RickSpace

Forbes magazine features a cover-story about how blogs are evil and people who participate in the discussions on blogs are an evil lynch-mob… I won’t go into detail, rather I’ll just link to their article… which gets more people reading their information which I’m sure is in part the goal of this whole thing. In brief, I tend to agree with this Warner Crocker post.

So, the reason blogs are evil? People can say bad things about others… these things can be completely unsubstantiated. Could this not happen in the pre-blog world? Yes, it could, and did. I agree that some people misuse the tools at their disposal, but in the ever-popular pro-gun argument, it is not the tool that is evil or kills; it is the ill-guided user of the tool that does damage. I wish there were a way to make an honest call to bloggers, asking them to at least think and maybe even do a small amount of research before you swallow everything you hear hook-line-and-sinker. Does that mean I agree with Forbes? In a way I do… I don’t agree with their handling of the issue or the sensational way they chose to cover it, but I do wish more people would act credibly in the blog world. That does not, however, mean that I think they should be forced to by their providers, which is what Forbes is calling for.

So, in essence, I disagree with Forbes’ main point about needing people like Google to prosecute or at least turn over the names of people who post things that are in disagreement with corporate America. I also think Forbes messed up some of the facts when it said that Google makes a concerted effort to go out and shut down ’splogs’ because they skew page-rank. If you look at any discussions on predictive market analysis gathered from blogs, forums, etc, you will find many complain that Google ignores those ’splogs’ because of the ad-hits that they generate. I think probably there is truth in both sides of this, as in most cases.

I guess in general, I’m disappointed that Forbes actually published an article that condemns the freedoms of speech and press that are provided by the constitution, and upon which Forbes’ main business (magazine production/sales) is based. I don’t think their coverage was 100% incorrect or evil, but I think it was not really a ‘proper’ way to cover it. I am sure there will be many blogs out there calling for blood on this one, but not me. I have another question though…

How does this sort of article affect business based upon blogs, forums, etc and the content generated on them? Infoseek was noted in the article, but there are other companies such as BuzzMetrics and Umbria and I wonder if this is seen as a good or bad occurrence for them. If you take the ‘there is no bad publicity’ approach, then any time that blogs in general spend in the spotlight is good. However, do stories such as these decrease the market’s trust of blogs and perhaps their interest in viewing the trends? Or maybe these sorts of stories heighten the awareness that people ARE out there talking about your products, and maybe you need to tap into that? Interesting times and interesting thoughts make for tired mornings and distracted work.