Jason Clarke

Tim O’Reilly, owner of O’Reilly Media, recently proposed a blogging code of conduct in light of recent threats against blogger Kathy Sierra and the ensuing controversy that arose around the discussion of those threats.

While this is obviously a move born of positive intentions, I think that a blogging code of conduct is a terribly misguided idea.

Clearly, a community such as the blogosphere does not condone terrifying threats: the outpouring of support for Kathy Sierra demonstrated that fact. In addition, the blogosphere is also regarded, I believe rightly so, as a community willing and often able to commit acts of self-reflection, analysis, and adjustment. In that context, it’s difficult to see how any kind of codification could serve to do anything beyond artificially limit and stifle speech and the interactions that arise from it.

In short, what we have is a community fully adept at policing itself, the positive and group-building effects of which are infinitely more powerful than any kind of codification could hope to be.

If you need a code to interact from, define one for yourself, and by all means live by it– heck, even publicize for your readers to consider. And if it’s in line with norms, or catches on (lord knows the blogosphere is nothing if not self-policing…and trend happy), who knows? Maybe your code will be adopted informally, organically, subconsciously, where it might, just might, have a positive impact. Anything less natural is destined to fail, and by its definition limit our collective speech in the process.

Note: This post was scheduled to be published tomorrow morning, but after learning via CNN.com that Imus has now been suspended for two weeks, I’m posting it now.

Last week on his radio show, Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus made some cruel, stupid, and insensitive comments regarding the Rutgers University Women’s basketball team. ESPN.com carries an Associated Press recounting of the comments:

“That’s some rough girls from Rutgers,” Imus said. “Man, they got tattoos … .”

“Some hardcore hos,” McGuirk said.

“That’s some nappy-headed hos there, I’m going to tell you that,” Imus said.

Imus has since apologized twice over the past five days, adding today that “…because the climate on this program has been what it’s been for 30 years doesn’t mean that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever because that has to change, and I understand that.”

Despite two public apologies, some including Al Sharpton are still calling for Mr. Imus’ retirement or firing.

So let’s take a moment to consider the concept of “grass is greener” or “shell game” politics, as I think the Imus case represents a fine example. In this case, Imus made some decidedly inappropriate, unkind, hurtful comments. Those who see clear public relations profiteering from the situation- namely, Mr. Sharpton- then launch into action, ready to take two tacts. One, if Imus stands by his comments (or explains them as a joke), his opponent will then demand whatever course of action hasn’t happened- in that scenario, an apology.

But since Mr. Imus did offer an apology, the shell game continues, with his opponents such as Sharpton now demanding something else- in this case, an outright dismissal.

This shell game of never ending consequences for public relations gain is just one small, insignificant reason why Mr. Imus should decidedly not be fired. The larger reason is that he has now twice publicly apologized for these unwise comments.

Personally, I’d prefer to see somebody like Mr. Sharpton- who has inflicted actual damage on America’s race relations for over 20 years- be the subject of such furor…again. That is, if anybody still takes him the slightest bit seriously.

UPDATE: Some people still take Mr. Sharpton seriously despite his history, as Imus’ radio program has just been suspended by both CBS Radio and MSNBC television for two weeks (see link at the top of this post). While this is yet another conciliatory step on Imus’ behalf, it won’t likely do much to deter Mr. Sharpton, as it should be beyond obvious by now that his aim is not to extract amends, but instead to further amplify his own persona.

The laughably awful advertising industry website Adholes, which has declined steadily in terms of reach and influence over recent years, has taken another sad step on its way to irrelevancy by publicly calling me (and by extension other customers experiencing this issue) an “idiot” on their corporate website.

Not since CBS News hoisted fake documents on the American public in September of 2004 has a company’s lack of respect for its customers been so blatant.

Before some explanation, first take a look at their instructions for unsubscribing from their newsletter:

Clicking their “this idiot” link actually takes you to my original post (one year ago today, as a matter of fact) where I wrote about my specific, re-producible problem with their email unsubscribe process. It all began when I attempted several times to unsubscribe from the company’s lame email missives:

I have now unsubscribed via their unsubscribe process twice, both to no avail.

Compare that statement– I attempted to unsubscribe twice, and both times their published unsubscribe process failed– to the Adholes rebuke, where they think the problem was that I “still [couldn't] figure out” how to unsubscribe.

Notice how, in the process of insulting me, they don’t even fully understand what my problem is? You have to be pretty intent on not listening to your customers to not even be able to understand what they’re complaining about.

The situation declined from there. Three weeks later, I received yet another unsolicited email from Adholes after my previous attempts to unsubscribe. In that post, I detailed my further problems with their bug-ridden website:

I just spent a few minutes trying to follow their directions on ‘deleting’ my account with them- which, according to their instructions, involves logging in, changing my name to “delete”, removing my email, saving my account, and then logging out of my account.

That would be awesome, except…Their system won’t let me remove my email, nor is there an option to ‘logout’ of my account…so, wow. Just when you think incompetence can’t get much worse, it often surprises you.

With that, what began as a simple unsubscribe request had blossomed into full-on absurdity. As ridiculous as their “new” unsubscribe instructions were, I attempted to comply, only to discover that the instructions were completely wrong. So let’s recap:

1) Adholes did not have a reliable process in place for people to unsubscribe from their email lists. This brings them close to one of the the modern definitions of spammer: Company sending out commercial emails with no reliable unsubscribe mechanism.
2) Following three unsuccessful attempts to remove myself, Adholes then gave me incorrect directions on removing my email, providing instructions to “logout” of my account when no such option existed. This is either intention obfuscation, or quite poor website design and implementation. Either way, it’s an embarrassing way to treat customers.
3) To top it all off, rather than sending me an apology, or attempting to correct their complete lack of an unsubscribe process for other customers, they chose to brand me an “idiot” for not “figuring out” how to navigate their non-existent unsubscribe method. That also serves to insult any other customers who may experience the same issue.

Fortunately, in an age where corporate transparency and apology are gaining increasing traction, this type of outrageously poor behavior by companies is becoming more and more rare. That said, we as consumers need to remain vigilant in the pursuit of these companies who believe it is their right to insult us even as they provide abysmal service.

Moorelies.com is retired, and I don’t intend for this space to inherit its subject matter. That said, in checking Instapundit today, I noticed my old mark, Michael Moore, is in trouble again:

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America’s invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

Geez, just when you think a movie could not be more discredited, along comes one of the people who appeared in it to slam the preverbial door even further. Of course, this isn’t the first time Sgt. Damon has complained about the shameful way he was treated by Moore. In the documentary FahrenHYPE 9/11 (disclosure: which I appear in, briefly), Damon first stated that he was taken completely out of context in Moore’s film. So while these aren’t new claims, they do come after over a year of apparent but unsuccessful efforts by Damon to get Moore to admit his wrongs.

One of the little known facts about Moore’s films- one that he would prefer be kept under wraps- is that he does not personally collect all of the footage that ultimately appear in his films. Far from it; in fact- some is gathered by producers, but even more is culled from vast stock video libraries and editied as it is seen fit by Moore. In Sgt. Damon’s case, Moore obtained the rights to some footage from the NBC News archives, cut it down to fit his argument, and stuck it in. The act can only be described as a lazy, cheap, and thoroughly dishonest attempt to pull one over on viewers. Can you imagine being so afraid of your own positions that you would go to such lengths to advance them?

This isn’t the first time Moore has been sued, for that matter. As Dave Hardy and I wrote in our book, Moore was successfully sued by a former friend who won over $4 million dollars from the filmmaker in a 1993 judgement. The lawsuit stemmed from Moore’s 1986 film Roger & Me, and can you guess what it revolved around? That’s right! The friend successfully sued Moore for taking his words out of context and using them against him on film.

Of course, the fact that this time around the treachery involves a solider injured in battle just makes it all the more disgusting.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy has more.

It may not be well known to the rest of the country, but here in Maine, we have a reputation for sticking together and helping our fellow citizens out. It troubles me, then, to see a fellow resident- and web developer- apparently harassing another Maine web developer.

I’m talking here about Rob Landry, owner of the Portland-based Pemaquid Communications, and his recent comments to and about Lance Dutson, the Maine blogger who just two weeks ago faced a multi-million-dollar lawsuit from Maine Office of Tourism contractor Warren Kremer Paino.

While Rob is certainly entitled to his opinion, I’m sure he’d agree there are more respectful and intelligent ways of expressing differing viewpoints- ways that do not involve leaving anonymous comments about a fellow Maine web developer across different blogs.

I believe that habit is wrong on a couple of levels. First, it’s professionally inappropriate to go around trashing another Maine web developer by hiding behind anonymous comments. Secondly, it’s in poor taste- and bad citizenship- as a commenter to intentionally muddy your identity. Obviously, it begs the questions: why hide behind a pseudonymn when making comments? Are you unable to support your own arguments? Or jealous of a fellow web professional? I’m not suggesting these are Rob’s motives- rather, I’m making the point that we can’t be sure, since he’s establishing a track record of obscuring his actions to the point of suspicion.

Maybe we should give Rob a pass. After all, by his own admission, he’s a newcomer to the whole world of blogging. I know because back in March, Rob emailed me asking for advice on what blogs are and how to set one up.

Now, I notice that he’s running what appears to be his own blog called foresider and located at http://foresider.com. Though his name appears in the registration info for the domain name, he’s curiously absent from any credit on the website. Rob has even gone so far as to intentionally mischaracterize his relationship to foresider.com, claiming that it’s a blog that he “advertises on.” While that is technically true- a link to his company, Pemaquid Communications appears on the blog- that would of course be an entirely disingenuous statement if he were also to own and publish the blog.

In the interest of fairness I emailed Rob asking for his take on both his questionable comments and his anonymous blog. Sadly, while Rob thanked me for the opportunity to comment, he nonetheless chose to continue his evasive maneuvers.

When I asked him why he left anonymous comments, he replied that he “Didn’t really think much of it,” so we’re in agreement there. Next he stated that he “wanted to add a comment that linked to the Foresider rather than Pemaquid Communications.” But of course, a comment’s link can point to anywhere- a commenter’s name is something entirely different. Again, he’s either woefully unfamiliar of common behavior standards online, or he’s intentionally ducking.

When I asked Rob why Foresider.com is an anonymous blog, he replied that he “[didn't] understand the question.” He asked me to “elaborate”, so I wrote him a follow-up email and attempted to re-phrase my already direct questions in a more explicit manner. While he replied to my initial email within 12 hours, he has yet to reply to my follow-up. It’s been two days and counting, and given his record to date, I can’t say I expect a clear reply.

Rob, if you were to ask me for further advice, I’d let you know that anonymous blogging without a damn good reason is generally frowned upon in the blogosphere. If you have something to hide, by all means, hide it. I know of a couple of bloggers in Nepal who blogged anonymously for months to avoid imprisonment and murder. Their country’s radio and television lines had all been downed by the government, so in their case anonymity became essential to survival. You can understand then how it frustrates me to observe anonymity used for cowardly purposes.

So if you’re just trying to lay low, you might want to recognize that lurking both in comment sections, and on your very own blog, are two things that don’t exactly place you on the shortlist for the blogosphere citizen of the year award. And they certainly aren’t tactics that will foster a community among the ranks of the few, but growing, community of bloggers in Maine.

Congratulations to Lance Dutson, who is free from the legal black cloud imposed on him by Warren Kremer Paino Advertising. The agency dropped their lawsuit Friday, though they made no public comment on the matter. Cowards, to the end.

In his latest post on the now seven-month-long Pay-Per-Gate saga, Lance thanked his own legal council, along with Media Bloggers Association and our (disclosure: I am a board member) legal and public relations support. He also mentioned the work of Maine state rep Stephen Bowen, who just yesterday publicized a letter he wrote to Maine’s governor’s office asking that Warren Kremer Paino advertising’s state contract be investigated.

More on this soon…

In his ongoing ethical and now legal battle with inept state government officials and contractors, Lance Dutson has finally received meaningful public help from a State of Maine government official, some five months after his original reporting.

Today, Maine Representative Stephen Bowen (R – Rockport) announced he has asked Maine’s economic commissioner to suspend the contract of Warren Kremer Paino pending the resolution of the ad agencies lawsuit against Lance.

If you’re just joining this story, catch up here on Lance’s site.

Here’s Representative Bowen’s letter to the state economic commissioner, which does a nice job of summarizing this case. Here’s the biggest takeaway from his letter for me, a fellow resident and taxpayer in Maine:

“Working for the state means being answerable to the people,” said Rep. Bowen, who has been involved in the ongoing feud between Dutson and the state’s tourism officials since early this year. At the time, Dutson’s online criticisms of the tourism program brought on retaliatory emails to his business clients from one the state’s other tourism contractors, Nancy Marshall Communications. “Lance has the right to criticize state officials and contractors, and what has happened to him is outrageous and totally unacceptable,” said Rep. Bowen.

This is a commendable action by Representative Bowen, Lance’s state rep, and the only person on Maine’s payroll who has lifted as much as finger in Lance’s advocacy since the onset of this now national scandal.

As I’ve stated previously, when the dust settles here the real story will not be the clueless old-world ad agency that bungled themselves into a corner- those are a dime a dozen nowadays. Rather, it will be the abysmally poor behavior of the folks paid by and entrusted with our tax dollars. May they lose their jobs and be forced to find jobs in and meet the demands of the private sector, where intelligence, adaptation, and accountability all mean something.

The ‘Pay-per-Gate‘ saga, which I’ve written about twice before, has now crossed over into the local media here in Maine. Today, both the Knox County VillageSoup Times and the Portland Press Herald ran variations on the story.

Every blogger out there should understand that when one of us is threatened with a lawsuit, we’re all threatened. That’s not a cutesy cliche- it’s a serious point to keep in mind whenever we begin to forget that there are many members of the old guard- institutions such as government agencies and media outlets- with enough resources and fear to make life very difficult for individual bloggers or journalists.

I’m raising all this because I’m sorry to report that Lance Dutson, the blogger who is following an ongoing saga of incompetence and alleged harrasement by the Maine State Office of Tourism and some of its contractors (dubbed ‘Pay-per-Gate’), announced today that he’s been threatened with a lawsuit by Warren Kremer Paino, the advertising firm retained by the state’s Tourism Office.

He was served with the warning via letter on Saturday, mentioning it on his blog Sunday. Today, he upped the ante, publishing the letter on his blog.

The threat of a lawsuit is, allegedly, not the first tactic employed by the subjects of Lance’s ongoing reporting. He has previously written on his blog about attempts by various parties to contact his clients (he’s a web developer by trade) and even his wife’s employers in apparent attempts to disrupt his business.

If those accuastions of harrasment prove true- and let’s be clear, as they’re being described, they’re bordering on illegal, particularly for agents of a state government- then they make the appearance of a threatening letter from a law firm appear all the more ominious- not to mention devious.

Although he’s receiving some initial support from the Committee to Protect Bloggers, he deserves as much of our support as possible as he faces off against a corporation that appears ready to sue in order to silence him.

I strongly encourage any blogger reading this to promote this story in any way possible- link to it, share it, pass it on- so that in rallying around Lance, we make it that much harder for another independent publisher, blogger or otherwise, to be threatened not only with his blog, but with his livelihood.

Just got another email from Adholes, the worthless advertising news site. You may remember my post from three weeks ago, where I complained that Adholes continued to send me email messages after I had attempted to unsubscribe twice.

Well I’ve now tried to unsubscribe three times and they are continuing to send me messages. Again, this is the very definition of spam. Therefore, Adholes is engaging in not only unethical, but illegal practices in order to get their message out.

If they even care, Adholes may want to contact Netmodular.com, the third-party service they use to send their messages, and ask them what’s going on.

Alright, I’m off to try and unsubscribe for the fourth time!

UPDATE: Jeesh, these people are clueless idiots. I just spent a few minutes trying to follow their directions on ‘deleting’ my account with them- which, according to their instructions, involves logging in, changing my name to “delete”, removing my email, saving my account, and then logging out of my account.

That would be awesome, except…Their system won’t let me remove my email, nor is there an option to ‘logout’ of my account…so, wow. Just when you think incompetence can’t get much worse, it often surprises you.

Adholes, you are conducting yourselves quite poorly, and I can’t be the only person out there with these problems.