Bio
Susan Mernit is a consultant with a practice focused on hyperlocal news, community & civic engsagement and the future of news (see houseoflocal.o...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

TechCruncher Mike Arrington says he was spit on at Davos, taking a break for a month

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

If there’s any media property that’s King in the tech world, it’s TechCrunch, the blog that Mike Arrington started in 2004 as a way to track other start-ups as he worked on his own (edgeio). Of course, these days, edgeio is in the deadpool and TechCrunch is the most influential blog in this sector, with Mike adroitly managing its authority to break stories and grab scoops as often as possible.

TechCrunch has a female CEO(Heather Harde), but it’s essentially a boys’ game, a macho pissing match of testesterone-driven competitive energy, blunt talk and sometimes brilliant analysis (Mike is smart!). Over the years, Mike has gotten a reputation as someone to be feared, who can make and break companies, and who is ruthless and tough.

At the same time, friends of Mike (and I would fall into this camp) point out the amazing generosity he can show, the sweetness under the wary demeanor, and the loyalty and support he gives his friends. Is it a Men are from Mars, women are from Venus thing to say that I expect both views have some truth? Or, to put it another way, can you build the most powerful tech brand on the Internet without sometimes being a ruthless prick—and other times being attacked indiscriminately by people who don’t know you?

This is a long preamble to the post Mike put up today, describing how he was accosted and spit on during his trip to Davos, by a stranger he thought was going to accost him with a startup pitch (and so he looked away), but who spit in his face and vanished into the crowd. Mike also shared that last summer, he—and his family—had gotten death threats from a blogger and had to hire a security guard. Conclusion: This is all so upsetting, the job isn't fun anymore. Solution: Take February off, out of the public eye, and regroup.

So, what’s the deal?

Initial response in the blogosphere seems mostly focused on Mike’s decision to take a leave, with the exception of Jemina Kiss’s column in the Guardian UK where she wonder’s if Mike’s surly attitude and great power played a part in this (of course they did), and Ryan Carson’s post on how improving security and accountability to comment can help suppress web “meanness.”

My view is that there are a few factors that are worth discussing:

First of all there’s the issue of courtesy and community in the blogosphere. Whether it’s Kathy Sierra or Mike Arrington, no one should be threatened or attacked because of virtual perceptions of who they are and what they have done (or not done). Disagreement does NOT equal the threat of murder.Or spitting. Or--whatever.

Second, there’s the thread of what goes around comes around. Several people in the blogosphere reacted to Mike’s post by pointing out bullying they feel Mike has supported, specifically his endorsement of the ridicule Loren Feldman subjected Shel Israel to (For those who don’t follow the minutiae of blogosphere feuds, a younger guy, known for his savage humor, made a puppet of an older guy, known for his avuncular style, and made videos of the puppet interviewing real Web 2.0 celebs; the battle that followed was both public and ugly, even as some found it a joke.)

Third, there’s the question of community. Like BlogHer, TechCrunch has a rich and engaged community, who react through their comments. However, unlike BlogHer, TechCrunch has neither posted community guidelines, nor any sort of visible community manager. So, what do participants have to be guided by?

While there are many tremendously interesting and useful comments, the noise factor at TC is pretty high.To be blunt, the site definitely has a culture of commenting in which is it perfectly okay, even cool, to make comments that are negative, cruel, and macho. Whether posters are using their real names or not, it's common for them to make cutting remarks and predict failures. They come out with two fists swinging tone and much of the commentary suggests a community that is pugnacious, entitled, and immature. You can see it in this sample of posts about the sale of Pownce, and these about new companies presenting

  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Bill Cammack 5 pts

Good points and questions, Susan.

For the record, he got spat on at the DLD (Digital, Life, Design) conference in Munich, Germany... *not* at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

While it's true that nobody *should* be subjected to stuff like this, the fact of the matter is that in real life (IRL), things like this happen every day.  The blogging world is similar to the video game world, where people feel free to talk about other people any way they choose because they figure they're never going to come face-to-face (f2f) with them.  As we've seen from this example, some people are *not* going to be content with leaving the problem they have with someone "on paper".  The people who believe otherwise are merely blinding themselves to the facts and leaving themselves open for similar treatment in the future.

You bring up a veeeeery interesting question as far as whether the media that he's associated himself with could have been a factor in this situation.  VERY interesting, indeed.  Not only was there the Shel Puppet media, but there are lots of videos showing him getting "chumped off" (ridiculed or debased with no visible consequences or repercussions) which, if seen by the perp at all, might have given the spitter the impression that he could get away with doing that scot-free.

"How far a leap is it from ugly comments and angry posts to over the line actions?" 

It's not a very far leap at all... Especially in situations where people feel like they don't have a voice, and they have a rare opportunity for some "get-back".  I'm surprised that nobody's stood up and taken responsibility for spitting on him.  It seems like such a bold move, you'd think they'd want their due credit.

Erin mentions:

"I also remember Sierra taking heat over ducking out of the limelight. Will Arrington take the same heat?"

He'll take a lot MORE heat than she did.  If you compare their "final straw" events, her situation was much worse for her, psychologically.  The difference, however, is that he's going to take heat on the back-channel, while hers was all out in the open.  People are too afraid for their businesses to say what they're really thinking in this situation.

Meanwhile... The TC community isn't going to become any kinder, because not only are some of them nameless, they're also faceless.  There's no chance of this happening to them, because nobody knows or cares who they are, so "Party ON!"

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com )

shelleyp 5 pts

I'm more concerned that nasty behavior is acceptable with people of greater power, and condemned in those with less. It's less about behavior, and more about power. I know you have a favorable impression of Arrington, but as you have also said, he's not above using his power against people. 

I was actually quite pleased with the reaction towards Arrington's posts. No one condones death threats or spitting in another's face (though this act has different meaning in different countries). But at the same time, I think a lot of people are not commenting about the incident at all, because they're not sure they're getting the complete story. In addition, no one approves of Arrington's attempt to direct this as condemnation of Techcrunch critics. That path is extremely dangerous -- do we now attack the legitimate critic?

People are becoming more skeptical, less amenable to becoming part of a mob action. Either that, or there really is no sense of community any longer. I think it's a bit of both. 

susan mernit 5 pts

Shelley, we both knw there are people in the blogosphere who do not practice what they preach; they're the victims when someone wounds them, but there's no cinsciousness or accountability when they are moved to go on the attack.

And you are right, "community" u something we can choose to create online, it;s not the whole web--and it can be an illusion. My concern is not whether we all play nice, but whether the people who do not play nice--and Mike has been among them--create the illusion it's okay for more people to show their asshole aspects, because this behavior is accepted and tolerated(which it is, all too often).

Susan Mernit, Susan Mernit's Blog ( http://susanmernit.blogspot.com )

follow me on twitter: twitter/susanmernit

friendfeed: friendfeed.com/smernit

shelleyp 5 pts

As I've stated elsewhere, there are pieces to Arrington's story that don't make sense. And I find this call for niceness suspect, when Arrington immediately turned around and started using the publicity to attack those who have questioned both his company's ethics and the integrity under which Techcrunch operates. 

There is another very real threat to all of this: that this is being used to silence critics. 

There is no community of webloggers. There are too many webloggers to pretend that we're all some nice little neighborhood where we all have to get along and play "nice". In relation to Techcrunch, the publication, and Arrington, have reported favorably on companies with whom the publication has done business, without once exposing said relationship. If this happened with the New York Times, we'd be aghast, but no, this happens in the "community". 

In addition, I've been the recipient of an Arrington attack, as have others. I'm sure you find him nice, but that man has a nasty, mean streak that is vindictive, and manipulative. With emphasis on the manipulative.

I agree, no one should get death threats, or have someone spit in their face, but the circumstances he outlines in regards to these events don't make sense. If you want to accept everything he says on face value, that's cool. I don't, especially when he immediately turns the events around into an attack on his critics.

zyva212 5 pts

I agree with the opinion of we must not do character assasination to another person on the community. Because internet is virtual world. What we know about another, is not exactly true yet. It must be made sure more deep. Let's be a wise and good person in our community. Then, the community will become nice place for us playing together.

Success is my right, your right, and everyone

http://guzenmedia.com | http://earthlinkpcc.net | http://whenisthegame.com

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

Abuse and threats are unacceptable. Period. End of story. I don't care how much I may not be a fan of the guy, there is no room for it in our society OR our communities.

There is some odd irony when a man known for his verbal and written assaults ends up on the receiving end of hate and venom.

Doesn't make it right, but I can't help but ponder the circumstances.

I also remember Sierra taking heat over ducking out of the limelight. Will Arrington take the same heat?

Lots of interesting things to think about here, and I appreciate you bringing up the Feldman/Israel connection too.

Since those feuds stopped short of physical assault, are we more forgiving? Because this involved spitting and death threats (of which I've had a few myself) do we draw the line there? Or back a few paces as the nastiness unfolded with digerati pissing matches?

It's all very interesting how things change.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )