I’m aware that the majority of you who read this blog are probably shaking your head and wondering why I went off on such a rant Sunday — a rant in which I uncharacteristically resorted to name-calling and mild profanity on someone I’ve never even met face to face. I’m going to tell you – and then we’ll close the book on it for good.
Yesterday Michael Arrington put up a post at Crunchnotes basically complaining about the Techcrunch bashers and criticisms of how he does, or does not disclose relationships that may affect what startup companies he chooses to write about. In essence, he basically said “It’s my blog and my business and I’ll do what I want with it.”
I agree with him. What sent me into orbit was his diatribe on the rest of us who also take that position — that it’s our little slice of the Internet and we can make our own decisions, whether we throw parties for profit or post for profit.
I thought David Krug over at the Blog Herald said it so well I’m just going to quote him and agree:
The problem with disclosure is that its simply not the issue. The issue I have with Mike Arrington is the system of stepping on the little guy…
People want some level of success. Maybe not TechCrunch success but they wholeheartedly want to have this business ProBlogging legitimized. And well instead of being apart of the solution Mike Arrington bashes companies that try to legitimize the business. That’s the problem I have with him, and I think that’s the problem many have with him.
That is exactly it. I hate it when I see people with a lot of power pushing around others who don’t. When he pushes on DisclosurePolicy.org, or PayPerPost, he’s not pushing on companies with megabucks to push back. He’s pushing on my efforts to buy a new lens, or others’ efforts to raise money for breast cancer, or others’ efforts to raise money for world peace.
We can get all up on our high horses about disclosure and relationships and monetization and attention, page rank and Google Juice, digg and being dugg, but at the end of the day, there are some voices who carry and echo throughout the blogosphere, and when they are used irresponsibly with the goal to kick someone in the face, it rouses the profane part of me that wants to outshout the loud ones just for one minute, for long enough to say “Wait! He’s not telling the truth — he’s stating an OPINION”.
Tony Hung had some wise words, too:>
While we may all think we are disciples at the holy church of Authenticity, praying for divine guidance so that we may live in the holy light of Transparency, the real fact is that blogging’s connected nature makes it impossible to be truly impartial.
After all, the very nature backtracks, Google Juice, PageRank, and “A-list” status is all about connections in the first place; one cannot get connections without being friendly, without being a little bit of the supplicant within that exchange. And then it gets reversed.
When one does have The Juice, you start getting all kinds of people knocking at your door wanting links / a relationship where there was nothing there before.
And really, doesn’t “relationships” make the holy trinity of blogging together with “authenticity” and “transparency”?
Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.
So while I would likely NOT be standing in a crowded room at one of Mr. Arrington’s parties calling him names, nor would I give much weight to something he might have said in a derisive fashion about my interests (because I would not be likely to hear them) in the day-to-day passing life space we all inhabit, in this space there is a connectedness that transcends those normal barriers and gives rise to voices, even squeaky, profane voices like mine that for at least a second might command enough attention to say “Powerful or not, he’s just plain wrong about this and I’m calling it out.”
It matters, because as Mr. Arrington, Todd Cochrane, Jason Calacanis and other sanctimonious worshippers at the Holy Bloggers’ Church of the Right know, at the end of the day you just have your name and your reputation. If they’re cloaked in the truth, fine. But the smoke-and-mirror metaphor that was so casually tossed around by these loud voices as a way to taint anyone who dared defend something different was an unfair mantle to wrap around mine and others’ necks and as such, required a response.
- DnW
Technorati Tags: Techcrunch, Crunchnotes, Michael Arrington, wallstreetjournal, blogs, blogging
Sphere: Related Content
