I really am quite aghast at Robert Scoble's latest post, following on from the Vista controversy.
We should now start deriding people who link to non-credible sources. I
will. Anyone who links to that jerk down in Australia anymore is simply
not doing bloggers any favors.
At our recent MediaConnect Forum I stood in front of the audience of PRs and marketers and recommended they run, not walk, to their nearest book seller and buy a copy of Scoble's Naked Conversations. I explained how they needed to realise that they can not stop the "conversation" and so they needed to be a part of it. I mentioned how Naked Conversations explains in this new world of democratised publishing that companies need to be transparent and open with their customers and potential customers. And so on, and so on.
Doesn't this quote I've broken out, piss on everything that Scoble has previously championed? How does using one's influence to call on bloggers not to link to someone, have anything to do with "naked conversations". How does wanting to tread down a point-of-view in anyway constitute being transparent.
And for that matter how does calling someone a "jerk" not constitute the kind of "snark" that Scoble has railed against in recent weeks. You don't do your credibility a lot of good when you complain about someone's professionalism and in the process lower yourself to name-calling.
Fact of the matter is the efficiency of the blogosphere was highlighted to a tee by this episode. Smarthouse posted its story, some people supported it, some people criticised it. The reader had every opportunity to weigh-up for themselves where the truth lay. That's transparency and I'd argue exactly the opposite to Scoble and say that anyone who is trying to serve a readership, be they journalist, blogger, publisher has a duty to their audience to give both sides of the story and LET THE READER MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND.
Scoble, dude, run, don't walk to the bookshelf, grab your book, sit down and re-read what you're supposed to stand for.