Reminder

Now that I am a Money Hungry Blogger (thanks for the image Dan), I want to remind everyone who reads this blog (or stumbles across it) of several things.

1 - this is my blog, not a publication, and not representative of anyone or anything other than me. in my mind, it is me. if i think it, like it, or do it, it appears here at one point or another.

2 - i don't subscribe to any code of conduct or rules about what i do on this blog other than it needs to represent me. i try to disclose when i have financial relationships with the companies i blog about but beyond that i don't try to live up to some journalistic notion of editorial integrity or objectiveness. this is a BLOG.

3 - i don't get paid to put widgets on my blog. there are three ad units on the page, a banner from federated media, a google skyscraper, and a between post ad unit from feedburner. that's it. and i give all the proceeds to charity.

4 - i write this blog for me. it helps me think outloud. and for my family and friends who keep track of me through it. and for anyone else who wants to read it. if you don't like it and don't want to read it anymore, that's just fine with me.

Comments

[Jesse Chenard]

This is my first read of the day typically (maybe its the placement in my blogroll who knows). Either way, I for one appreciate the dialogue and think that the blog would be less of a "real" experience if you instituted the so called journalistic practices you speak of.

Keep up the good writing and thanks as always for sharing!

[Dan Blank]

Fred - Glad you liked the cartoons (and saw the humor in them!) Your list above is very interesting when compared that that from Jeff Jarvis. Thanks so much for exploring these issues with such honesty. Enjoy your Sunday.
-Dan

[Pietro (BRZ)]

It's a shame that your multi-millionaire ego prevents you from saying the four hardest words in the English language: "Sorry, I was wrong." Forget any notion of a journalist code of ethics - you are clearly not one, the writing mechanics here leave a little to be desired in all honesty - but try to think about a personal code as a blogger who is engaged in a bigger community, constantly talking about the business of blogging and the promotion of social media with the power to change the world. You're pushing the needle, and effectively the rest of us, down a rocky path for no good reason. If you can't see the problem, well, you have a bigger problem. But you're rich so the "problem" will never affect you.

Obviously you didn't do the ad for money. That's preposterous, you have enough. You did it because of your ego, to have your name listed with other top bloggers and thought leaders. And it is your ego again that's behind this ridiculously smug self-justifying post. Feel better about yourself this morning? I bet you do. Whether you are aware of it or not, you paid a huge price for that ad. Like it or not, you are part of a community that is self-governing and members are not afraid to call bullshit on those who "sully" the group. It's a beautiful thing actually. Power to the people, Utopian rah rah, etc.

Of course you've now made it very clear that you don't care about anyone but yourself. With that in mind, I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I've lost a huge amount of respect for you.

[Erik]

Fred,
You are 100% correct. Blogging is a new medium that is not constrained by restrictions placed on older media. I read the WSJ and The Times for news; I read blogs for conversation.

[Michael]

Fred... if the blog is you, then I really like you. Except you have this kind of arrogance sometimes. I suspect it comes from many years of people kissing up to you all day long because they are looking for money. And having tens of thousands of readers will do that also. So you are mostly forgiven.

Regardless of your motives in writing, the assumption by your adoring fans is that you are not a shill for a company, any company. Participating in the Microsoft ad is an endorsement of their product and your use of the term people ready does imply that they helped or are helping you become "people ready." That might not have been your intent, but that's how normal people read things. To not give a little and say -- I understand how people cold see it that way, but this was my intent -- just makes you seem like a jerk.

But I totally agree that you are not in the same category as Arrington or Om Malik. In their case their comments about products are their business. This whole thing is the fault of American Express. Everyone wants to be De Niro or Ellen or Jerry and be cool enough to be in their ads. I think you got a little blinded by the bright lights.

[Jeff Jarvis]

Fred,

As more journalism is done independently, I'd say there will be less difference between journalistic and personal integrity. More and more, we will be our personal brands.

We all care about our reputations and credibility. We don't want to seem to be bought or speaking out of conflict. That is why you are very good about revealing your interests. You and I disagree about satellite v. digital radio and you always point out your financial interest in digital for a reason. It maintains your credibility, your integrity. I point out on my disclosure page that I have Sirius stock (damned little) for the same reason. Our motives and responses are exactly the same.

And you do perform journalistic functions sometimes, whether you like it or not. If you impart information to me, that can be a journalistic function. Your posts about the age of successful entrepreneurs were no different for me than a trend story on the business front of the New York Times. I took away information and a worldview and quoted it and relied on your facts and observations as I would a Times reporter. Like it or not, increasingly, journalism is in the eyes of the beholder.

You have your own standards. I have my own. They are necessarily different because we and our circumstances, needs, and goals are different. I have been quite vocal about not having a single standard we're all supposed to sign onto. We agree there.

But what I have a problem with is your dismissal of this discussion, of what Nick Denton and I have been saying, as merely "old school." This is an important decision each blogger must make for him or herself and they are making it now.

Om Malik and John Battelle have each made clear that they wish they had set their boundaries in public and navigated against them before this episode. I'd like other bloggers as well as young, independent journalists to see the lesson in that. I'd like them to grapple with their own standards. So I don't think it's productive to dismiss that discussion as old school.

It's also inaccurate. As I pointed out in my last response to you, I have been trying to bring our new-school values -- the ethics of the correction, the link, and transparency -- into the old school, literally.

And the reason I'm doing that is because I care about journalism and an informed society and the open conversation and just as I believe the old school has much to learn from the new, so am I convinced that much of journalism in the near future will be performed by individuals, pro or am, and I want them to have the respect and attention (and, yes, revenue) they deserve because they have protected their own credibility and integrity. It's not just for their sake but for ours.

So I wish you'd have entered into the discussion more fully rather than acting like an island.

Finally, I still disagree about the campaign at hand. There's not a thing new about it. It's an advertorial. Except this would be as if Business 2.0 had had Om write for it. If you picked up today's New York Times and saw Tom Friedman or Saul Hansell not just quoted on but writing for a page under an advertiser's brand, wouldn't you be at least disappointed? And I have to say that I find it hard to imagine you picking up the latest issue of Fortune and dashing to those Special Advertising Sections to suck up the wisdom there. Federated just took the advertorial and tried to gussy it up -- by using well-known and well-respected names such as yours. But it's still just a Special Advertising Section.

Finally, as many including you have pointed out, you don't need the money. You still do have skin in this discussion -- reputation, ego, relationships -- but that is different. But keep in mind that many are doing this because they do need the money -- even Arrington complained about making his payroll without this revenue. People who are new to this idea of living, thinking, speaking in public are grappling with how to handle it. This is an important discussion to them and to their publics and to the rest of us who can depend upon and be affected by what they decide. That's why I spent the last full day reading, thinking, and writing about this on my blog and on many comments on others'. It's not about being old-school. It's about trying to see people figure out what the best of old-school and new-school can and should be.

[Dave!]

"i don't get paid to put widgets on my blog"

Someone should pay you to take them *off* your blog. :)

[Sridhar Vembu]

Fred, have you thought about the issue that the original ads left the impression they were quoting your from your blogs, like a movie ads quotes a reviewer presumably real opinion? If you view them in that light, would you do anything differently?

[Jeff Persch]

Why is it that the posters are in control of the ethics and integrity of their blog? I want to know if we are using the free democracy rule to vet what we read, listen to, or watch. If I don't agree, that is what my mouse or dial is for. Turn the station, go to the next feed.

I think it is a bit self motivating for all of these critics to come out of the wood work on these subjects. They do not want the free market to decide on what blogs are read and which fall. We are not the teeny bopping crowd that will stay at a Hilton Hotel because Paris's family owns it. Or, get an American Express card because of Seinfeld. And I also try to cut my carbon footprint in spite of the Preachers of global warming are doing nothing to cut theirs.

Give me some credit for knowing what is real and what is paid.

[Douglas Karr]

1. Jeff Jarvis' comment above was really funny!
2. Yes, Yes, Yes! The arrogance of others to believe that mainstream journalism isn't somehow swayed by money - oy. That bloggers are supposed to share quality content without any compensation is ridiculous.

I disclose what I believe my readers expect me to. If someone buys me a cup of coffee and I mention them on my blog, did I just violate my integrity? Hell no! Do I need to disclose it? Hell no!

This is how the world works people, it's called 'influence'. If you don't like it - get your own blog and live at your laptop and don't make a dime.

As long as I don't violate MY standards, it's MY blog and I'll do whatever I think is right. MY readers trust me and I wouldn't trade that for any amount of money.

Fred, you're a heck of a blogger and bring incredible information to us and I thank you. That you donate the funds to charity says even more of your character.

[curmudgeonly troll]

So how's that project going to remove Microsoft from your life in 2007?

http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/12/my_new_years_re.html

it's a mountain out of a molehill, anyone who looks at it will know the quote is a BS endorsement, like book blurbs, are they verboten for journalists?

Not the most 'people centered' post ever. Seems like a lot of effort to engage people whose opinions are apparently of no consequence. Everyone has a way they conduct themselves, whether they formalize an explicit code or not. For some it's, I 'flip people off when they disagree'.

[Don Jones]

Fred,

I'm a big fan of your blog, but your posts about a three way conversation and "It's my blog and I do what I want" come across as cloudy and defensive. Did any of your readers know they were in a three-way?

Also, taking advertiser money and giving it to charity isn't an out - since you derive psychic benefit from that action.

[Cortland Coleman]

Fred,

This has been a fascinating (and frustrating) conversation. I think your point #1 in this post is the most relevant one. This blog is an expression of who you are. Readers and commenters are visitors in your world. Obviously, it's a place we like b/c we keep coming back.

This is your place and we are visitors. It's kind of like a virtual living room where you lead the discussion. Us visitors love the actual discussions, but also the variety of topics. Tech, VC stuff, music, family - it's all here and that's great. I'm sure that the Arctic Monkeys, Raul Midon or Kings of Leon would not be on my MP3 player if I hadn't heard about them here.

We rightfully take what you say as a sincere expression of what you think and who you are, which is why this FM issue has rubbed some of your readers, including me, the wrong way. Forget about Om or Arrington for a moment and picture this.

We're all visiting your virtual living room and we come across a quote from you in a banner ad about how the new Kelly Clarkson album just kills. Curious, we click through to the ad campaign (which is masquerading as actual blog posts) and low and behold, the person who was once a trusted source for good music is now hyping the Kelly Clarkson release b/c he was paid to do so. And he's even using the Clarkson-approved, trademarked marketing terminology to spoon-feed his audience about the "people-readiness" of this groundbreaking new release. Pure bollocks!

That does undermine your credibility and it is a disappointment to your readers, especially b/c, continuing with the theme, you previously said not in a banner ad but in a content-based post on your site that 2007 would be your year without Kelly Clarkson. (Fred said: "Starting Jan 1, 2007 I will be on a mission to remove Microsoft from my life. It's long overdue.")

Which Fred are we supposed to believe?

Perhaps, for a moment, this blog stopped being a true expression of who you are and was simply a revenue stream, ready for whatever "new media advertising" campaign came along. I, for one, believe your participation in the FM/MS campaign is a minor betrayal to your readers. I know, I know - "if you don't like it, don't read it." Problem is, I like it alot most of the time and when it falls short of the high expectations that I've set for it, well it's disappointing, like a post '87 Dead show (a few great moments but lots of clunkers).

We're all people and people on both sides of this (and every) issue makes mistakes. Hopefully, the robust discussion leads to increased understanding and a better framework for moving ahead.

PS - When are you going to review the LCD Soundsystem album? It's an amazing piece of sonic bliss!

[Georgia Piesch]

This is a very people-ready attitude... (Not!)

More like people-hostile.

Fer cryin out loud Fred, how about letting us know when you're saying something to please a huge technology company or saying something because YOU believe it.

Is that really so frickin hard?

[superduper]

Fred, regardless of your personal motivation for writing this blog, i think you can recognize that most people believe that payola blogging is unrespectable. Sure, it's your site, just like it's the NY times' page space or it's Fox's airtime. No one is disputing your right to write what you want, when you want, why you want want Just don't be surprised when you lose credibility by adopting a stance that goes against the the values of a lot of your readers.

[Eric]

Whoa...sounds like a lot of hoopla going on around here. I must have missed something. Meh...oh well. Keep the keys flowing :)

[fewquid]

Hey Fred,

I think you should also walk on water, kiss babies and solve world hunger.

Seriously people, WTF? Fred didn't endorse any product from any company here. What he did was use two MEANINGLESS words to generate some ad rotation on the site.

Is it a sneaky way to target ads? Sure. Is it an interesting New Media approach to a traditional game? Absolutely. Is it really any different from Fred soliciting advertisers in any other way? Hell no. Did he endorse those ads? Hell no. Do YOU have to CLICK on those ads? Hell no.

Enough already. Use your brain all by yourself. Wake up and let the man get back to blogging...

[Rickson Malley]

I too have lost a large amount of respect for Fred.. where's that unsubscribe button....