Media people are petty

(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: lawrence@krubner.com, or follow me on Twitter.

Interesting and sad and hypocritical:

It appears that Violet Blue’s works were systematically removed from Boing Boing’s archives. This was no mistake. So while BB would seem to be a great symbol of the blog revolution—that dreamy ideal of everyone in the world freely expressing themselves to all, with no corporate filter—they’re also just another in an endless line of quirky media startups that found success, and then started acting just like the big establishment players to which they were once opposed. It’s only natural. Like growing up and deciding that you’d rather work a nine-to-five than be a dirty Phish-following hippie, media outlets take on the trappings and responsibilities of success and find themselves writing rules and editing severely where once they would congratulate themselves on being outrageous.

This effect is more exaggerated in the media world than elsewhere. There are very few media outlets that will happily and openly stand up for the same scrutiny they routinely apply to others. That’s because intense public scrutiny is a pain in the ass! Duh. It’s also because people who go into the media tend to have an elevated level of narcissism, combined with a thin skin. We all want to be loved and adored, and fear rejection. Love me! Only me! I’m special!

I was a low-level “media reporter” for a couple years after covering several other beats, and I invariably found that, as a group, media people are the most insanely sensitive sources to deal with. Politicians love to talk—they’re equally narcissistic, but with far thicker skins. Corporate people tend to have a cold, well-honed, and practical approach to being covered. But many reporters, editors, and media executives are guarded in interviews, reluctant to answer basic questions, and prone to relentless “follow-ups” with you to make absolutely sure they’re quoted the way they want to be.

My theory was always that media people assume the rest of the media are like them. If they’re a lazy hack, they’re terrified of placing their reputation in the hands of another reporter, who they assume is also a lazy hack. If they’re unscrupulous, they assume you are too. And if they’re used to bending the rules—well, they better check on those quotes with you one more time.

Apparently this was over a romance that ended. I think it is incredible when grown adults act like they are still over-emotional 14 year olds incapable of handling public commitments that they have made (such as commitments to openness).

I used to link to these kinds of stories all the time — “initial euphoria for blogging ends” types of stories. It makes me sad that people are this petty:

Over several years, Boing Boing, one of the Internet’s most popular and successful blogs, had frequently written about or linked to the writings of Violet Blue, the San Francisco Chronicle’s sex columnist, and prolific online commentator on carnal matters. Jardin, who had once had a close relationship with Blue (Blue characterized it as romantic; Jardin would not confirm or deny that), was the author of every Blue-related post.

But the two stopped associating. And sometime thereafter, Jardin systematically unpublished every Boing Boing reference to Blue she could find, without alerting the blog’s co-writers. (Unpublishing is different than deleting, as it allows you the option of re-publishing later).

Under the radar

This wholesale cleansing of Blue’s Boing Boing presence went unnoticed for nearly a year and a half, until someone alerted Blue that the posts were gone. When Blue noted the disappearance on her own blog, she kicked up an online whirlwind. Suddenly, both Boing Boing and Jardin found themselves in the middle of a furor over what many readers saw as a less-than-transparent act by a blog known for its commitment to openness and free culture.

Boing Boing was slow to react, ignoring initial interview requests in favor of posting its own rather terse explanation, the key bit of which is this: “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her. It’s our blog and so we made an editorial decision, like we do every single day.”

That explanation did not specify that it was Jardin who had acted alone to remove the posts, or offer any note of regret for an action that had spurred so much consternation among the blog’s own readers.

…But I’m not sure about the framing of this as an educational experience, wherein the naive bloggers learned a tough lesson. Boing Boing’s archives are home to more than 42,000 blog posts, and its writers are some of the most experienced on the Internet, not to mention vehement backers of fairness and transparency in the blogosphere. Removal of even one post without notice has long been verboten among online journalists and professional bloggers. And so it’s striking that neither Jardin nor Boing Boing issued a real apology or note of contrition about this regrettable act — which, because it was motivated by something personal in nature, would seem more forgivable if there was a simple apology, rather than a fancy rationalization.

Growing up into an established media source comes with its own set of responsibilities. When you make a mistake, you have to ‘fess up — fast, and publicly. Anyone who’s made a mistake in public knows admitting it can sting. But hey Boing Boing, I think you’ll bounce back.

Post external references

  1. 1
    http://gawker.com/397522/the-media-cool-kids-never-as-cool-as-you-think
  2. 2
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/09/entertainment/et-webscout9
Source