyond its lifespan. Michael updated and retracted parts of his post, which showed guts imho (depsite his name calling towards me on twitter), i thought it was positive move in my opinion.

We should of just left it at that.

Anyway. Moving on?

-

Scott Barnes (MossyBlog)

Microsoft.

October 14, 2008 7:04 PM
 

Heather said:

Scott- I didn't see the retraction. I guess my interest is less in the actual argument and more in the discussion of dynamics of corporate blogging. And these so-called "consequences". I imagine that Frank was interested in the discussion around whether a company is "responsible" for the words of their employees who blog; that's Frank's area of expertise and I appreciate the professional opinion. I don't see any amplifying. If anything, Frank's is a reasoned look at the situation that probably did the opposite of amplifying (de-amplifying?).

I agree with you on Robert and that kind of behavior is why I stopped reading his blog long ago. I see him trying to stop the conversation on his blog, but really, once you put it out there, it's out there and if people are interested, there's not much you can do. People are going to talk abut it until they are done; the players can't shut down the argument.

I have to chuckle that you put the comment about moving on at the end of your post. You are still in the conversation/controversy. I guess I'll move on when those involved stop making blog posts and comments about it. :)

You first?

October 15, 2008 10:37 AM
 

Tim Sewell said:

You know what? Screw Mike Arrington and all who sail in him. The guy's skin is gossamer thin. A high profile blogger (who has impeccable tech credentials) disses him and he tries to implicate the guy's employers in a naked attempt to get him fired. Techcrunch used to be the first blog I read every day and these days it's the last. He uses it to pursue his own vendettas and to pump his own investments. He has the credibility of a Madagascan prawn writing about pork cookery.

I would have posted this comment on TC, by the way but:

a) MA was deleting comments critical of his own position.

and

b) He's closed comments on his Dare hit post.

Nuff' said.

October 18, 2008 12:39 PM
 

Shawn Oster said:

Here is something to consider as well...

I had no idea there was some little playground spat going on between nerds until I read Dare's update about his new child and ended up over here and after just getting the briefest of overviews I'm left with... who cares?

October 18, 2008 6:34 PM
 

Ross J said:

Hey Shawn.

Same thing for me, I was reading about Dare's new child and followed the link to this spat.

The whole thing made me reflect on what I was doing.

1.  Why the hell was I spending 10 minutes of my life reading the long winded and boring tale of the birth of a child, from someone I have never met?

2.  Why the hell was also wasting time following the childish flame war that was going on.

I realize now.  I have been sucked into a 'cult of personality' with the majority of these blogs.  Or perhaps a new term could be coined ' cult of bloganility'

I have now introduced a new rule.  Blogs must be only read for technical reasons.  The moment the blogger spends more than 2 sentences droning on about their own boring existence - 'Unsubscribe'.

Sorry Dare.  Unsubscribe.

October 19, 2008 6:11 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit

Syndication



» Blogs that link here
» View my profile

Powered by Technorati