Am I being fair to Patricia Dunn

by on September 9, 2006

Don Park raises a good question of whether or not I (and other journalists and bloggers) are being fair to Patricia Dunn?

I’ll be happy to give Hewlett Packard or Patricia Dunn an entire blog post (take as many words as you want) to give her side, or HP’s side of this whole thing. I’d even be happy to take my video camera over and put the video up on YouTube or Google Video or Blip.TV and let anyone at HP say whatever they want unchallenged by me and I’ll put that up unedited.

I won’t even link to David Kirkpatrick at Fortune Magazine, who called for her head.

Is my reaction over the top? Yeah! But like Russell Shaw says, it’s an American tradition!

Is this story boring yet? I really don’t care if I lose every single reader I have because I keep rambling on about this story. Patricia Dunn has got to go. The HP board has to realize this story is not going away.

Well, it shouldn’t. Where are we going to draw the line on privacy? At pretexting? Or when they stick a little recording device in my bedroom to see who I am talking with? Oh, not willing to put the line there? Well, how about just implant an RFID tag in my head along with a GPS and a little transmission device.

Hell, let’s just get rid of this privacy idea altogether, right? OK, I’m game. Patricia Dunn first please. If she does it, I’ll go along with this whole “get rid of privacy” game that seems to be how many employers want to play it (ever look into how deeply employers can look into your private life? It might scare you.)

HP should prepare itself for a raft of headlines like this one, HP Boosts Its Integrity, in InfoWorld.

Is that unfair? Sure! But we aren’t the ones who broke the law.

Anyway, to answer Don’s question: I don’t really care at this point. I’ve been reading very carefully trying to find a reason to take Patricia Dunn’s side. I’ve been talking with dozens of people behind the scenes. I can’t find one reason to take a different stance than I now am taking. That said, I’d be happy to learn tomorrow that we’re all mistaken and that we’re barking up the wrong tree and I’d be the first one to report I was wrong.

The facts in this case, though, don’t get better, they just get worse and that’s after the New York Times reported Patricia’s own words. Translation: I doubt she’ll take me up on my offer.

Update: Blog Herald goes further and asks “Will Social Software Mutate Blogosphere into Mob Rule?”

  • I agree. Who cares if people don't like it. What was done was wrong. Accountability is rarely something seen in American corporations at the upper levels. It's time for it in this case.
  • Scoble, fairness isn't what I was concerned about. I don't give a hoot about Ms. Dunn and have zero sympathy for her.

    My concern is over public tyranny becoming an acceptable common practice. Why not? Because we have no 'guard rails'. Having and sharing opinions is one thing but the idea of some inherent right to demand anything to anyone based on subjective opinion is something else.

    Anyhoo, I am not upset at you. I am just concerned. Note that I am not *demanding* that you stop posting about HP pretexting fiasco. ;-p
  • I disagree that we have no guard rails. If I go off half cocked the reaction from you all is harsh and fast. Even hoaxes get cleaned up pretty quickly.

    But I'm definitely learning how to react in crisis situations. HP hasn't done a good job at all.
  • Well, I am not concerned about cases where opinions are balanced and discussion is not heated enough to make participants blind and deaf. When opinions are one-sided, like during the infamous Dog-Poop Girl incident, where are the guard rails?

    As you well pointed out, counter-views are our guard rails but they fail sometimes. This is why I've post sometime back that bloggers should cultivate balanced audience, A-Listers in particular, to stop runaway trains before they gain momentum beyond control.

    Soon enough, we'll take it for granted that fates of characters in TV shows are in our hands and show producers and writers will be forced to bend to the audiences' will. This already happened in South Korea BTW. While some might find such changes exciting, I find it distasteful.
  • Farooq
    with all that affects our privacy that day, I guess if anything, Patricia Dunn should be punished to set an example...

    we can't let this go on to the stage where violating people's privacy is considered acceptable in certain cases...

    i am a huge believer in second chances...in this case there have to be repercussions...then it's upto her attitude towards this that gets her life back to normal (or not)...
  • Don: I don't find this to be exciting at all.

    Is it piling on? Absolutely. But some things deserve to be piled on about. This one in particular.

    But, agreed that we should be aware that mobs do run amok and destroy things that have value. And, I'm pretty sure that even in this case some things that have value are being thrown under the bus.

    There are a lot of careers being ruined here. I'm quite cognizant of that.

    You are absolutely correct to try to slow down the mob and get it to think. Keep doing that. I don't disagree with your heart here at all. It's just that you picked a subject that I think the mob is totally justified about.

    On the other hand, I do believe that I need to be fair, even to Patricia Dunn. Even the worst criminals in our society are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for reminding me to make sure I stay on the right side of that line.
  • Scoble, you are a great person. :-)

    Farooq, your response "...should be punished to set an example" is interestingly similar to comments made by those who virtually lynchmobed the Dog-Poop Girl. It's as if existing mechanisms in our society to curb errant behaviors is either not visible to them or not quite satisfying enough.

    What is it that makes the usual media hoopla as well as state and federal investigation not satisfying to the netizens? Are we getting too addicted receiving reactions to our opinions? Maybe lack of interactivity, thanks to video game mentality? I don't know the answer but this new 'hunger' of the communication age is really interesting to me.
  • Don: part of it is that we haven't been listened to for such a long time that now that we have the ability to publish to the world we go overboard on some things.

    It isn't a fun process to go through, but then I doubt Patricia Dunn is very worried about my blog. It's the least of her problems this weekend. No matter how loud and obnoxious I get.
  • I went to have a look at the article in the Blog Herald.

    John Scoble?
  • Steve: you can call me John. Just get my URL right. Heheh.
  • Robert:

    “Is that unfair? Sure! But we aren’t the ones who broke the law.”

    If I was ever accused of breaking the law I would want/hope/expect for fair treatment. Wouldn’t you?

    “Is it piling on? Absolutely. But some things deserve to be piled on about.”

    You have a lot of influence over the shaping issues that the blogsphere militia reacts to. Why not push for a measured appropriate response? Tim O’Reilly proved that nobody is immune to wild overreactions from the blogsphere militia and to your credit, you clearly acknowledged your own vulnerability:

    “If I go off half cocked the reaction from you all is harsh and fast.”

    However, I don’t believe your livelihood is on the line. In fact, a controversial post could arguably provide greater career opportunities and/or increase the value of your blog. I believe that vigilantism undermines democracy and is bad in all forms.

    Furthermore, I often try to understand issues from other people’s points of view. It is easy to write off Dunn as evil and deserving of whatever she gets. However, if I put my in her shoes for a moment, it becomes clear to me that she (like all human beings) does not deserve to be lynched in the court of public opinion. I am just glad that my own mistakes have not been nearly this public.

    -Andrew
  • I've found the solution for HP to get rid of leakers in the future, so that Patricia Dunn will never be the subject of any blog post:

    http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006...

    Bye,
    Oliver
  • >If I was ever accused of breaking the law I would want/hope/expect for fair treatment. Wouldn’t you?

    Yes.

    >You have a lot of influence over the shaping issues that the blogsphere militia reacts to. Why not push for a measured appropriate response?

    Because one is NOT appropriate here.

    >Tim O’Reilly proved that nobody is immune to wild overreactions from the blogsphere militia and to your credit, you clearly acknowledged your own vulnerability:

    And Tim quickly answered his critics and everything died down and, even, some who pointed fingers too harshly apologized.

    >However, I don’t believe your livelihood is on the line.

    Yes, actually, it is. HP is a potential sponsor. So, by taking such a harsh line I've actually placed my own income stream at risk.

    >In fact, a controversial post could arguably provide greater career opportunities and/or increase the value of your blog.

    You have a point there, but so far I've seen my traffic dropping and people are already starting to post that they are bored.

    >I believe that vigilantism undermines democracy and is bad in all forms.

    Absolutely FALSE. At least if you're talking about pointing out wrong actions and beliefs. And, these are only ASCII characters on a screen. Plus, these are people who are EXTREMELY powerful in our society. Their powers MUST be kept in check. That's why I don't feel bad about keeping this up.

    >Furthermore, I often try to understand issues from other people’s points of view.

    I have read more than 100,000 words on this issue so far and have talked with dozens of people, including some who know all the parties involved to try to learn more. So far the smell gets worse and worse.

    > However, if I put my in her shoes for a moment, it becomes clear to me that she (like all human beings) does not deserve to be lynched in the court of public opinion. I am just glad that my own mistakes have not been nearly this public.

    Wrong again. She's the head of a very powerful board of directors. She took that job knowing the risks. In fact SHE TEACHES CLASSES ON THEM!!!

    When you play in a public role you live and die by your response and your judgment in that role.

    Your mistakes don't play out in a public way because you don't have power over tens of thousands of people along with billions of dollars. With that power comes great responsibility to make sure you don't overuse that power.

    Now, you might say I'm overusing my own power now. Maybe so. In the end I too will be judged on how I used my own power and resources.

    But, forget about Dunn and HP for a moment. Why did I take such a harsh stance at the very beginning? Because I wanted to make sure that no other company ever tried such a stupid thing again. If HP's board got away with this then we'd see this kind of crap happening throughout society.

    Now, at least, everyone knows that this kind of behavior will at least get you on the front page of the newspapers and magazines and on TechMeme for five days straight.

    Is that worth going overboard? Absolutely yes.
  • I should also say that I believe Patricia Dunn is being dealt with fairly here. She has access to very powerful PR instruments (heck, she was quoted in the New York Times on Friday) and I believe her side of the story is being heard and that she is being fairly treated (remember, she is one of the richest, most connected, and most powerful women in the world. All I have are about 2,000 words a day that I can use).

    If not, I'm completely open to ways to treat her more fairly. I am listening to those who say I've gone overboard but I haven't heard any reasoned argument yet that convinces me that I'm heading down a bad path.
  • Robert, I pretty much agree with everything you've written on this topic. The only thing I want to make clear is that public lynch mobs are a problem, and, readdressing the Tim O'Reilly incident, he never should have had to defend himself to begin with. The fact he did, and that even then it was no guarantee his critics would accept his explanation, is a shame.

    It seems when you get a lot of people in a text-based medium, the "pile on" mentality easily takes hold and it's not something I think is a good thing. For all the good the internet has done, I think in some ways it has led to the beginning of the demise of critical thinking.
  • Ps. The above comment is not disagreeing with you per se, but just trying to make some points on the side topic of lynch mobbing and the mentality I see becoming pervasive on the internet (IMO of course).
  • Radaronpaws:
    yes, maybe we can call this "me too, I hate you" behavior. Seems an accurate description and it rhymes.

    Robert:
    it sounds like you are saying that you are for vigilantism when you agree with it. This is not an unreasonable POV. You feel strongly about and issue and you are trying to dray attention to it. To that extent I applaud your efforts... But how do you feel about other people's vigilantism when you don't agree their issues?

    To be sure, your 100K words read makes you more knowledgeable than most (including me) about this issue. However, if Dunn's actions were to lead to criminal charges and you were on the jury would you convict her now w/o hearing her attorney's defense arguments? It kind of sounds like the answer is yes. Okay, probably depends on what the charges are but hopefully my point is clear. The media does play an important role in society, but that role should not involve determining guilt, innocence or punishment.
    -Andrew
  • The problem with that, Andrew, is that I think bloggers can give opinions and should give opinions. Robert's not a journalist and I don't think he seeks to identify himself as such. I don't see what he's saying as out of line because it is his opinion.

    I think there's a time and a place for opinions and a time and a place for trying to leave personal opinions out of it. I think blogs are places where opinions are acceptable. If not, my blog should be deleted because that's pretty much all I post. :)
  • Robert:

    btw,

    >Your mistakes don’t play out in a public way because you don’t have power over tens of thousands of people along with billions of dollars. With that power comes great responsibility to make sure you don’t overuse that power.

    You under estimate the power my Jedi mind tricks. Take this as a warning or I'll use them to win this argument. Also, my blog has over 60 RSS subscribers, which in a universal sense is pretty close tens of thousands.
    -Andrew
  • Radaronpaws:
    just sounds to me like Charles Barkley saying he isn't a role model.
    -Andrew
  • Power and wealth bring responsibility and scrutiny. Being a Navy Vet, I truly believe that the Captain is ultimately responsible since it's their leadership, morality, team, guidance, etc. that guides the 'ship'.

    If you don't want that kind of scrutiny, then the solution is very simple... don't take the job. The fact is that Patricia Dunn is compensated very well, and part of the job is answering the tough questions. 'Fair' doesn't even play into the equation.

    As for the alleged acts that she promoted, I might suggest a fantastic book, called "Psycopaths in Suits". You'd be surprised at how many psycopaths there are in the business world and how they are able to climb to the top.

    Warmest Regards,
    Doug
  • Christopher Coulter
    Lettsee when 95% of the crowd is back you, you take a stand. Gay Rights at Microsoft, Dunn gotta go. That's not a stand, that's Head Cheerleader.
  • Christopher Coulter
    err backing
  • Andrew:

    "just sounds to me like Charles Barkley saying he isn’t a role model."

    Listen, Barkley was right and wrong - he was right that people need to raise their own kids and not rely on others to do it. He was wrong thinking he had no responsibility as a public figure. But according to you, I guess we can't have or express personal opinions? Screw that. The world will get mine whether they like it or not.
  • Christopher: I was among the first to speak out strongly against HP's board. Oh, crap, LayZ is right, I'm taking credit now. But, you can't have it both ways. I didn't know whether or not there'd be a crowd following me or not.

    As to the homosexual issue, did you know that someone in my management chain belonged to the church that was pressuring Microsoft to change its stance on that bill? Of course you didn't, cause I didn't tell you until now. Yeah, I was really leading a crowd there.
  • Podesta
    I agree with Don Park to an extent. He is right that the lynch mob mentality is rarely, if ever, defendable. However, I believe that he has chosen the wrong test case. Yes, there are a few people dragging Patty Dunn's gender into the criticism and that is part of the motivation for them piling on. I've seen the blogopshere go wild harassing women and/or minorities before. After all, it is made of up mainly of conservative white men with an inflated sense of their own worth. That is one reason there are so few female and nonwhite bloggers of note.

    BUT, and this a big but, the reason Dunn is in hot water is an exercise of poor judgment so excreable that any head of a corporate board would be decimated if he or she had done the same thing. She has earned the oppobrium she is getting. I deplore the obvious misogyny in some entries and comments attacking her. Still, she has screwed up beyond repair and should resign.
  • Christopher Coulter
    someone in my management chain belonged to the church that was pressuring Microsoft to change its stance on that bill

    Totally irrelevant, the minute the news hit heavy-hitters were lining up on one side. But what's so siiiinsiter about someone that BELONGED TO A CHURCH (gasp) expressing their opinions? Ohmigosh CHURCH PEOPLE (run, scream, hide and run some more) told management their feelings. I just love how 'coversations' can become 'pressuring' if you don't agree with the outcome. It's all in the terminology...rename "Church" to "Compound". Microsoft reversed in due course, fast enough, but that was predictable 100 miles away.

    But per HP, likewise, the minute the news hit, all the heavy-heavy-hitters lined up on one-side. Not knowing? It was a sure bet...I mean...is the sky blue? And if you didn't know, you certainly weren't getting good pulse feedback from ALL the news.

    Bet on the dead obvious, chime in with the majority, go back and take all credit. Your own Personal Esther Dyson Pan Pizza.
  • Sneaky
    Wasn't she only following in the footsteps of her country's esteemed leader ? There seems to be a lot of apathy over those activities by the public at large...
  • Chris: you don't get it. This guy was one of my bosses. So, speaking out could have had a direct effect on my career.

    Sneaky: politics is something else. I don't write about how messed up our political leaders are in general. The HP board is a lot closer to home.
  • LayZ
    @30 Microsoft bases your job performance on your personal or political opinions? You're suggesting that because you disagreed with his church's position on an issue he would have fired you? Is Microsoft management really that screwed up?

    Another thing I note with curiosity in your post..."journalists AND bloggers"...huh? I thought you said they are one and the same.
blog comments powered by Disqus