Oddly Together

Someone Should kick Michael Arrington’s Arrogant Ass

A month ago, April, 27, 2011, Michael Arrington posted “An Update To My Investment Policy”, which not surprisingly generated negative reaction from established journalists. I wanted to respond right away, but I’ve been too busy at Betanews, where new editorial responsibilities add to writing.

The issue is a long-standing one of debate regarding TechCrunch’s founder—that he invests in, or has other business dealings with, some of the companies he writes about.

Michael justifies this behavior:

Before TechCrunch I was an occasional angel investor, going back to the mid 1990s…Some people have seen this as a conflict of interest, which it of course is. To counter that I’ve always disclosed investments, and try not to cover these startups myself. Occasionally when news is breaking quickly or for other reasons, I will write about the company, but with the appropriate disclosure.

In 2009 the accusations of conflicts of interest by our competitors became somewhat distracting, and for a couple of years I discontinued investing in startups completely.

That policy has now changed. Over the last several months I have begun investing actively again.

Michael further explains that he can’t write about companies for which investments aren’t public (e.g., there’s some non-disclosure or other legally binding agreement), because he would disclose them first. Otherwise, when able to disclose and write: “I think that this will all be fine. I’ll still be very hard on companies I invest in when they deserve it”.

On the one hand, I laud Michael for disclosing these investments, but that doesn’t remove conflict of interest. What he writes can benefit these companies, even if he’s completely unbiased, or turns a critical eye. Investments’ disclosure is itself conflict of interest. Michael is known to be a successful entrepreneur—TechCrunch is proof of that—and shrewd seer of viable startups. Disclosure of these investments is tacit endorsement, and that can get the startups attention, perhaps needed funding or even eventual acquisition.

A Personal Example
I’ve written plenty of news stories over the years that moved companies’ stock, sometimes unknowingly. For small companies and their investors the results can be rewarding or devastating. One instance still bothers me. In September 1999, Dell briefed me on plans to offer WiFi cards from AiroNet. At the time, no Windows PC manufacturer shipped laptops with built-in WiFi. Dell chose an add-on to the portable’s PC Card slot as its first move into WiFi. The story posted at CNET News on Sept. 15, 1999. I didn’t realize two things, which may have been related: Dell exclusively gave the story to me (without saying so) and AiroNet had gone public a few weeks earlier.

CNET had no comments section on its site back then. Readers communicated by email. I received one from a desperate investor who had shorted AiroNet stock. He pleadingly asked if the Dell deal was true. Turns out that after my story posted, AiroNet shares started rising—up 40 percent over two days. No wonder he was panicked! Sometime later, Cisco bought the WiFi startup.

Suppose, hypothetically, I had been an investor in AiroNet, a new public company. The stock surge likely would have benefitted me, and surely I should have considered the possibility before writing one word. Similarly, any benefit Michael receives from writing about these companies is conflict of interest—plain, pure and simple. If he feels that disclosing investments is being transparent, I challenge him to go further. If there’s really no problem, then he should disclose when he financially benefits from these stories. That would be real measure of conflict of interest, as his critics insist there is.

“Screw Them All” Defense
However, Michael asserts he’s no different from other writers in followup post: “The Tech Press: Screw Them All.” He writes:

We can argue all day about whether or not my policy is a good one. You’ll have your arguments, I’ll have mine. But the really important thing to remember, as a reader, is that there is no objectivity in journalism. The guys that say they’re objective are just pretending. Everyone is conflicted in different ways, and yet the ‘rules of journalism”’don’t require any sort of transparency or disclosure unless it’s a direct financial conflict. I’m going to have to write a longer post about his yet again.

But when you read a tech blogger call a CEO ‘tough and misunderstood,’ should you know that the CEO in question is social friends with that blogger, and leaks confidential information to her? The answer is yes. But you’ll never know. Or when the same CEO is called incompetent by another blogger who was just turned down by said CEO to speak at his conference. Disclosed? No. Conflicted? Yes.

There’s a difference between being friends with a CEO and being an investor in his or her company. I wholeheartedly agree with Michael that conflicts of interest are unavoidable among journalists. But that’s no excuse for engaging them—actively, in this case—nor does the justification address issues of degree. When there are huge amounts of money involved, the difference between investments and accepting a product and reviewing it or having personal political biases simply don’t compare. There simply is no ethical justification for writing about companies in which you invest or have other financial relationships. For the record, I own no stake or stock in any company.

Would it be so hard for Michael to establish a hands-off policy about the companies for which he has financial relationship? What? Are there no other competent writers at TechCrunch, who could report about these companies instead? That Michael has to justify his relationships as disclosure demonstrates there is significant conflict of interest—that he must be concerned that TechCrunch reporting might jeopardize them.

When the AOL Well runs Dry
Surely Michael must already be thinking about the future and his end of days at TechCrunch. In late September 2010, AOL acquired TechCrunch. His site looked like the crown jewel for AOL’s new media empire, but then, in February 2011, AOL bought Huffington Post and put the queen of aggregation in charge of the media company’s editorial content. I don’t see how there’s room for two such large personalities at AOL, and they do have conflicting agendas. While I may gripe about Michael’s personal ethics, I praise what he has created in TechCrunch. Unlike Huffington Post, which lifeblood is aggregation, TechCrunch is nearly all about original reporting—using an effective technique sometimes called “Process Journalism.”

[Edtor’s note: Due to some unfathomable glitch at Tumblr, the post from the paragraph above onward simply vanished and could not be recovered even in browser history. It’s actually the portion of this commentary written first. What follows is a poor reproduction; it’s shorter, and the original impact is gone. I was in the zone when writing and completely lost momentum afterwards.]

TechCrunch not only excels at original reporting, it produces many scoops. By comparison, Huffington Post is a mashup of aggregated, freely-written and occasional original content. Ariana Huffington puts panache, style and hype behind the presentation. Huffington Post may be the Internet’s most successful gossip rag.

One might call Huffington Post and TechCrunch as two sides of a coin. I see them as antithesis to one another. Based on position, style and knack for navigating AOL’s political hierarchy, my money is on Ariana surviving before Michael. Besides, he is known for being gruff and pushy, qualities that won’t hold up long with AOL management. In the war of strong-willed personalities, Ariana is more likely winner. It’s not a question of if Michael leaves TechCrunch but when.

Change, What Change?
So Michael’s start-up company investments and other business dealings are crucial for what comes next, and surely he knows that. From that perspective, there is huge conflict of interest, because of his incentive to protect his on-the-side business dealings. If that’s not the case, then I again challenge him to prohibit himself from writing about these companies or having editorial oversight over the content. See, his argument cuts both ways. If there’s no problem with these business dealings, no benefit from his writing about them, then there should be no problem with someone else writing about them, too.

But there’s no incentive for him to change anything. Journalists can argue all they want about ethics or conflicts of interest, but in the end one thing matters to Michael: TechCrunch is a business. It’s his baby, which he wants to continue succeeding. Post-merger, his job also is to continue making money for the new AOL taskmasters. From a business perspective, this conflict-of-interest stuff doesn’t matter. If it did, TechCrunch would have lost masses of readers or advertisers in the month since his disclosure post, and there is no indication of that. TechCrunch posts interesting and timely content—plenty of scoops and original stories—and the readers are part of the storytelling process by way of comments. It’s not surprising, from that vantage point, Michael can take a “screw them all” attitude to his critics.

Still, someone should kick Michael Arrington’s arrogant ass. His disclosure policy is justification for the most egregious conflict of interest. No journalist should directly profit from his or her reporting.

Tech startups are suddenly hot properties again, and Michael wants some of the action. LinkedIn’s IPO, Twitter’s TweetDeck acquisition and Microsoft’s pending Skype purchase are signs of a new tech bubble forming—and these are all deals that occurred after Michael’s April disclosure post. He just sold TechCrunch to AOL, he has strong ties to venture capitalists and writes about them and startups. Michael knows exactly what the venture capital investment opportunities are shaping up to be as the new bubble expands.

Way I see it, Michael wants to have his cake and eat it, too. Fine, then open and run a TechCrunch public relations agency, Mr. Arrington. But don’t pretend that eating and sleeping where you crap is healthy living.

Photo Credit: Robert Scoble

Do you have a journalism ethics story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

Is the Fujifilm FinePix X100 for you?

Few digital cameras have caused as much stir as the retro-styled compact now available in the United States on a limited basis. The Fujifilm FinePix X100 joins the Leica X1, Sigma DP1x and DP2x, Sony Alpha NEX-3 and NEX-5 and micro four-thirds cameras like the Olympus PEN E-PL2 and E-P2 or Panasonic DMC-GF2 in a newer class of mirrorless digicams. I have owned the DP1, DP2s, E-P1, E-P2, GF1 and X1.

However, like the Leica X1 or Sigma DP series, the X100 is eccentric—the lens is fixed and cannot be changed. Who on earth would buy a digital camera without telephoto? I, for one. Many professional photographers for another. I’m no pro, but I have specific needs as a journalist for which the X100 is ideally suited. The X100 is the only camera I own. I received mine on May 4, 2011, and I love it. In just four day’s use, I can say it’s the right digicam for me, and I’ll explain why in an upcoming review. 

Most certainly the X100 isn’t for everyone:

• The fixed, 35mm film equivalent lens (23mm digital) won’t appeal to anyone wanting to change lenses or to zoom in and out. With the FinePix X100, you are the telephoto.
• The $1,199.95 price will put off other people. For even less, $879.99, Costco sells the Nikon D3100 dSLR, with two zoom lenses, two training DVDs and 4GB storage card.
• There aren’t loads of scene modes that appropriately adjust the settings. Fujifilm provides the tools, you have to use them. This camera can produce exceptional photos, particularly in low light, but they won’t come from shooting in auto mode.

I’m suddenly excited about photography. The X100 is why.

Top-Line Benefits
For people considering the Fujifilm FinePix X100, there are 10 benefits you should consideer

1. Retro design. Simply stated, this is one handsome camera that harkens back to 1950’s-era rangefinders. But looks are deceiving. The X100 is no rangefinder and it has new, and innovative tech, inside. “The joke is that you know you are carrying the very latest, cutting-edge, $1,200 semiprofessional camera, but passers-by think you’re the last Luddite film buff in America,” David Pogue writes in his X100 review for the New York Times.

2. Hybrid viewfinder. While the X100 has the typical LCD screen on the back, photographers are more likely to use it to view rather than to take pictures. The X100’s hybrid electronic/optical viewfinder is a marvel of innovation. Photographers can switch between both views, which offer simply shocking advantages for framing—that is composing—the picture. Photographer Sean Reid better explains in his X100 review. It’s worth paying the 33 bucks a year for the one review, if you’re considering buying the X100 (His content is all behind a paywall). You never heard of Sean Reid? Here’s why.

3. APS-C sensor. Like the Leica X1 and Sony NEX series, the X100 packs a full dSLR-size sensor into a compact-size. However, this isn’t as big as the full-frame sensor (35mm equivalent) found on Leica rangefinders or the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. The X100 sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm. By comparison, the hefty Canon 7D dSLR’s sensor is slightly smaller—22.3 x 14.9 mm. The X100 sensor produces 12.3-megapixel images, which is more than most anyone should ever need.

4. Fixed, f/2 lens. I’m a big fan of prime lenses, and you should be, too. A good fixed-lens will provide sharper images with less distortion than any telephoto. Based on the photo pros’ reviews, like this one from Steve Huff, and my less than 24 hours with the X100, Fuji’s lens delivers—and it lets in a whole lot of light for people like me who don’t often use flash.

5. Compact size. The  X100 is 26.5mm wide by 74.4mm high by 53.9mm deep and weighs 445 grams. By comparison, the Nikon D3100 is 124 x 96 x 74.5 mm and weighs 505 grams. The D3100 is considered to be a fairly svelte dSLR, but is giant compared to the X100, particularly with lens attached. However, look at the weight, which surprised me when picking up the X100. By comparison, the Leica X1 weighs 286 grams. Still, the Fujifilm compact is the easy carry-along camera compared to a dSLR but with similar, and in some ways better, capabilities.

6. Flash sync. The X100 can flash sync to a shutter speed of 1/4000 sec. That’s not just unheard of for compacts but for most digital SLRs—1/125 sec is more typical. Even the haughty Canon EOS 5D Mark II is 1/200 sec flash sync. I personally prefer to shoot without flash, but for those people who do, this is an outstanding capability to have—and marvelously unique.

7. High ISO. The X100 produces stunning images, even as high as ISO 6400. If you’re an indoor shooter—and I am when covering events—the high-ISO capability means capturing better photos without a flash. That makes the X100 more discreet and less intrusive, too. For some examples of high-ISO performance ahead of my full review, visit the FinePix X100 Flickr group.

8. Silent shutter. The X100’s four-leaf shutter is essentially silent, and I had found the Leica X1 and Sigma DP2s to be unbelievably quiet. Combined with the camera’s compact size and unobtrusive lens, the X100 is a discreet shooter, which makes it highly suited to street photography (other than “zone focus” issues I’ll discuss in my full review). For a sweet taste, visit the Fuji X100 Street Photography Flickr group.

9. External controls. Like with the Leica X1, but placed differently, the photographer uses dedicated dials to change aperture and shutter speed—no fiddling with backside controls required.

10. Fuji color. Some photographers rave about the “Leica look” or “Foveon look” (for Sigma cameras). The “Fuji look” is very much about the warm colors and deep contrast the X100 produces. Photos are smoother than sharp in my early testing—at least compared to the Leica X1—but satisfying.

How I Got Mine
The Fujifilm FinePix X100 is a tough camera to come by. Fuji announced the digicam in September and pricing in February. I put in a preorder with Amazon right away. I chose Amazon because I sold some stuff to a good friend to help fund the purchase, and he wanted to pay by credit card. It was easier for him to send an Amazon gift certificate (I didn’t want PayPal fees, nixing the other option). This gave me about $750 towards the X100 if purchased from Amazon or one of its merchants.

Demand looked to be high, then the devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, stopping X100 production for several weeks. Suddenly everyone wanted a X100, and few people could get it. But then, unexpectedly, the logjam lifted ever so slightly last week. U.S. dealers started shipping the first X100 preorders on April 29. Meanwhile, Amazon was silent about the status of my preorder.

On May 2, around 1:30 p.m. ET, a new merchant carrying the X100 popped up on Amazon selling the camera for a few hundred bucks over list price. The merchant turned out to be a reputable photo shop, and I called to confirm cameras were indeed in stock. “What the hell?” I thought. I cancelled my Amazon order to free up the gift card balance. During the two minutes that passed, the merchant sold out. So not only could I not buy the X100 immediately but I lost my place in the Amazon preorder queue.

For no reason other than solace, I kept the Amazon X100 product page open all day in a browser tab. I occasionally returned looking for some miracle availability and to scold myself for being impatient. Around 11:20 p.m. ET, I was reading Steve Huff’s first impressions review when going somewhere else I clicked the X100 product page tab by mistake. Before my eyes appeared the camera, listed as “in stock” with Amazon and two one-click buying buttons at the top of the page—for next-day and two-day delivery. I immediately clicked the next-day button (available to Prime members). No more than 90 seconds later, I returned to the product page, where the X100 was listed as no longer being available from Amazon.

I received order confirmation at 11:24 p.m. with delivery estimate of May 6. Amazon later revised delivery to May 5 and then to May 4, which is when UPS made late-day delivery. I’m simply stunned.

In an interesting aside, Steve Huff posted at 11:22 p.m. (not sure his time zone) on May 3: “Amazon sold 19 X100s last night at this time in about an hour” and another 13 about the same day he posted. I must have been one of the lucky 19, although given the odds winning the lottery would have pleased me more. If you’re shopping Amazon for the X100, 11 p.m. ET might be a good time of day to stake out the product page. Maybe you can get lucky, too.

Regarding the camera, my first impressions are hugely positive, although I am surprised by the X100’s heft. I created a Flickr set with some first pics of the camera using my wife’s compact—Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7—and others taken with the X100.

[Editor’s Note: A slightly different version of this post appeared on Betanews, May 5, 2011.]

Do you have a photo gear or X100 story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

This is How Misreporting Happens

Have you ever played the game where someone whispers in the ear of another person and the information goes down a line of people? What often starts out from the source is different than what comes out at the end.

This little game is good example why bloggers and journalists should do original reporting/sourcing instead of relying on someone else. The problem isn’t just the veracity of the second-hand source but the judgement applied by the blogger or journalist reporting it.

I got an unexpected example this morning. I came across a startling headline in my RSS feeds: “PSN Shut Down for Good by Sony”. Say what? I’ve been reporting on the PlayStation Network outage and don’t recall Sony ever indicating a permanent shutdown of the service. The headline is from a story by Austin Ritchie at IThinkDifferent. The post begins: “In order to better upgrade Sony’s online security, the PlayStation Network, or PSN, has been taken down for good”, linking to a Wall Street Journal story.

The Journal story states that “the Japanese electronics giant said it is keeping its PlayStation Network videogame service offline indefinitely”, linking from “indefinitely” to an April 25 blog post from Sony.

“I don’t have an update or timeframe to share at this point in time,” Patrick Seybold, Sony’s senior director of Corporate Communications & Social Media, states about PSN restoration. “As we previously noted, this is a time intensive process and we’re working to get them back online quickly.” Quickly is a long way from “indefinitely” and even farther from “for good.” Troubling: The IThinkDifferent story later uses the same quote.

More troubling: In a follow-up post, yesterday, Patrick writes: “We have a clear path to have PlayStation Network and Qriocity systems back online, and expect to restore some services within a week”. Really? That’s shut down for good?

Responsible and accurate reporting isn’t a duty. It’s a privilege for being allowed the public’s trust. In this era of aggregation and free content, responsible reporting is too often a rarity. As this example shows, the chain of information can be hugely misleading when published/posted as fact. Original reporting is one way to break the chain of misinformation.

Do you have a journalism story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

I’m baaack!

In October 2010, I put Oddly Together on ice. I’m back blogging at Tumblr, and forwarding joewilcox.com to this site (or will be doing so in a few days). This week, posts from that site will show up in my Tumblr stream with the original post dates from “5 Minutes with Joe”.

Quickly stated reasons:

• I miss the Tumblr community
• I really only have time for shorter-form blogging
• I’m ready to start seriously focusing on storytelling
• My Oddly Together posts rank higher in search results
• I want to avoid brand confusion with the tech blogging I do for Betanews

Do you have a blogging story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

Freely Available doesn’t mean Free

I’m used to my stuff being stolen, not that I like it—ideas, analyses, blog posts and news stories. Probably my Flickr photos frequently get lifted, too. I’m no great shakes photographer, so it pains but a little. The writing hurts more. But for good photographers like Thomas Hawk, Flickr theft is a bigger deal. Some people see Creative Commons, even All Rights Reserved, as license to steal; if it’s on the Web and freely available, it must be free.

Thomas’ December 6, 2010, post “You Know How Sometimes Businesses Like to Go on Flickr Trying to Score Photos for Free?” features a comic and snarky exchange regarding photo Aldo’s Night Club. An unnamed iPhone applications developer asked Thomas permission to use the pic. The developer deserves some credit—asking for permission rather than just lifting the photo and for putting up with Thomas’ nasty responses. But perhaps a little snark and bite is warranted. While asking for permission, the developer’s self-described editor doesn’t get Thomas’ point: He should be paid for the photo’s use.

“Would there be compensation associated with this request?” Thomas asks. “If you give us your kind permission to use your photo we’ll provide a link back to your flickr page and credit you fully for the authorship of this photo”, the editor replies. Later, Thomas asks: “Would this permission need to be permanent, or could I just give permission for a period of time, like say 6 months or 1 year, or something?” The response: “This permission need to be permanent, but we’ll use your photo for our tour guide and iPhone application only. We use photos under Creative Commons license. You’ll remain the copyright owner.”

The exchange is much longer, and I won’t recount the fun Thomas has at the requester’s expense. Read his blog post. Thomas makes an important point through the exchange: Businesses using Flickr photos, even when asking permission, expect too much. They want to take something valuable and use it for free, forever. When businesses license photos from agencies they pay for specific usage and/or time period. There usually isn’t carte blanche to reuse the photo everywhere forever.

I’m a huge believer in content being made available for the public domain. I also oppose onerous copyrights that create mini-monopolies over intellectual property’s usage rights. Creative Commons is a great comprise, allowing creators more freedom how they license content. My stuff is freely available to use and remix for non-commercial purposes. If you want to make money off my stuff, I’d like some of that cash, too. Thomas applies similar license to his photos. Based on Thomas’ exchange with the requester, the self-described editor assumed he was dealing with someone unfamiliar with his rights.

That said, he did ask, which means something. The greater problem is people lifting stuff for free, and profiting from it. Freely available doesn’t mean free to use. Books are freely available in stores. Do most people take them without paying? But they do read freely available magazines for free, which bookstores might consider to be stealing; arguably it’s not so far removed from lifting something off a Website.

Looked at another way, my blog, Facebook or Flickr are my online domiciles—and yours. Stealing stuff from my home breaks the laws and defies American ethos about property ownership. Online should be no different. Right?

[Editor’s Note: This post was moved from joewilcox.com to Oddly Together on May 21, 2011.]

Do you have a contents rights story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.