Forbes Cover Story Blows It, Calling Bloggers Lynch Mobs

Earlier tonight I was on a four-minute segment on CNBC that largely focused on Forbes' new cover story - Attack of the Blogs. Registration is required or the bugmenot login/password "forbesdontbug" worked for me. The article's author, Daniel Lyons, was in our interview group.

The gist of Lyons' soon-to-be maligned story is that blogs are “the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective.”

If that's not bad enough they also squarely put the blame here on Google and Yahoo as our “potent allies.” It's so ridiculous that two companies that have done so much to democratize media are being chastised for it.

Forbes, I am very disappointed that you chose to take such an unbalanced POV when BusinessWeek and Fortune told us both sides of the story. With all respect to Lyons and the magazine's editors, bloggers are not Corporate America's Boogeyman. They can be a company's greatest allies and evangelists if AND only IF we take the time to take them seriously and engage them in dialogue. Instead of telling us about both opportunities and threats, you paint the blogosphere as the Wicked Witch of the West. With a a few hours of reading excerpts of the forthcoming book on business blogging, Naked Conversations, you would have seen both sides of the story.

My message to Corporate America is simple. Don't listen to Forbes. Take a look around the blogosphere for yourself and you will find real humans - good, bad and ugly. What do you know? It's just like in the meatspace. There are some who mean well, others who are more nefarious. And all want to be heard. Listen to them. Work with them. Live with them and get over this fear mongering because they're here to stay. And some companies -probably your competitors unless you act - will prevail by treating them with respect and engaging them in genuine unfiltered conversations.

Technorati Tags: FUD, Google, Forbes, Yahoo

Comments

[Sam]

This is an important story, but I think it is extremely important to point out the worst part of the Forbest article - the malicious suggestions on how to get bloggers removed from the internet, how to attack their reputations and in the courts, etc. This was utterly beyond the pale, outrageous.
http://www.itshouldbenoted.com/weblog/2005/10/forbes_magazine.html

[Dennis Howlett]

I think this analysis misses a key point. There is no doubt that certain people behave in a less than ethical way.

It's also true people make mistakes. I think you'd agree your 6A service post might not have been totally balanced. I've done it myself. Because I have a specific view of the world I wish to 'sell' and don't find alternative views easy to stomach. Do any of us?

It's important blog bullies are not ignored in any discussion about blogging - especially at the business level. Ignoring it is a deal killer if I ever saw one.

[Pato]

It seemed most appropriate to respond to the Forbes article by starting a new blog, Forbes Sucks, at http://forbessucks.blogspot.com.

Visit. Comment. I'll be adding more soon, especially regarding the author's sordid history with Groklaw.

[Jernej]

What I don't quite understand is how they justify writing something so one sided and in an attacking tone that is exactly the same as the one they're trying to expose as ultimately wrong. How are they any better than bloggers they are writing about?
Where's the responsible journalism part in their work?
Kicking up dust because someone stepped on their (or friends) toes?
It's just silly...

[Deirdre' Straughan]

Though it tars with far too big a brush, the articles does have a point: part of the problem is the anonymity of some bloggers, compounded by the willingness (even eagerness) of some other bloggers to spread whatever they read without verification. As described in the article, "Nick Tracy" was spreading slander under a pseudonym. If the bloggers who repeated his stories wish to attain the status of "citizen journalists," they should have behaved like journalists and checked their sources.

[jJ]

Steve - great showing on CNBC last night, but wear a tie next time...you don't want to be showed up by that stiff suit from Forbes, now do you? Seriously, you did great. I was proud.

On another note, please keep wind of the blogosphere's reaction to this...via level of conversation/buzz/chatter/pulse etc.

Lyons was caught redhanded publishing propaganda supporting the SCO Group's shakedown attempt of IBM and the Linux community. He must have gotten angry about how that con has gone and how the anti-SCOG bloggers continue to bash him.

This article is a cry of anguish from someone who has done serious damage to their own reputation. The bloggers had the audacity to point out his misdeeds.

[John Blake]

Characterizing any one blog, or some, or all blogs as A or B is simply asinine. Weblogs may be universally disseminated, but readers are entirely capable of determining whether any given writer has credibility, interest, or any other so-called journalistic quality. It is emphatically not up to Forbes or any other "credentialed" media entity to approve or disapprove bloggers' contributions as such. If you object to any on-line effort, by all means criticize or dispute the entry-- but if Forbes as "The Press" considers itself as some guardian angel of truth, virtue, and the American Way, its exemplars simply are damn-fools.

Obviously there is a psychological component to such rants. Poor babies! But we really would have thought that Forbes as a business publication might be a bit more sentient in displaying prejudices.

[John Blake]

Sorry-- here I am again. Commenters raise questions of bloggers' anonymity, and it's a valid point. But especially in heavy-handed Statist contexts, political commentary virtually requires that posters escape Gestapo/NKVD surveillance. But in any case, one always comes back to whether a blogger --anonymous or identified-- is worth the minimal time and effort to appraise. I personally will be the judge of that; I do not need any intermediary shielding me from the unfortunate consequences of my own choice; and if anyone asserts that their censorship is for "public good", why, I'll just turn right around and censor THEM. We are not talking obscenity, pornography, incitement to violence here, else why is Daily Kos still up? As an ex-officer in crypto-intelligence, I guarantee that useful information is a matter of context, perspective, and interpretation-- always. Purposely restricting inputs is the kiss of death. How can Forbes not know that this is Wall Street, through and through? What are they thinking? Apparently, they're not thinking much at all, and if Forbes was a blog it would be permanently deleted from my Bookmarks as of now.

[laurence haughton]

Deirdre' is right. The article makes several valid points.
Blogs are a megaphone open to all. Frauds, imbeciles, con men, and creeps of every persuasion are amplified in blogs and blog comments.
This is made worse by the overarching desire (almost manic) of blogs themselves to get noticed, to rate highly and get links. Sensationalism wins, fairplay and thoughtfulness lose... just like it does in the article itself.

[Mike Sanders]

Steve

I thought that the main thrust of the article was that the lack of accountability combined with the growing influence of blogs creates a potentially dangerous mix as highlighted by the examples cited.

Do you agree that power/influence without accountability is a dangerous mix?

[Alice Marshall]

I think this was a very irresponsible article and companies that permit themselves to be guided by it will get into big trouble.

[Mike Sansone]

The Forbes article is the best example of what they are complaining about. It's the Pot describing their perspective of the Kettle.

[Ed Brill]

As one of the bloggers who is attacked in this article, let me thank you for offering "fair and balanced" perspective on it. The incident described regarding my blog has a lot more texture to it -- the analyst firm in question posted anonymous comments on my site (traced back to their IP address), sent anonymous notes to corporations to try to cause harm to myself and my readers. Still, my blog, and my business, are stronger than ever now -- certainly better off than when this incident occured. I believe there's a correlation.

More at http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/forbes-attack-of-the-blogs

[Jagan Mohan]

Pure unadulterated Vitriol.

The extend of generalisation of all blogs to be malafide is unimaginable!

[Mike]

Any power worthy of respect is feared by the ignorant.

I'm just waiting for somebody to DDOS Forbes.com.

Too bad Forbes already bought ForbesSucks.com way back in 2002.

[John Furrier]

On Monday I will be posting a podcast on PodTech.net with Forbes president Steve Forbes where Steve talks about the benefits of social media (blogging and podcasting). It will be interesting to see how the writer response when his boss basically says the opposite of his story. Look for the podcast on Monday morning.

John Furrier
PodTech.net - InfoTalk
www.PodTech.net

[Volker Weber]

I documented the story that Forbes is referring to: http://wiki.vowe.org/RadicatiGroup It is more than a year old.

[Dean Peters]

Y'know, I run this little directory called blogs4God. There we have listed about 400 blogs by people who talk about politics, polity, apologetics and technology.

Not a single one of them discusses corporations other than the occasional rant about how bad the service is at one of their local dives or by some drifty online service.

Which is why I simply made a parody of their cover - which is about all this cover story deserved.

[steven streight aka vaspersthegrate]

Dump Forbes. That publication is so stupid and wrong about everything all the time, from what I keep seeing.

Forbes is sick and dying.

Like the entire MSM, no credibility anymore, as the polls indicate.

Shoddy journalism, blogopathic idiots strike again.

It's the stinking rotting corpse of the MSM vomiting hate all over the place.

I dance on the grave of the MSM.

[Stan DeVaughn]

I don't think Forbes has had this many people talking about it since Steve was running for president. Somewhere up (or down) there, Malcolm is revving his Harley and smiling.

[Yvonne DiVita]

Oh, puh-lease! The only people who care what Forbes thinks are... DWMs... dead white males. The rest of us are blogging.

[ss]

跑跑
街头篮球
世界杯精彩进球
美女
洛奇圣骑战争
金泰熙
我们结婚吧
视频
短片
游戏
情书
NBA
芙蓉姐姐
冒险岛
街头篮球
偷窥
脱衣
喷码机
大字符喷码
小字符喷码
热拼机
写真机
耗材
墨水

[Lorne Fade]

I dont think Forbes knows anything about google or blogging in general, they need to go do some more active research and write a new article about the blogosphere.

[Maker Money]

I agree.