The Walled-off Journal
Eye-witnessing
a "journalist" cooking the books . . .
An article today in the Wall Street Journal illustrates how
narrow-mindedly the press sees the world that has ended the market for
newspaper-sized printing presses:
Every renaissance has the same problem. Just when people are
beginning to get it that the earth orbits the sun, along comes some
priest whose back story depends on the old model. I had a
pleasant ride up to Harvard on Monday with David Isenberg,
except for the call from the Wall Street Journal reporter who wanted to
hear about his role as an advisor to FON.
I didn't pay much attention at first to a pleasant-sounding
call about FON, but noticed David's tone of voice changing as he asked,
"Why do you keep asking about that? Like I said before, I blogged it
because I blog things I'm involved in." That's when I realized that he
was talking to a reporter and that he was enduring the journalistic
dance that everyone does who's close to a story that grabs their
pressing attention. The real story is not often the one they want to
print, so they go with the one they like.
That's what justifies my comparison with a priest. Reporters
are rarely scientists, open-mindedly seeking an interesting truth.
Instead they're true believers, convinced that every story is hiding
some juicy tidbit. What's exciting about FON is that it could be
disruptive if a few million DSL & cable subscribers started to
trade bandwidth with each other in a, literally, open-air marketplace.
It's news to individuals and it's sure as hell news to big telecoms and
their executives. So it's surely news to the Wall Street Journal's
readers.
Things went downhill from there, fast. David attempted to
explain – patiently I thought – that FON's Martin Varsavsky
is the most open CEO he's ever worked with and that the advisory board
was under no obligation to blog the launch. In fact, he explained, the
only mention about blogging had been pre-launch, when he'd asked them not to mention
anything.
But it seemed to be for naught. Clearly the intention of this
prospector on the other end of the line was to find some hook for her
story. And it must have been frustrating for the poor dear that, like
most things in life, there was no dramatic, conspiratorial hook
purpose-built to build – or keep
– circulation. (Doc's
wife maintains that conspiracy theories are usually wrong, since they
presume competence).
Chickens Roosting
And sure enough, the story appears today, Rebecca Buckman's Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups
Causes Some Static. Notice what is "news" in
this story and what is by-the-by:
Most of the nine members of
FON's U.S. advisory board, including former newspaper journalist Dan Gillmor,
technology author David
Weinberger and Internet-law expert Wendy Seltzer,
wrote about FON on their blogs late Sunday. That was right after FON
founder Martin Varsavsky revealed on his own blog that the closely held
company had raised $21.7 million in funding from Google, Skype and
others, declaring it "a dream come true."
Messrs. Gillmor and Weinberger
disclosed on their blogs that they are advisers to Madrid-based FON and
also said they may receive compensation for their services. But Ms.
Seltzer and other advisory-board members who talked up FON's prospects
online didn't mention they might be paid by the company, though they
did note they were FON advisers . . .
The avalanche of blogging about
FON, much of it from people now tied to the four-month-old company,
highlights the rising influence of blogs in shaping opinions about tech
start-ups, particularly in Silicon Valley. It also reveals the possible
conflicts of interest such complicated relationships can dredge up.
It continues pretty much as you'd expect. The form of
disclosures of each blogger's status was inconsistent. Apparently they
<backstoryTag>didn't conform to the WSJ's rigid
protocols</backstoryTag>. The innuendo suggests that a
secret cabal of insiders had laced their unsupervised blogs with
improper enthusiasms, surely designed to hoodwink the public about the
importance of this startup, never mind the Google and Skype
investments. How many of her readers would bother to find Wendy
Seltzer's lead paragraph last Sunday, wording judged inadequate to this
self-appointed priestess of disclosure?
Martin
Varsavsky has just blogged about FON's partnership with Google , Skype, Sequoia Capital,
and Index
Ventures as investors. FON
is a startup, of which I'm on the board of
advisors, that aims to put wireless internet everywhere by
linking sharing and commercial installations.
Nor was it news that CEO Varsarvsky's blogged on Monday that
FON had grown to 9,000 members, compared to 25,000 for the largest wifi
hotspot networks, adding:
. . . thank our American
advisory board for all the tough yet constructive criticism, to thank
the blogosphere whose comments both positive and negative help us be a
better company, and to thank all of those who became foneros and
believe that a global, unified wifi signal can be of great benefit to
all.
I'm no reporter, so I know nothing about journalistic
standards, but I know she had 2-1/2 days to research this puppy. Did
she bother to follow Wendy's link or go to fon.com and discover
that the first nav link - "What's FON?" At What's FON,
did she bother to click on the first substantive link - no scrolling
required - that says, "Find out who is
the team making FON possible worldwide." Did she notice that
all these furtive capitalists are named and described and pictured
there – as prominently as FON's executives?
Lemme step back for a second.
- Imagine you're an internationally respected thought leader
and blogger who believes, devoutly, that we need to make broadband
available as widely as possible.
- The country you love, formerly a leader in all things
technical, has broadband stuck at a 3rd world competency by telecom
firms who employ more lawyers than engineers.
- You're invited to help conceive a novel peer-to-peer
broadband distribution system with International leadership.
- Amazingly, within 90 days, the vision is validated by
investments from Google and Skype.
- The company launches, and you're probably pleased to see
your picture and bio displayed prominently on the company's Who We
Are page.
- You blog the announcement, having stated in your own
language that you have an advisory relationship with the company.
- The angle the Wall Street Journal comes up with is that you
are involved in an unfair flogging of the concept and that the language
of your disclosure doesn't conform to their liturgy.
Perhaps the assumption is that the Wall Street Journal's
readers are so unsophisticated that they will become confused when
seeing a person's name associated with a company. They're sure to
assume that no one has a financial interest in a company they're
admiring.
If this level of reporting concerns you, you can write to
Rebecca Buckman at the email address prominently displayed at the
bottom of her article.
But why would you bother?
DISCLOSURE: I AM ONE OF THE FIRST 3,000 PEOPLE TO
QUALIFY FOR THE DEEPLY DISCOUNTED FON ROUTER. THE 25 BUCKS I'LL SAVE
HAS PROMPTED ME TO WRITE THIS DEFENSE OF THE COMPANY'S ADVISERS, MOST
OF WHOM I KNOW PERSONALLY.
1:43:11 PM 
|
