Forbes Goes After Bloggers 287
walterbyrd writes "In a recent article, Forbes bashes bloggers big time (forbesdontbug/forbesdontbug)." From the article: "Blogs started a few years ago as a simple way for people to keep online diaries. Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns. It's not easy to fight back: Often a bashing victim can't even figure out who his attacker is. No target is too mighty, or too obscure, for this new and virulent strain of oratory. Microsoft has been hammered by bloggers; so have CBS, CNN and ABC News, two research boutiques that criticized IBM's Notes software, the maker of Kryptonite bike locks, a Virginia congressman outed as a homosexual and dozens of other victims--even a right-wing blogger who dared defend a blog-mob scapegoat. " BoingBoing has a long post about the article.
Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:3, Insightful)
CBS, CNN and ABC News: Big media are lap dogs to the powers that be. To afraid to really speak out for fear of harming revenue, stock value, etc.
IBM's Notes software: If you make software, someone, somewhere will complain.
Kryptonite bike locks: The best bike lock in the world, picked in seconds with a BIC pen.
The most effective defense against being slagged in blogs is to take the charm offensive. Be open and honest. If you've done wrong apologies and move on. Strip their legs out from under them. A harsh retort is more likely to get them a larger audience.
"Ackthpt is t3h rat basturd!1"
Yes, I'm afraid I am. Sorry, I'll try to do better next time. If I had $5, I would most certainly mail it to Happy Guy, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield, USA
I wonder if anyone's started a blog critising AMD for eating Intel's lunch. [eetimes.com]
Re:Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:5, Interesting)
And that, as I'm sure you're aware, is precisely what scares Forbes and those of their class. Traditional journalism is a tamed parrot which only says what its' owners have trained it to say.
They needed be afraid though; history has shown that independent social movements and forms of communication remain independent for a very brief period of time before becoming absorbed into the tame and vapid mainstream of social thought and expression.
Blogs scare the societal elites now; but in five years from now they'll be just another corporate form of propaganda, pushing the sheeple in the direction which the top 1% want them to go.
Re:Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:2, Insightful)
"Circle Group stock fell below a dollar in a year of combat with Miles and the anonymous bashers on Yahoo (and after Nestlé dropped Z-Trim)."
Oh by the way, Nestle pulled out and the stock tanked. Sounds like the year long battle should go in the parenthesis instead. This piece has the objectiveness and balance of... a blog!
Re:Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:2)
Yep, and Lyin' Lyons has ANOTHER link in there to yet another story about "Wno Is Pamela Jones?"
This is what I want to see:
You'd think that one of these days they'd figure out that page views are not the only measurement of success, and not a good indicator of long-term viability.
Re:Blog Bashin' Fools (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, paid shills are an odious problem. But why not simply call them that? Could the author himself be a shill? One has to wonder.
Its great being both mighty and obscure, isn't it? Rich crooks [theyrule.net] are under attack by concerned citizens and consumers; Now that small-f
Props to the OP... (Score:2)
Forbes has Long been the Crap-Standard (Score:2, Funny)
"Says here that everyone is going to ARCnet. Why aren't we?"
Grrrrrrrumble.
blogosphere CAN be healthy, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm, have to register to read the article, I hate that.
But, from the slashdot summary, ..., Microsoft has been
hammered by bloggers; so have CBS, CNN and ABC News, two research
boutiques that criticized IBM's Notes software, the maker of Kryptonite
bike locks, a Virginia congressman outed as a homosexual and dozens of
other victims--even a right-wing blogger who dared defend a blog-mob
scapegoat...,
As with all sea changes in communications comes (especially early on) a high noise to signal ratio. Hopefully reasonable readers apply reasonable filters to what they read.
There may be incendiary posts, unnecessary posts, and inappropriate post (including but not limited to trolling, flaming, and slander), but in the collective body of blogs are useful nuggets worth mining. Vendors, companies, and individuals benefit if they choose by tuning in to this.
The evolution of airing a complaint has evolved from snail mail (good luck), to phone calls (good luck), and with the internet, to "Contact Us" (hmmm, good luck). None of these in my experience have been as effective as I prefer because the receiving complainant can easily ignore the missives as so much whining, and invisible that they don't have to be responsive.
Not all ignore complaints, pleas for help, etc. Notably (and I'm only picking a couple) I've always received timely and helpful replies from Amazon.com and Thumbnails Plus [slashdot.org] . These are only two examples, I could cite more.
But with the volume raised, the signal amplified with the more public blogosphere I've seen signs there can be positive outcomes. Again, while some posts are inflammatory only, valid complaints about activities, governments, and companies in such a public forum spur action faster and more effectively than in the past.
And, as with all emerging conduits, mechanisms are being built and refined eventually improving the signal to noise ratio to a much more acceptable number (case in point... you troll or flame too much here, even anonymously, you get shut down until you clean up your act).
I am looking forward to the future that is the blogosphere.
Re:blogosphere CAN be healthy, too (Score:2)
Re:blogosphere CAN be healthy, too (Score:2)
Re:blogosphere CAN be healthy, too (Score:2)
He used normal press releases too - just pointing out to blogs is ridiculous.
Folks like Miles would use any new technology to get ahead, that he used Blogs too means absolutely nothing.
Re:blogosphere CAN be healthy, too (Score:2, Insightful)
Blog? (Score:2)
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Bashing? Subjective at best (Score:5, Insightful)
The uproar and exposition of the Kryptonite bike locks was covered extensively on Slashdot. This _security_ product had severe design flaws that exposed the owners of their device to significant risk, and the company buried it, hoping no one would notice.
Re:Bashing? Subjective at best (Score:2)
Re:Bashing? Subjective at best (Score:2)
First, I think "blog" is a pretty retarded word, even for a portmanteau.
Second, I really don't agree with calling Slashdot a "blog". Slashdot isn't a personal diary for anyone, nor does it cover what happens to any specific object or place, so it's not really a log.
Re:Bashing? Subjective at best (Score:3, Funny)
Subjective? No, defensive. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't even click the link and give them an ad impression. Unless the man has just lost his mind, the whole reason for writing these shrill rants is to draw more "Slashdot effect" hits. It's quite possible that Forbes is thrilled to see all the attention in their web server logs, not yet realizing they're getting it by driving away the "Wall Street Journal" audience in favor of the more populous "National Enquirer" crowd.
Re:Subjective? No, defensive. (Score:2)
Or it's a way to drum-up pagehits from the blogosphere.
I'm sure the sensationalism helps Forbes' ad revenue, in the short-term at least.
Re:Subjective? No, defensive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Subjective? No, defensive. (Score:3, Informative)
Defensive and in my opinion, not bashing. (Score:2)
I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, my new signature line is key to defeating the danger of the blogosphere. For every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction. This goes for business ethics just as much as it goes for momentum.
Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately companies don't seem to be learning the right lesson about what that opposite reaction is. I assume, right, that with your sig you're trying to point out that if companies don't like people complaining about their actions on the internet, then the correct response would be to stop taking actions worthy of complaining about? No, according to Forbes, the correct resp
Re:Unfortunately (Score:2)
Re:I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same (Score:2)
Re:I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same (Score:2)
The same was true of print before the slander and libel laws- Thomas Jefferson even approved of the situation. In many ways it's still true- because the law is slow, and print media is faster, and blogs are faster yet.
When Apple got dingedby ipodsdirtysecret.com, the creators of the video and furor conveniently left out the fact that the
Re:I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, now we have libel and slander laws, and print is much improved because of them.
Re:I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure Alexander Hamilton said the same Of Ben Franklin's newspaper.http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_apolo gy.html>
Indeed. Should blogger feel the need to respond, they might do no better than Franklin's response to criticism of his Pennsylvania Gazette, May 27, 1731.
He begins:
He then gives 10 things for his critics to consider, among them:
Nothing to see here...! (Score:5, Funny)
What do you expect (Score:3, Informative)
Mike
Re:What do you expect (Score:2)
Re:What do you expect (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What do you expect (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What do you expect (Score:2)
Blogging = Free Press, right? (Score:2)
Re:Blogging = Free Press, right? (Score:2)
Suprising (Score:2)
Not that I'm suprised.
Re:Suprising (Score:2)
One of the "privilages" of living in the US. A bill of rights, that our government refers to as 'suggestions on how to run a society'.
The more alternatives the merrier - (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
In other words, freedom of speech is the antithesis of democracy.
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:The more alternatives the merrier - (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. This article is best read in a Thurston Howell III [forbes.com] voice and perhaps should end with, "then let them eat cake!" [wikipedia.org]
Whereas the mainstream media ... (Score:2)
democracy of sorts (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, boycott Nestle.
Re:democracy of sorts (Score:2)
You... wouldn't happen to be siding with those bloggers, now would you? Siding with terrorists?
I thought not!
Some of these comments are interesting..... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Forbes don't like! (Score:2)
Sigh!
Gee, that's too bad (Score:2)
Anonymous free speech is guaranteed by the constitution. Get used to it or do business in another country.
DMCA abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Geez. Talk about an abuse of the (already abusive) DMCA and the justice system in general. I really lost a lot of respect for Forbes when I read that - going after people who exercise their right to free speech and disagree with you is bad enough, but bringing fraudulent lawsuits against them and their ISPs is, well, criminal. Or if it's not, then it should be.
Re:DMCA abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, the DMCA is bad, but not that bad. Diebold tried to abuse it in exactly the way that Forbes is suggesting, and got fined $125,000.
Pamela Jones sidebar is trash (Score:3, Interesting)
>> When O'Gara's story about her quest appeared in Linux Business News, an online magazine, indignant bloggers went on the attack. They said the story was unethical and demanded that the site take it down. (So much for free speech.)
>> Jones responded by penning a pious thank-you to her defenders. "My faith in the human race is restored," she wrote. "It means so much to me to know that there is still a line, an ethical line, and some things we agree we ought never to do to a fellow human."
If I recall correctly, O'Gara's story attempted to question Jones' sexual orientation or something else of that nature, and Pamela Jones' reply about "an ethical line" refers to this.
Daniel Lyons completely left that bit out, instead talking only about O'Gara as simply trying to meet Pamela or verify that was her real name, and that bloggers ravenously swarmed to keep that information secret.
No wonder Forbes hates blogs (Score:2)
Which really annoys Forbes because that's their turf [forbes.com].
They go after PJ & Groklaw too (Score:2)
Yeah, freedom of speech = bad (Score:2)
Ted Hitler's stance on the issue (Score:2, Funny)
STEPHEN: Jon, before we begin, I'd like to get something off my chest, before I get 'outed' by the bloggers.
My real name isn't Stephen Colbert. It's Ted Hitler. No relation. Well, distant relation, two generations back. Directly. I'm Adolf Hitler's grandson. Anyways, it's out there. It's no longer news.
JON: Uh, uh, wow. First of all, thank you for your honesty, Stephen...
STEPHEN: It
Who's the pot and who's the kettle? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, if nothing else, look at this article. This article is essentially made up entirely of brand-bashing, personal attacks, and smear campaign, and then it goes on to complain about "brand-bashing, personal attacks, and smear campaigns". Hmm.
people should express themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
what the forbes article suggests is that we should all suppress our desires to express ourselves
i mean the article is 100% right: blogs are a wasteland of mental detritus
however, i'll take that wasteland of mental detritus over some sort of expectation or belief that the content of all of our minds should be placid and the same, without any sense of dissent
blogs are nothing but windows on people minds, and anyone who is surprised that most of what is in our minds is absolute crap doesn't really know the human species very well
blgos are an avenue for venting, for blowing off steam, and it's a healthy, acceptable way to do so
to suppress that doesn't destroy asocial impulses, it merely means pressure builds and asocial thoughts and desires get expressed in far less acceptable ways, often in real life
far better the web serve as our mental trashground than real life, don't you agree?
so the author of this piece may or may not be happier in an authoritarian state, but they certainly are guilty of taking blogs WAY too seriously in the least, and at the worst, they have antidemocratic instincts and impulses
and if so, then please, by all means, dear forbes article author: enjoy your emigration to north korea, the utopia of sameness and consensus you seek
It's a tricky subject indeed.... (Score:2)
Lovely sidebar on 'Fighting Back' (Score:2, Interesting)
BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.
ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip t
Hail Xenu? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty un-sage. And pretty un-Forbes-like. Sounds a lot like a certain UFO cult, actually.
> BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.
Re:Lovely sidebar on 'Fighting Back' (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Forbes advocating barratry [law.com] here? Something that happens to be illegal across the whole of the USA?
mr. pot, meet mr. kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
what is that second link supposed to represent? (Score:2)
What does that mean? You think every time groklaw mentions Forbes, Forbes smeared someone?
I just don't get what you're trying to say here.
The first part seemed more like a mistake than a personal attack too, not that Forbes has never personally attacked someone, just not in this case.
Boing Boing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not terribly responsible journalism by Daniel Lyons. Of course, you may remember the earlier Lyons article in which he defended [forbes.com] Maureen O'Gara's attack on groklaw's [groklaw.net] PJ. He doesn't appear to be an open source enthusiast. For example, in an article on Marc Fleury of JBoss fame, he writes [forbes.com]: Memo to Slashdot, and to myself: YHBT.
How dare people have the temerity... (Score:2)
I, for one, am glad that Forbes Magazine is willing to stand up and speak out for the victims of this heinous free speech.
Re:How dare people have the temerity... (Score:4, Informative)
Now the thing about libel is, it can't be libel if it's actually true (at least in the US, where Forbes is based). The Forbes article bitches about, among other things, bloggers saying mean things about poor little old Kryptonite Corporation. But the things is, what they were saying was true; the company was selling faulty, easily picked locks and hoping no one would notice. Ergo, what the bloggers were posting wasn't remotely libelous.
Since what the article is attacking meets neither the standard for slander nor libel, that leaves good old fashioned free speech. So the assertion made by many here is valid: Forbes Magazine is attacking Free Speech.
About time (Score:2)
Damn those people AND their blogs... (Score:2)
The Internet and freedom of speech (Score:2)
I'm completely pro-freedom (as some know), beyond any libertarian even. I believe in the ultimate freedom of speech and expression. I guess so do many others without realizing it. I believe you should be able to libel, slander, copy verbatim with recognition, and yell fire in a crowded theater.
Blogs are a part of my desire to get rid of DNS. Type "McDonalds food" into GoogleWWWikiTorrent and you
Targetting the Mighty (Score:2)
That bit right there says an awful lot about the appeal of blogs.
I'm sure there's an awful lot of people who feel that their voices are either a) being ignored, or, b) being silenced by the "mighty". Ignoring which side of the political aisle you love/hate, when was the last time you felt your local elected official was truly acting in your best interests, instead of his or her own? Or, how much do you really trust the corporate world, the insurance industry, your gas compan
Article might not be all wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, Forbes is right, blogs allow yahoos with an axe to grind and phony information to gain publicity adn credibility - after all, they're the underdog, standing against the faceless corporation. In a day where pretty much all of us are very skeptical of anything published in the mainstream maybe far too many of us are willing to take anything read in a blog as the gospel truth (I read it on the Internet, so it has to be true).
FUD flows in both directions, and businesses should be at least aware of the blogosphere, and that bloggers may be spreading misinformation, and how to counter it with the truth. Businesses, of course, also need to know that the blogosphere is watching their every move - and they need to be more careful now than ever that they always act ethically - something thye should be doing anyway.
Reading the Frobes article deeper, it's pretty hard to defend. The article itself is full of misinformation and despicable ideas (in their sidebars, they side with SCO, malign Pamela Jones, and suggest using the DMCA to take down blogs). Nevertheless, the general idea of my post still remains - maybe we're a bit too trusting of blogs, and it doesn't hurt to look at the other's guys point of view. Bloggers are just as capable of spreading FUD as a corporation - even more capable because wheras a corporation has very very little accountability, an anonymous blogger has even less.
Re:Article might not be all wrong (Score:2)
Re:Article might not be all wrong (Score:2)
He has no credibility left, if he ever had any.
Heh (Score:2)
"sidebars" (Score:2)
Ah, so if the behavior is unacceptable by a blogger, it's acceptable for a company to do it in return?
Re: (Score:2)
it's the new reformation of sorts (Score:2)
For example, the NY Times, the high priest of the church, has come under withering attacks from the b
On Kryptonite locks (Score:3, Interesting)
They still wouldn't exchange it.
I bitched on my blog about how it's very unlikely I stole the lock, and waited for the owner to mug him for the key. Many others did the same thing.
Eventually they opened up exchanges to anyone with a lock and a key to open it.
Blogs give people the power to alter the pereption of a company, affect their bottom line, and coerce them into responsible actions.
I still won't buy kryptonite products because of their complete failure to immediately and resposibly stand behind their products. It took so long for Kryptonite to stand up and replace the locks, I was forced to buy from another company to product my investment in my bike. By the time they actually implemented the exchange program, it was pointless because they fucked over everyone who had their their locks, and forced everyone to buy new locks from other manufacturers out of necessity.
Who is PJ? A better journalist than you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Having actually READ Groklaw on a regular basis, as well as O'Gara's tripe, its clear that PJ is the journalist while O'Gara is the shill.
It is unfortunate some of the zealots who DOS'ed Sys-con, but as an allegedly journalistic site, they showed a distinct lack of editorial intelligence in having O'Gara write for them. Sys-con probably would have been better served by the journalistic skills of Jason Blair.
article cliff notes... (Score:4, Funny)
please register to read this article.
thank you, now that we have your contact info, would you care to subscribe to our publication?
no? are you sure?
no!?! maybe you didnt hear me correctly, you'll actually receive our magazine, and get to read it!!!
ok, well can we at least email you at a later time and see if you've changed your mind?
anyway, our magazine caters to large corporations, many of which are souless. you know, the ones that neglect the very people they rely on to keep their heads above water. regardless, if we were to piss off said corporations, all of our advertising revenue would be lost...therefore, any indication that we support free speech would be bad. therefore, we hate people who speak up for themselves and those who have no voice. you should be ashamed of yourselves. maybe if you watched more funny television shoes, you wouldnt be so mean and critical...we hear that everybody loves raymond is nice.
dude
The microscope effect (Score:2)
I mean, look at porn. No, actually *look* at it.
Or the phenomenon of blogs.
Or online dating sites.
I recall stories of when microscopes were first invented in Europe and people were shown samples of water and being repulsed by the idea of swallowing such monsters as could be seen through the lens.
If you can't stand the heat... (Score:2)
Seriously... the problem isn't the blogs that complain about people/companies. The problem is that the people/companies that were targeted behaved in ways that pissed bloggers off. If public figures and companies would simply behave ethically and reasonably and not give so many people so many reasons to hate them, then there wouldn't be so many bloggers writing bad things about them.
People don't generally go out of their way to target you unless you did something wrong to pi
Lyons == O'Gara (Score:2)
2) Show boss how many page hits your article generates
3)
4) Profit
Basically... (Score:2)
A 'long post'? (Score:2)
'Long'?
The boingboing post is 450 words long - I'd hardly call that long.
If you take out the words that are just quoting the Forbes article, then it's only 150 words long.
I mean, yeah, compared to the 'can't be arsed' posting style of Dave Winer, which would probably be:
...then I guess it's long.
I blame MTV. Or something.
Free Beer as in Speech (Score:2)
Oh, it looks like PJ has had a runin with Mr Lyons (Score:2)
The problem is not the blogs... (Score:2)
Now before everyone jumps all over me, there are many excellent blogs out there on the net. However, the bell curve rules, meaning that there are also some blogs that are not so good. The problem starts when the readers of the blogs are unable or unwanting to distinguish the difference.
Bad move by Forbes, followed by bad legal advice (Score:3, Informative)
Of course then there are the countless parodies - here's the anti-blog cover redone to mock the ginned-up hysteria:
http://www.blogs4god.com/node/626 [blogs4god.com]
Not to mention the crappy legal advice the column offered, which is nicely reubtted using the DCMA's own verbage:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004104.php#
Sheesh - didn't the editors ask for some research first? Or is that only the domain of bloggers and not 'real journalists'
Well, nice to see such objective journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, if people can get good information directly from various websites, what do we need so-called professional journalists for? This is a threat to magazines like Forbes and the author of this reference article. And my guess is they realize this implicitly, and they don't have a solution other than the same solution Microsoft has tried to use against open source: fear, uncertainty and doubt. Or smear campaigns, which are essentially the same thing.
Certainly the potential for abuse is possible in what people say. But that is the price we pay for free speech and free press. The only other alternative is government regulation such as licensing of journalists which, of course, publications like Forbes could handle while private parties could not.
The presumption of this article is that people's weblogs cannot ever have anything of value. Also, like many others he chooses to pick on Groklaw and it's so-called pro-IBM and anti-SCO bias without regard to whether the comments on Groklaw are reasonable, accurate or true. The vitriolic tone of what the author wrote seems to indicate he has not read the material there, just taken the opinions of what people who don't like what is posted.
This seems to be the whole point of his article, his opinion is that people being able to directly expose their opinions to others without the filtering of some media organization is automatically bad. Which it is.
For the media organizations.
Can we please stop linking to Forbes stories? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is quite obvious to me and many others that Frobes and Daniel Lyons are trolling for ad impressions.
Please do not give them the satisfaction. By going and visiting their site you are only encouraging them.
Many people have tried to reason with Daniel Lyons. It is obvious to most people that he does not listen to reason.
So please, pretty please. With cherry on top. Let us all ignore Forbes and Daniel Lyons and his kind. Thanks.
Maybe you're unclear on the 1st ammendment (Score:2)
Re:Maybe you're unclear on the 1st ammendment (Score:2)
Re:Maybe you're unclear on the 1st ammendment (Score:2)
Yeah, I probably could have said what I said in my previous message without getting graphic, but everyday, people are confusin
Re:The other side of the coin (Score:2)
I think blogging and other forms of "alternative" media has already made the "official" media less relevant. That's why TV news shows (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Blogs/ [go.com] is an example), newspapers (http://thestar.blogs.com/ [blogs.com] for example) and the like are all jumping on the bandwagon. They're afraid of becoming extinct.