More on Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes Some Static]

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IP] More on Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes Some
Static
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:55:21 -0500
From: frumioj () mac com
To: dave () farber net
References: <43EF40D8.5070209 () farber net>

Dave,

[For IP if you wish]

With all due respect to Mr. Isenberg, I read the WSJ article and
(although of course, I know nothing of FON or the buzz around that
company) I did not find it so damning of Mr. Isenberg or anyone else
advising FON. The article did in fact note that all but one of the
advisory board members *had* noted their potentially-paid involvement
in the company, and the one who hadn't stated that she "should" do
so. That seems to be about the best one could do.

It seems (to me) though that the general thrust of the article is not
particularly to criticize this one incident, but rather to raise the
issue that blogging represents a challenge to the traditional media
tenet of "balanced reporting" in such cases. Which is a fair point.
Isn't it a case of "you can't believe everything you see and hear",
regardless of whether someone actually discloses their influences?

Of course, given that Rebecca Buckman works for a traditional media
company, perhaps she should have disclosed that she is in fact paid
by the WSJ, which might give her a certain bias in this matter (will
the proliferation of blogs make her redundant, at which point, she
will be "merely" a blogger?). I'm mostly joking of course, but even
"factual" reporting has biases unconsciously added by the writer (and
the reader!)

As always, caveat emptor.

Regards,

- - JohnK

On Feb 12, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Dave Farber wrote:

> > > From: David S. Isenberg <isen () isen com>
> > > Date: February 10, 2006 11:39:13 AM EST
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: More on Re: [IP] Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes
> > > Some Static
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > For IP per judgement of Editor:
> > >
> > > I am on FON's USA Advisory Board and I think WSJ Reporter Rebecca
> > > Buckman, the WSJ reporter who wrote the story took mainstream
> > > reporting to new lows. I was interviewed by Buckman and a subject of
> > > her FON story.  I have never felt more abused in an interview with
> > > a reporter in my eight years talking to the press than I did with
> > > her.  She asked me the same questions over and over like she was
> > > badgering a hostile witness, even after I answered her in a
> > > complete, frank, transparent and detailed way.  It felt to me
> > > like she had an agenda.  It did not feel like she had honest
> > > curiosity to learn the facts.
> > >
> > > And I am really pi^H^H angry that Ms. Buckman's story compared the
> > > FON advisory board to Armstrong Williams and other paid political
> > > propaganda flacks.  Read the WSJ story carefully, ignoring the
> > > innuendo, and you will see Buckman turned up ZERO evidence of
> > > anything but frank disclosure among us foneros.
> > >
> > > Fact: Every FON advisor who blogged the FON announcement
> > > disclosed their advisory relationship.  Reporter Buckman took
> > > us to task for not saying explicitly that we were compensated
> > > as advisors.  In fact, technically, we are NOT compensated, as
> > > no written agreement is in place, just a nonspecific verbal
> > > intent.  We don't know if we're getting warrants or options
> > > or stock.  We don't know how much.  We don't know the terms.
> > > We trust FON founder Varsavsky to figure out something fair
> > > because he is our friend.  Plus, if you say, "I work for
> > > (consult for, advise) foobar, inc.", doesn't that imply
> > > you've got some kind of quid pro quo going?
> > >
> > > More importantly, just about every FON advisor who blogged
> > > the announcement expressed some kind of heartfelt skepticism
> > > or doubt about the FON launch.  It was very fast, very untested,
> > > and a pretty risky thing to do so early.  We told Varsavsky
> > > our concerns in confidence before the USA launch, and we told
> > > the world after the launch.  If that's paid publicity, he should
> > > hire more compliant lackeys.
> > >
> > > I blogged it here:
> > > http://isen.com/blog/2006/02/blogging-conflict-of-interest-and.html
> > > FON advisor David Weinberger blogged it here
> > > http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/
> > > wsj_on_fon_disclosure_and_my_f.html
> > > Here's Varsavsky's blog posting:
> > > http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/fon/a-dream-come-true.html
> > > Here's the made-up-news WSJ Buckman story
> > > http://tinyurl.com/9pam5
> > > Here's FON advisor Ethan Zuckerman's very different take
> > > http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=368
> > > Here's FON advisor Rebecca MacKinnon's take
> > > http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2006/02/
> > > the_revolution_.html
> > >
> > > 'nuf said.  In my mind, this thread is closed.  FON has more  
> > > important
> > > things to think about.
> > > David I
> > > -------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 9, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > Subject: Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes Some Static
> > > > Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:18:42 -0500
> > > > From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
> > > > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Ip Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > > >
> > > > Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes Some Static
> > > > http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113945389770169170.html
> > > >
> > > > "But the tiny company [FON] also got publicity from another source:
> > > >  influential commentators on the Internet who write blogs --
> > > > including
> > > >  some who may be compensated in the future for advising FON about  
> > > > its
> > > >  business.
> > > >  ...
> > > >  The avalanche of blogging about FON, much of it from people now  
> > > > tied
> > > >  to the four-month-old company, highlights the rising influence of
> > > >  blogs in shaping opinions about tech start-ups, particularly in
> > > >  Silicon Valley. It also reveals the possible conflicts of interest
> > > >  such complicated relationships can dredge up."
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
> > > > Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> > > > Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > You are subscribed as isen () isen com.
> > > > To manage your subscription, go to
> > > >   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > > >
> > > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
> > > > interesting-people/

- -------------------------------------
You are subscribed as frumioj () mac com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD70zrh0VyAToQeqERAqFRAKDF3ZhkwRAKfRfSu7gn/GDMkCc/nACgjpJB
sEJDdX/fW8AjfRIW5aH1ftk=
=SW/C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/