The blog editing system in action

At last week’s Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference I was on a blogger panel where some members of the audience brought up ye olde “bloggers aren’t as good as ‘real journalists’ because bloggers don’t get it right” argument. The audience cheered when the host made the point that magazine journalists go slower to “get it right.” I played the part of the blogger and took the point on the chin, despite also now writing for a magazine and having to work with the old-school editing system of fact-checkers and pre-publication editing.

I tried to make the point that blogs self correct very quickly (usually within hours) because if I get it wrong the people who actually know the truth will jump on me fast and furiously and that blogs arrive at the truth faster BECAUSE of the participation of everyone involved.

This is something that RARELY happens in the paper press. Or, if it does, thanks to letters to the editors, it happens very slowly, so readers never really see that feedback until weeks or months later. And even when it does happen you only see a sample of the feedback, never the whole feedback. In every case gatekeepers are in charge of what the reader sees (try to get something published in a newspaper sometime, even if you have a legitimate case it’s pretty difficult).

Dave Winer told me often that he loves blogging because it lets him tell his story. His complete, unedited, unchanged, unfiltered story. He’d tell me example after example of getting interviewed by journalists who didn’t understand the technology he was building, so they’d misrepresent it due to either misunderstanding what he was saying, or, even worse, some sort of bias toward him or his technology. Many other people have told me the same thing.

Anyway, at the Fortune thing I tried to get across that I liked having my readers as fact checkers a lot more than the magazine style of working to get it right before publishing. Every column I publish in Fast Company magazine gets edited and fact checked by someone else. That’s cool and usually keeps me from looking like an idiot in print. But I much prefer the blog because I think the comments are actually part of the article.

No better way to demonstrate that as with yesterday’s post about Silicon Valley’s VC Disease.

David Hornik, the VC I was talking about, gave a very long reply to my post yesterday. He refuted some things, clarified other things, and had fun with other things. Among the points that Hornik made is that August Capital was one of the few original investors in Seagate. I should have looked that up before publishing. A fact-checker at the magazine probably would have caught it and kept me from looking stupid. But, this let David get a great point across: that he was positioned unfairly by me and let him clarify his remarks on Friday. In the old world a journalist would have been able to throw David under the bus and David wouldn’t have been able to do much about it except write a letter to the editor.

In the old world of publishing you never would have seen his reply and if, for some reason, it would have run, it would have been a month later separate from the article, not combined with the article within a few hours of its publishing, like Hornik’s comment was here.

Journalists who fight this system (and readers who don’t check out the comments) are missing the point. This is a participatory media, not a one-way one, and, while it has a different editing system (the editing is done post publishing, not pre publishing) it’s pretty clear to me that this system arrives at the truth a lot faster than anything on paper does.

But, you gotta read and participate in those comments! Lots of old-schoolers don’t like that dirty work.

Oh, and David also joined in over on the FriendFeed thread.

Thank you David for providing evidence that blogs can make everyone, including the author, smarter.

112 thoughts on “The blog editing system in action

  1. Thank you, Robert for continuing the evolutionary conversation. I have learned bucket loads since I began blogging 2 1/2 years ago, and feel that I am on a steep curve. Anyone who claims to own the space, for news, media or information, even facts, needs to pause and guess again. It is all changing rather quickly at present. Shel gets it well when he calls for old and new media to create a “braid”. http://redcouch.typepad.com/ – That needs to happen.

  2. Thank you, Robert for continuing the evolutionary conversation. I have learned bucket loads since I began blogging 2 1/2 years ago, and feel that I am on a steep curve. Anyone who claims to own the space, for news, media or information, even facts, needs to pause and guess again. It is all changing rather quickly at present. Shel gets it well when he calls for old and new media to create a “braid”. http://redcouch.typepad.com/ – That needs to happen.

  3. also Max, re – “middlemen”. The day the tech industry reverses the 1:4 R&D to SGA spend the day middlemen will disappear. You praise marketing blogs from MS and toehr vendors as “professional” – to buyers they just add to the SG&A

    Also as I pointed out in an earlier comment buyers have become smart about balancing input from middlemen – they take Gartner, media, Accenture, blog input as individual data points. Input from another CIO outweighs that of all middlemen put together…

  4. also Max, re – “middlemen”. The day the tech industry reverses the 1:4 R&D to SGA spend the day middlemen will disappear. You praise marketing blogs from MS and toehr vendors as “professional” – to buyers they just add to the SG&A

    Also as I pointed out in an earlier comment buyers have become smart about balancing input from middlemen – they take Gartner, media, Accenture, blog input as individual data points. Input from another CIO outweighs that of all middlemen put together…

  5. Max, I try to distill what I learn in my day job from various negotiation, innovation and other projects for a number of CIOs. I have in last 3 years posted over 4,000 items both on the Deal Architect and New Florence blogs. If you want to judge me by the first page or a handful of posts, be my guest.

    But rather than calling Dana or others liars, I would love to see you start a prolific blog of your own – see what you can post and can defend on a consistent basis…is that not the beauty of blogging? You and I can at very low cost express our opinions…

  6. Max, I try to distill what I learn in my day job from various negotiation, innovation and other projects for a number of CIOs. I have in last 3 years posted over 4,000 items both on the Deal Architect and New Florence blogs. If you want to judge me by the first page or a handful of posts, be my guest.

    But rather than calling Dana or others liars, I would love to see you start a prolific blog of your own – see what you can post and can defend on a consistent basis…is that not the beauty of blogging? You and I can at very low cost express our opinions…

  7. @Max – I give Robert a lot of credit for listening to a world that is very different from that from which Robert comes. But then I’m glad I have an ‘old’ fashioned publisher as well (lol.)

  8. @Max – I give Robert a lot of credit for listening to a world that is very different from that from which Robert comes. But then I’m glad I have an ‘old’ fashioned publisher as well (lol.)

  9. Thinking about it, Rather’s fiasco raises another relevant point: we *assume* MSM outlets have fact checkers, but as we later discovered in that case, the only checking they did was to ask a handwriting expert about the document – then took his reply of “well, the signature’s real, but it’s been copied on there and I can’t comment either way on the typed text, it’s not my field” as being good enough. When a huge outlet like CBS lets a big story like that run with such cursory checking, I find myself wondering how much effort they really put into checking less significant matters? Do they bother checking that the Dave Smith they found a photo of is actually the Dave Smith who just got convicted of some heinous crime?

    Then there’s war reporting: early in the Iraq war, apparently some troops were affected by a desperate supply shortage, down to just one 24 hour ration pack per day! Of course, the reporter omitted the all-important “24 hour” bit…

    A few days ago, I found an article in the British press, bemoaning how far behind the UK is on broadband since the average connection speed in France is 51 Mbps. Ever so slightly implausible, when even the fastest connection offered is fiber at 50 Mbps in limited areas, and the average speedtest.net user there gets 4.8 Mbps, more than an order of magnitude slower? (Not to mention that 50 Mbps cable is available in some areas of the UK as well, matching France in that respect!)

    In reality, then, these “fact checkers” – if they even exist – seem to screw up every bit as badly as any blogger. They make mistakes which are blatantly obvious to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the subject, but don’t bother checking it, because unlike bloggers, they can just suppress any criticism which doesn’t actually go all the way to court or to a rival’s front page! Bloggers 1, ‘journalists’ 0 there.

  10. Thinking about it, Rather’s fiasco raises another relevant point: we *assume* MSM outlets have fact checkers, but as we later discovered in that case, the only checking they did was to ask a handwriting expert about the document – then took his reply of “well, the signature’s real, but it’s been copied on there and I can’t comment either way on the typed text, it’s not my field” as being good enough. When a huge outlet like CBS lets a big story like that run with such cursory checking, I find myself wondering how much effort they really put into checking less significant matters? Do they bother checking that the Dave Smith they found a photo of is actually the Dave Smith who just got convicted of some heinous crime?

    Then there’s war reporting: early in the Iraq war, apparently some troops were affected by a desperate supply shortage, down to just one 24 hour ration pack per day! Of course, the reporter omitted the all-important “24 hour” bit…

    A few days ago, I found an article in the British press, bemoaning how far behind the UK is on broadband since the average connection speed in France is 51 Mbps. Ever so slightly implausible, when even the fastest connection offered is fiber at 50 Mbps in limited areas, and the average speedtest.net user there gets 4.8 Mbps, more than an order of magnitude slower? (Not to mention that 50 Mbps cable is available in some areas of the UK as well, matching France in that respect!)

    In reality, then, these “fact checkers” – if they even exist – seem to screw up every bit as badly as any blogger. They make mistakes which are blatantly obvious to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the subject, but don’t bother checking it, because unlike bloggers, they can just suppress any criticism which doesn’t actually go all the way to court or to a rival’s front page! Bloggers 1, ‘journalists’ 0 there.

  11. Scoble’s comments eat angle brackets — I should have known that.

    In the first paragraph above the 1st sentence is quoting you,
    but the 2nd sentence is quoting me from my original comment.

  12. Scoble’s comments eat angle brackets — I should have known that.

    In the first paragraph above the 1st sentence is quoting you,
    but the 2nd sentence is quoting me from my original comment.

  13. @vinnie mirchandani

    You wrote
    >> And as former Gartner analyst I can tell you you are sadly mistaken if you think analysts or even respected reporters know more about a topic than a leading blogger does…<> … These writers talk about many topics and typically understand none.<<

    Gartner (and your friends at ZDNet, of which I only see Dennis Howlett as “read-worthy”) are all “middlemen”. Like sales people, you sit between producer and consumer and want to get “your” share. Since I unsubscribed from your blog a year ago, I had another look today. Wouldn’t you say that the first page in the category “enterprise software” is all trivial
    gobbledygook for your audience of IT managers? So, it’s not worse than those free advertising journals like CIO Mag (that I was bombarded with in the 90s and early 00s), but also not a bit better.

    In terms of outright lies: read Robin Harris or Dana Blankenhorn — theirs are easiest to detect.

  14. @vinnie mirchandani

    You wrote
    >> And as former Gartner analyst I can tell you you are sadly mistaken if you think analysts or even respected reporters know more about a topic than a leading blogger does…<> … These writers talk about many topics and typically understand none.<<

    Gartner (and your friends at ZDNet, of which I only see Dennis Howlett as “read-worthy”) are all “middlemen”. Like sales people, you sit between producer and consumer and want to get “your” share. Since I unsubscribed from your blog a year ago, I had another look today. Wouldn’t you say that the first page in the category “enterprise software” is all trivial
    gobbledygook for your audience of IT managers? So, it’s not worse than those free advertising journals like CIO Mag (that I was bombarded with in the 90s and early 00s), but also not a bit better.

    In terms of outright lies: read Robin Harris or Dana Blankenhorn — theirs are easiest to detect.

  15. I am fascinated by this (and many other threads like this) topic, going back and forth on bloggers vs journalists.

    What of those people who are both, e.g. 90% of the links off the Drudge Report? The Huffington Post and Wonkette are blogs, but when people can and do write comments at the NY Times, CNN, and ESPN.com, what does that say about the gap between blogger and journalist? Perhaps both terms need to be universally defined.

    I thought it humorous last week when I attended a public affairs meeting, stood up near the end to raise a technology/social media question and mentioned I write a blog. Before answering my question, the woman at the microphone thanked me for saying I was a blogger because the subject matter was “off the record.” Maybe she thought I was a journalist.

  16. I am fascinated by this (and many other threads like this) topic, going back and forth on bloggers vs journalists.

    What of those people who are both, e.g. 90% of the links off the Drudge Report? The Huffington Post and Wonkette are blogs, but when people can and do write comments at the NY Times, CNN, and ESPN.com, what does that say about the gap between blogger and journalist? Perhaps both terms need to be universally defined.

    I thought it humorous last week when I attended a public affairs meeting, stood up near the end to raise a technology/social media question and mentioned I write a blog. Before answering my question, the woman at the microphone thanked me for saying I was a blogger because the subject matter was “off the record.” Maybe she thought I was a journalist.

  17. Blogs “self correct” :) – Nice choice of words! Couldn’t have said it better myself

  18. Blogs “self correct” :) – Nice choice of words! Couldn’t have said it better myself

  19. IMHO, the primary benefit of blogging is that it takes out ‘the middle man’. I appreciate journalists and, in a democracy, we benefit from the best journalists – who look under rocks and expose some great stories of corruption, humanity and information.

    That said, journalists tend to ‘interpret’ the story after doing their work. Bloggers are typically first-person experts on the matter. No longer do I need to read about VC, I can go to a few dozen VC blogs and learn directly from the expert.

    There’s a huge benefit to this that journalists underestimate. It could be their demise. I hope not – I still appreciate the hard work they do. I just think it’s different.

  20. IMHO, the primary benefit of blogging is that it takes out ‘the middle man’. I appreciate journalists and, in a democracy, we benefit from the best journalists – who look under rocks and expose some great stories of corruption, humanity and information.

    That said, journalists tend to ‘interpret’ the story after doing their work. Bloggers are typically first-person experts on the matter. No longer do I need to read about VC, I can go to a few dozen VC blogs and learn directly from the expert.

    There’s a huge benefit to this that journalists underestimate. It could be their demise. I hope not – I still appreciate the hard work they do. I just think it’s different.

  21. Thomas Lee,

    You’re suggesting that a derogatory page could rank high in Google, yet a company wouldn’t take the trouble to post a comment challenging it?

    That happens, of course, as many companies are still sadly Web-unsavvy. (One company I write about frequently on DBMS2 and that also is a client has a policy of no blog comments EVER, yet gets angry at what it perceives as errors in posts.)

    Still, it’s basically a self-correcting problem. A page with content that you don’t like, but which you can challenge on-page, is inherently a much smaller problem than a page, article, or other media story that you cannot challenge in situ.

    CAM

  22. Thomas Lee,

    You’re suggesting that a derogatory page could rank high in Google, yet a company wouldn’t take the trouble to post a comment challenging it?

    That happens, of course, as many companies are still sadly Web-unsavvy. (One company I write about frequently on DBMS2 and that also is a client has a policy of no blog comments EVER, yet gets angry at what it perceives as errors in posts.)

    Still, it’s basically a self-correcting problem. A page with content that you don’t like, but which you can challenge on-page, is inherently a much smaller problem than a page, article, or other media story that you cannot challenge in situ.

    CAM

  23. Max, boy you must be reading some fantasy blogs if your percentage of “outright lies” is what you say it is. Most of the blogs I subscribe to – I may not agree with – but I have never feel they “lie” to me.

    And as former Gartner analyst I can tell you you are sadly mistaken if you think analysts or even respected reporters know more about a topic than a leading blogger in that space does…they happen to work for a more established brand name company. That’s the only difference…

  24. Max, boy you must be reading some fantasy blogs if your percentage of “outright lies” is what you say it is. Most of the blogs I subscribe to – I may not agree with – but I have never feel they “lie” to me.

    And as former Gartner analyst I can tell you you are sadly mistaken if you think analysts or even respected reporters know more about a topic than a leading blogger in that space does…they happen to work for a more established brand name company. That’s the only difference…

  25. It works for you because you have a) a lot of readers and b) a lot of people who like to catch you in “errors.” Does it work that well for bloggers with smaller audiences? Sometimes yes (Lord knows people seem to jump out of the woodwork to correct me) but is that typical?

    On the other hand, people with an axe to grind and a willingness to kill disagreeing comments are clearly no better then MSW who do not print/broadcast corrections and desenting views. At least with a blog one can always reply on their own blog.

    Humm, I may have talked myself out of disagreeing with you. :-)

  26. It works for you because you have a) a lot of readers and b) a lot of people who like to catch you in “errors.” Does it work that well for bloggers with smaller audiences? Sometimes yes (Lord knows people seem to jump out of the woodwork to correct me) but is that typical?

    On the other hand, people with an axe to grind and a willingness to kill disagreeing comments are clearly no better then MSW who do not print/broadcast corrections and desenting views. At least with a blog one can always reply on their own blog.

    Humm, I may have talked myself out of disagreeing with you. :-)

  27. Robert, you are — on purpose — confusing two groups of bloggers:

    - The “amateurs”, who write about their field of expertise (or their clearly-marked opinions and feelings), but don’t want to make money directly from their blog. Winer, Hornik, Obasanjo, … are in this category — as is Channel 9 (*). They may be marketing their products or expertise, but they have first-hand knowledge and can be held accountable as professionals in their fields.

    - The blog “professionals” and “semi-professionals” who (like MSM) position themselves between news source and news reader want to make money from that. CNet writers, Arrington and you (*) are in this category. These writers talk about many topics and typically understand none. What they do understand, however, is making a blog a tabloid to get the pageviews that they need since their blogs are free to read. See Arrington’s tickling of the mob on slow news days, or Robin Harris, Dana Blankenhorn or Matt Asay (just to name a few) on ZDNet and CNet, or MG Siegler on Venturebeat.

    The problems with posting something that was not fact-checked:
    - You put the burden of fact-checking (or at least reading the corrections) on your readers. (But you are the one that is paid.)
    - There are no search engines, yet :-), that can separate truth and lies. The Internet is full of misinformation and outright lies — in a percentage several orders of magnitude higher than MSM in the USA or EU or JPN in the last 40 years. This is largely due to blogs.

    The promise of blogging was to get right to the information source and to get rid of the middleman — which is you.

    (*) Trying to be fair: in your videos you are mostly a technical resource to an original source: I have no problem with that. But in your blog you are as idiotic as Arrington, Gillmor or Blankenhorn — though with a nice human touch that they lack.

    PS Funny thing is that blog writers famous for never ever fact checking, such as Duncan Riley, complain that other blogs wash his dirty laundry in public without getting in touch with them. (Even funnier is that the name of his new blog refers to the witch hunts of the middle ages — exactly what he is doing today.)

  28. Robert, you are — on purpose — confusing two groups of bloggers:

    - The “amateurs”, who write about their field of expertise (or their clearly-marked opinions and feelings), but don’t want to make money directly from their blog. Winer, Hornik, Obasanjo, … are in this category — as is Channel 9 (*). They may be marketing their products or expertise, but they have first-hand knowledge and can be held accountable as professionals in their fields.

    - The blog “professionals” and “semi-professionals” who (like MSM) position themselves between news source and news reader want to make money from that. CNet writers, Arrington and you (*) are in this category. These writers talk about many topics and typically understand none. What they do understand, however, is making a blog a tabloid to get the pageviews that they need since their blogs are free to read. See Arrington’s tickling of the mob on slow news days, or Robin Harris, Dana Blankenhorn or Matt Asay (just to name a few) on ZDNet and CNet, or MG Siegler on Venturebeat.

    The problems with posting something that was not fact-checked:
    - You put the burden of fact-checking (or at least reading the corrections) on your readers. (But you are the one that is paid.)
    - There are no search engines, yet :-), that can separate truth and lies. The Internet is full of misinformation and outright lies — in a percentage several orders of magnitude higher than MSM in the USA or EU or JPN in the last 40 years. This is largely due to blogs.

    The promise of blogging was to get right to the information source and to get rid of the middleman — which is you.

    (*) Trying to be fair: in your videos you are mostly a technical resource to an original source: I have no problem with that. But in your blog you are as idiotic as Arrington, Gillmor or Blankenhorn — though with a nice human touch that they lack.

    PS Funny thing is that blog writers famous for never ever fact checking, such as Duncan Riley, complain that other blogs wash his dirty laundry in public without getting in touch with them. (Even funnier is that the name of his new blog refers to the witch hunts of the middle ages — exactly what he is doing today.)

  29. ‘Back in the day’, web logs were all pretty well accepted as Op/Ed, not particularly as trusted news source. Through proliferation and a lot of self-congratulatory ego-driven noise level raising, the sheer volume of material made it seem like there must be something to it, and mainstream media (not necessarily print, newspaper) couldn’t help but be attracted to the buzz and started polling the blogs for their own stories. That changed to trolling the blogs for stories, and when you excerpt things out of context and put them on TV, it’s better than Wikipedia as far as its authoritarian power over the viewers. The majority of folks watching are just not willing to investigate on their own, so they just take it on spec. Horrifying, but largely true.

    Scoble’s right in that the comments, the interaction, the feedback, the contact between the author and the viewer/reader/subscriber/follwer is what makes blogging useful, if it is going to be useful at all. Otherwise, we’re all just posting to the wind. Which, I guess, is what this all is anyway. Except that engaging posts do just that, they engage. Once someone connects with your work (like or not), they’ve been engaged by something that they hadn’t before.

  30. ‘Back in the day’, web logs were all pretty well accepted as Op/Ed, not particularly as trusted news source. Through proliferation and a lot of self-congratulatory ego-driven noise level raising, the sheer volume of material made it seem like there must be something to it, and mainstream media (not necessarily print, newspaper) couldn’t help but be attracted to the buzz and started polling the blogs for their own stories. That changed to trolling the blogs for stories, and when you excerpt things out of context and put them on TV, it’s better than Wikipedia as far as its authoritarian power over the viewers. The majority of folks watching are just not willing to investigate on their own, so they just take it on spec. Horrifying, but largely true.

    Scoble’s right in that the comments, the interaction, the feedback, the contact between the author and the viewer/reader/subscriber/follwer is what makes blogging useful, if it is going to be useful at all. Otherwise, we’re all just posting to the wind. Which, I guess, is what this all is anyway. Except that engaging posts do just that, they engage. Once someone connects with your work (like or not), they’ve been engaged by something that they hadn’t before.

  31. Robert, I like your outlook on this… While I do not always agree with your antics, I respect your position in this industry. More so I respect your opinions – not that I always agree with them.

    You are dead on. I am a little nervous that those commenting on my blog would be responsible for my fact checking, and this perspective leaves a bit to be desired, in my humble opinion. However, I have to hand it to you for this observation.

    The comments are indeed part of the post, and that is the point of blogging.

  32. Robert, I like your outlook on this… While I do not always agree with your antics, I respect your position in this industry. More so I respect your opinions – not that I always agree with them.

    You are dead on. I am a little nervous that those commenting on my blog would be responsible for my fact checking, and this perspective leaves a bit to be desired, in my humble opinion. However, I have to hand it to you for this observation.

    The comments are indeed part of the post, and that is the point of blogging.

  33. The danger with the weblogger isn’t so much the accuracy and reliability as it is the emotional context and intent of the writing. Sure many professional journalists write opinionated pieces with the intent of influencing people, but most publications feature writing that is more objective, to inform, not necessarily influence. Or not aggressively influence.

    Too many webloggers, especially the elite, use their position and influence to deliberately generate mobs and then turn them loose on one person or another. The consequences can be devastating and permanent, regardless of post-writing fact checking and error correcting.

    Because of such self-interested actions, and the ramifications, we should always beware the writing of a weblogger more than a professional journalist, because it’s too simple for the weblogger to grind whatever is the axe du jour. And there are too few to take the weblogger to account (because, after all, we’re not “professionals”).

  34. The danger with the weblogger isn’t so much the accuracy and reliability as it is the emotional context and intent of the writing. Sure many professional journalists write opinionated pieces with the intent of influencing people, but most publications feature writing that is more objective, to inform, not necessarily influence. Or not aggressively influence.

    Too many webloggers, especially the elite, use their position and influence to deliberately generate mobs and then turn them loose on one person or another. The consequences can be devastating and permanent, regardless of post-writing fact checking and error correcting.

    Because of such self-interested actions, and the ramifications, we should always beware the writing of a weblogger more than a professional journalist, because it’s too simple for the weblogger to grind whatever is the axe du jour. And there are too few to take the weblogger to account (because, after all, we’re not “professionals”).

  35. …telling his reporters to verify. How many bloggers take the action to do that?
    James, the Rather example is well taken. Who knows how long other outlets would have investigated the veracity of the story? (I’m sure many of them wanted it to be true). But this goes to my point of credibility. Rather was well respected in his field. Much like Scoble is, for reasons I can’t logically explain. So, once shown to be a trumped up story, his credibility went in the shitter. Even though the community corrected him, he was done. Yet some like Arrington can post any rumor he wants and no one dares question him, let alone correct him, lest they suffer his wrath.

    As for the Comcast example, shame on the news outlet for sending a reporter not informed on the topic. Much like sending Perez Hilton to cover a shuttle space launch. Mission Control could tell him anything and he’d take it as fact.

    Which seems to be another issue with bloggers. They rarely grill any of their interview subjects and challenge them when necessary. Wouldn’t want to get the reputation of not being a sychophant.

  36. …telling his reporters to verify. How many bloggers take the action to do that?
    James, the Rather example is well taken. Who knows how long other outlets would have investigated the veracity of the story? (I’m sure many of them wanted it to be true). But this goes to my point of credibility. Rather was well respected in his field. Much like Scoble is, for reasons I can’t logically explain. So, once shown to be a trumped up story, his credibility went in the shitter. Even though the community corrected him, he was done. Yet some like Arrington can post any rumor he wants and no one dares question him, let alone correct him, lest they suffer his wrath.

    As for the Comcast example, shame on the news outlet for sending a reporter not informed on the topic. Much like sending Perez Hilton to cover a shuttle space launch. Mission Control could tell him anything and he’d take it as fact.

    Which seems to be another issue with bloggers. They rarely grill any of their interview subjects and challenge them when necessary. Wouldn’t want to get the reputation of not being a sychophant.

Comments are closed.