I used to love the Gillmor Gang, but I don’t listen to it much anymore, because I have come full circle and once again think that too many of the core participants are intentionally non-inclusive.  I’m not talking about on the podcast; I’m talking about on the internet.  Too many of those guys treat the social networks as a stage where they can engage in dramatic dialog with one another, while the great audience watches in admiration.

And I have said over and over that Mike Arrington needs a lesson in personal brand maintenance.  Petulant jerk is not the image I’d go for.

And I have not and probably won’t watch the rest of the latest Gillmor Gang podcast, so there may be things leading up to this brouhaha that I don’t know about.

And, finally, I don’t have and have no plans to get a Palm Pre.

Having said all that, unless there’s a lot more to the story, Leo Laporte was a massive baby for throwing a gigantic temper tantrum just because Mike asked him if he paid for his Pre.  It’s a fair and legitimate question.  A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

When I have been asked to preview phones and other mobile devices in the past, I have never been required to return them.  Generally, after the review period expires, you can keep the device, but you have to pay for a calling plan, etc. if you want to use it.  It’s probably different for high profile devices like the iPhone and the Pre.  Maybe you do have to return it.  I don’t know anything about some “wink and nod” deal where you get a letter requiring that you return it, with no one actually expecting that you will.  If that happens, it’s even worse, in my opinion, than getting one completely free.  Once someone in that situation says he or she didn’t get the device for free, it takes the issue from the realm of an omission to the realm of a lie.

Again, I know nothing about this practice, and I certainly know nothing of the terms under which Leo got his Pre.  I’ll assume he got a review unit and always intended to and will return it.

In other words, I’m not examining Leo’s integrity, because I don’t really know him and have no personal basis to doubt it (or vouch for it).  What I am interested in is the epic meltdown he had on this podcast.

There is some evidence in the comments to the TechCrunch post that Mike may have been poking at Leo for some time.  I don’t know if that’s right or not, but it’s certainly possible given the way Mike relates to most people.  But I’m pretty sure that no one forces Leo to do those podcasts.  And I’m pretty sure the fact that Mike can be a jerk is not a secret.

And, ignoring for a moment the source, it was a relevant question.  Not that Mike was necessarily looking out for truth and justice.

There is another question- about what Mike was worried about at the beginning: journalistic standards or that Leo got a free Pre and he didn’t.  Questioning someone’s integrity is serious business, which is probably what set Leo off.  But, again, a better response would have been “no, I didn’t get it free.  What are you implying.”  In all likelihood Mike would have hung himself with some tirade, while Leo sat back and watched.

But then again, what do I know.  I’m not smart enough to converse with these dudes.  I’m just in the audience, watching a couple of babies fight.

Can anyone spare a pacifier?

It’s no secret that I’m no fan of Mike Arrington.  I’ve been critical of him on several occasions, generally about some online temper tantrum he is having over some slight or perceived slight.  But this latest brouhaha over his response to a blog comment is ridiculous.  Some of it is, as usual, Mike’s own doing- gratuitously using the F word in a comment is unnecessary and reflects very poorly on Mike.  In some alternate universe somewhere, Mike didn’t capture lightning in a bottle with TechCruch and has been forced to learn how to act like a grownup.

But that’s not my point today.

I continue to be amazed over the number of people who seem to be standing around impatiently waiting for something to become outraged about.  Everyone’s a dealer, just waiting to toss out a winning (or losing) card.

First, a little background.  I don’t know anything about Lane Hartwell, and no one but her knows what’s truly inside her head with respect to the use of her photo in the Richter Scales “Here Comes Another Bubble” video.  Having said that, it seems a bit much to wage an offensive over the use of an image in a video, or two or three.  I certainly wouldn’t do that if one of my songs got sampled, but we have to assume she is genuinely concerned about her rights and not just after the mountain of publicity this issue has received.  What is without question is that people have a right, and should be expected, to question her decision and argue contrary positions.  Without going into the boring legalities of it all, the various commenters are basically arguing one of two points: what she ought to do or what constitutes fair use.  The point is that there are logical and likely heartfelt arguments on both sides of the debate.

So amid all the flutter and sway, Mike crosses paths with Shelley Powers.  Rightly or wrongly, Mike thinks Shelley (and I quote) “is a person who trolls TechCrunch about once per week accusing me of all sort of things, very often of being sexist. In my opinion she shifts her opinions regularly on issues to ensure that she supports the woman in any dispute.”   I have no gripe with Shelley and I have no idea whether she’s mean to Mike or not.  Though I appreciate the monumental irony in the mere asking of that question, it doesn’t really matter.   Mike can think whatever he wants, including this (and again I quote):

Lane’s attorney is abusing the DMCA for his/her own goals. And copyright has nothing to do with “giving credit.” It has to do with being forced to license work unless it falls under fair use, which this clearly does. *** But since Lane is a woman, it really doesn’t matter what she did as far as you are concerned. She’s a woman, so she’s right.

It seems, however, that some people (exactly how many is open to debate) have taken up torches and want to burn Mike at the stake and TechCrunch to the ground in the name of gender equality or some other noble cause.  Only that’s neither equality-producing nor noble, by any definition I’ve ever heard.  It’s just another knee-jerk reaction that will succeed only in conscripting the gender issue to some lesser purpose- publicity and traffic perhaps?  Ego-building?  The need for conflict?

This far too common rabid, demonizing, verbal vigilante reaction is the very reason I am profoundly apolitical and go out of my way to avoid political discussion.  Staunch Democrats and Republicans are so bound to their spoon-fed positions and so focused on demonizing the other party that it is impossible to have a meaningful debate on any political issue.  No wonder voter turnout is so low.  Both sides have lost credibility with the great middle.  When I read the so-called discussion surrounding Mike’s statement, I don’t see rational discussion.  I see name calling and conclusion jumping on both sides, along with a few opportunists along for the attention ride.

I’m all about political correctness.  But when someone – even someone as self-absorbed as Mike Arrington – can’t engage in a spirited debate without getting branded a sexist (or more accurately, accused of branding someone else one), we have gone too far.  When people mine prose for flammable content at the expense of addressing the issue, we have lost our way.  If all we do is move from one verbal skirmish to another, we are not making progress.  Mike tries to paint himself as the victim here, but he’s not.  Progress and the chance for understanding are the victims.  The wasted minutes of those who have to read all the inimical words to find the insightful ones are collateral damage.

When people get offended because someone wishes them a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah or Blessed Ramadan, we’ve gone too far.  At some point, we have to leave the semantics aside and deal with the important stuff that lies beneath.  When someone takes the time to wish me happiness at a time that’s important to him or her, I consider it a great honor.  It’s not whether I happen to celebrate the same holiday that matters.  It’s the gesture.

So if Mike thinks that someone is biased towards women, why isn’t that a valid arguing point, the same way the fact that someone may be biased against women is, and should be, fair game?  All the political correctness in the world shouldn’t support a position that you can have it both ways.  Rather than vilify Mike for making that point, show him where he’s wrong.  Either because his premise is flawed or because it doesn’t matter if it isn’t.

Shelley herself, who continues to address the real issue as opposed to the manufactured one as the world around her descends into chaos, notes the fact that people rushed in to spout their opinions without taking the time to look at the underlying issue:

My name is Shelley Powers. I have a weblog, Burningbird. I’ve weblogged for seven years. I write regularly on issues important to women.

I am a real person, though Michael has done his best to dehumanize me. What I don’t understand is why one of you didn’t think to ask him who I really am. You just all gave your opinions.

Why can’t we work as hard at not being offended as some people do to be offended?  Are our morals, philosophies and opinions so fragile that disagreement, even ridicule, can shake them?  Mine aren’t.  And I suspect yours aren’t either.  And if we really want to reach out to people and show them that we’re right, we have to do two things: stop yelling at them and give them the opportunity to change our minds.

Sometimes we need to just get over it.  Anybody with me?

First my old buddy Mathew Ingram links to me, and then goes back and removes the link.  Even though I challenge you to find anyone who took a more even-handed approach than I did to the Federated Media/Microsoft discussion.

Now, Louis Gray (who I have linked to at least six times in the past month)  calls me a cheater.  Says I and those like me are ruining Technorati’s credibility by participating in viral tag link arounds.  He says my Technorati count is bogus.  Implies that I am a fraud who engages in a sultry practice.  He suggests that I lead by example and renounce my wicked ways.

Those are pretty strong words, particularly since Louis doesn’t know the first thing about me, including how to spell my name.  Apparently he doesn’t know much about the blogosphere either.

The blogsphere is not a level playing field.  Louis said as much the other day.  We’ve been talking about the gatekeeper thing for years.  There are a hundred theories about the cause, but there is only one effect: that there are those on the inside, where the blogosphere is all warm and chummy, and there are those on the outside looking in.  Personally, I think a lot of it boils down to three factors: (1) people blog for a lot of different reasons and blogs often have cross-purposes; (2) those who have proximity in career or geography can more easily create relationships that transcend the blogosphere, resulting in more shared attention; and (3) human nature.  It’s the human nature part that creates the walls that are the hardest to scale.

In other words, the walls may be naturally formed without malice.  But there are walls.

Those on the outside looking in can either accept it and move on (thus the high rate of blog attrition), pander to the A-Listers (take a look at Louis’s blog roll on the right side of his blog page for a great example of that) and hope you’ll one day get invited to the club (with the chance of success being roughly equal to the chance a high school basketball player has of making the NBA), or take the blogosphere for what it is and play the game with everyone else.  I have tried the first two and found them lacking.  I have tried the latter exactly twice.  Once here, which generated virtually no links, and once here, which generated quite a few.

Do those posts add value for the reader?  Of course not.  Do the ads we suffer through in feeds and on blog pages add value for the reader, of course not.  The latter are designed to line the pockets of those who see the blogosphere as a way to make money.  For me, the former is a small attempt to end run around the fact that, despite writing hard for years, I simply cannot get many of the popular bloggers to allow me into the conversation.  If bloggers like Dave Winer, Fred Wilson, Guy Kawasaki, Om Malik, Steve Rubel and others won’t let me join their conversations, what am I do to?  If waiting patiently doesn’t work?  If giving blogging up isn’t appealing?  If I am truly the hardest working man in the blogosphere and have so little to show for it, what is left?

I could write away in obscurity and support the machine for the benefit of the empowered.  I could establish some artificial moral standard that no one would know or care about- that would only apply to me, since almost everyone else is gaming the system in one way (ads, products or services to sell) or another (linking mostly to those in their circle of friends).  Or I could keep writing hard every day and try to find another way up blogger’s hill.  Try, as in two posts out of 1,262 posts.  That’s .002%.  I get far more “bogus” content than that every single day when I see all the ads my feeds.

The viral tag links are not nearly as meaningful as a link from a blogger engaging in cross-blog conversation with me.  But are they that different from the hordes of links Scoble and others get when they post about arm farting and whatnot?  Is a link from some other blogger via viral tags that much worse than all those upstream “I agree” or “look at me, please” links from some pandering wannabe?  I think not.  At most, they are equally worthless.  So don’t condemn one unless you’re willing to condemn both.  Those who live in glass houses, and all that.

If ads designed to separate readers from their cash are perfectly OK.  If partial feeds are OK.  If undisclosed conflicts of interest are conveniently ignored…how can sharing links be the great evil that needs to be exposed and eradicated?  And if sharing links for the sake of links is a sin, why didn’t Louis call me a cheater and a fraud when I did this?  Or this?

Dave Sifry, who knows a little about Technorati, says that “in this new world of conversation, the hyperlink is becoming a new form of social gesture between people.  It’s something akin to a tap on the shoulder.”  Maybe these viral tags are the blogosphere equivalent of the mosh pit where the disenfranchised jump around wildly to the horror of the ruling class.  Maybe they’re the Boston Tea Party where terrorists-cum-revolutionaries toss the highly taxed authority count into the sea.  Whatever they are, those who engage in them do not deserve the condemnation that Louis espouses.

The blogosphere isn’t a perfect place, but it’s the only one we have.  Bloggers aren’t perfect either.  As Louis will tell you over and over, I’m not either.

But if we’re going change the nature of the blogosphere, then there are a lot better places to start than calling me out as the poster child for bad behavior.

Here’s the latest from the (a)Tension Convention.

Stowe Boyd, who never answered my very relevant question, says in a comment to Karl Martino’s excellent post on the topic that he doesn’t like being called a blowhard for no reason.  Dave Rogers then goes into great detail about why he thinks Stowe is a blowhard.  Does anyone really give a shit whether Stowe is a blowhard or not?  Or whether his hat is a backwards baseball cap or a beret or an Indian headdress?

Once again, bloggers are fighting about all sorts of stupid stuff while the issues that really matter, such as marketing, conflicts of interest and whether Web 2.0 amounts to a hill of beans, are ignored.  If you ever doubt that the blogosphere is more about building and defending personal brands than promoting reasoned discourse, all you have to do is look at what bloggers get mad about.  It’s the playground mentality, only semi-anonymous and remote.

The blogosphere is what we make it.

Dave Rogers has a post on the competition for attention in the blogosphere and the effects thereof.  Stowe Boyd responds.  To quote Kinky Friedman, it looks like we have a tension convention forming.

I tend to favor Stowe’s argument, but there is a little hole in it we need to plug.  Stowe says to Dave “I agree with you about trolls. There are people out there who are the enemies of the future (as Virginia Postrel styled it in her book of the same name), and they need to be outed whenever possible.”  I haven’t read that book, but my question to Stowe, and others, is this:  what defines an “enemy of the future?”  Stated another way, how do we distinguish a troll from someone who merely disagrees.  A troll from a skeptic?  And who gets to decide where those lines are drawn?  Debate and competition are key forces in innovation and efficiency.  I agree that there are those whose goal is not to debate and compete, but to condemn and destroy.  But I think there is potential danger in how we tell them apart.

I am on Stowe’s side of the line where the development of technical innovations, including social applications, is concerned.  Like songwriting, there is absolute beauty in the creation of something that has meaning beyond yourself.  But also like songwriting, when those who want to monetize that creation start calling the shots, there is potential for the artistic process to become corrupt.  Generally in one form or another of the greater fool theory.  If money is to be made, it has to come from somewhere.  It is in some of those situations that I occasionally step back across that line and join the so-called skeptics.

Does that make me a troll?  Of course not, and I’m sure Stowe will agree.  But the line between skeptic and troll is a hard one to draw brightly.  And some will use the troll label as a preemptive strike against a contrary opinion or skepticism that might stand between them and a dollar bill.

That’s where things get a little dicey.  No matter what kind of hat you’re wearing.

I have some advice for both Dave and Fred.  It won’t matter because I can’t ever get either one of them to talk to me, but here goes.

First, as is often the case in the blogosphere, everyone is so interested in being heard that they forget to listen.  It’s just mortar fire as each party lobs bombs blindly at the other, hoping to get close enough to the target to do a little damage.  And get rich and/or famous in the process.

Dave, stop telling us how you invented everything.  Even if you did, people are tired of hearing it.  Don’t keep saying “I’m ready to do the really big ideas.”  Just go do it.  If you want to win an argument about age and innovation, either go invent something new and wonderful or, if that’s not feasible, at least attack the argument in general, not personal, terms.  It’s not about you.  It’s really not.  It’s about everyone over 30.  Your petulance undermines the truths you speak. Truths like this: “In every other creative field people are active into their sixties, seventies or eighties. For some reason in tech we assume people are washed up at 30? Based on what? Marc Andreessen’s experience. Hmm.”  The point is that there are so many people with skin in the game who want to extrapolate all sorts of earth shaking developments out of these little recycled science projects that we read about every day.  That there are so many logical and economic holes in the VC process, particularly as it relates to online stuff, that it’s hard not to fall into one.  That’s the point, not whether you’re getting the reverence you think you deserve.  Oh, and one last thing.  Fred’s post was really not a personal attack on you or anyone else.  So what if he wants to fund youngsters.  Maybe youngsters are the best ones to create things that other youngsters (the current and future target audience) want to use.

Fred, don’t confuse the little high school science projects we call Web 2.0 with true innovation.  According to a National Bureau of Economic Research study on Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics over the past 100 years and on outstanding technological innovations over the same period, 42 percent of innovations were created by people in their 30s, 40 percent occurred when the inventors were in their 40s and 14 percent appeared when the inventors were over 50.  There were no great achievements produced by innovators before the age of 19, and only 7 percent were produced by innovators at or before the age of 26 (Einstein’s age when he performed his prize winning work).  Hanging out in AOL chat rooms, IMing and joining Facebook has about as much to do with becoming an innovator as taking a shower has to do with winning the 100 meter freestyle.  These kids may be creating some cool little projects, but cool does not equate to revolutionary, profitable or necessary.  It’s the brain not the birthday that matters.

Carry on.