Why? Because the same people are writing about the same things they were when I started, with the difference being that we're all drunk with consulting work so the writing is shittier (or we've hired a college student to do it for us), and more people are inserting themselves into the "conversation" to make a quick buck every single day.

I don't really have the energy or the inclination for a full rant here, but I stumbled upon (and I don't mean Stumbled Upon) this post by Steve Rubel (who is a friend) and had to at least spew something or other. See, I don't read Micro Persuasion (or a lot of other blogs) regularly like I used to, and though I'm a fan I've never been an avid reader just 'cause I'm not a tech geek. So I just thought I'd check in to see what's doin'.

So we get Steve saying too many bloggers are writing lazy, boring shit, which they are, and then we have Steve promising to try to do better, which in all probability he simply won't have time to do, and then we have a bunch of commenters who might as well have written their posts in 2005. Commenters bitching that Steve is ignoring them; commenters kissing Steve's ass in hopes of some future link love; and even Jeremy Pepper, who still hasn't tired of his little snipes at Steve after all these friggin' years.

Does anyone wonder now why I'd prefer to do blog posts about Paris and Lindsay having vag slips in Africa?

I'm like Jack on the bridge in the season finale of Lost last year, only I don't want to go back to Blog Island. I want to blow up Blog Island.

I think the best thing that could happen to improve the quality of blogging would be to shut down Digg, Techmeme and Twitter; for Google to stop indexing blog content; and for Technorati (even as f'ed up as it already is) to go away,too. Then you'd have people blogging who actually give two shits about what they're writing.

Today finding worthwhile content online is like looking for the best ballet dancer in a mosh pit. Good luck with that.

Labels: Digg, google, jeremy pepper, Marketing Views, steve rubel, Techmeme, twitter

Traditionally, PR people have been trained -- and have taught their clients or employers -- to be careful about what they say to the media. "Controlling the message" has been a central tenet of the public relations business.

This approach ensures a jackhammer consistency in public statements and protects against media bloopers. But it is also the single biggest complaint that journos have against flacks.

Like the cop who thinks a suspect must be guilty because he's hired a lawyer, many journalists wonder, "Why does a company even need a PR person if it has nothing to hide?" And of the PR person, the journo asks, "Why can't you just be candid and spontaneous, and not be so guarded in what you say to me?"

It's a nice thought; but is that really what journalists want?

On Tuesday, Jim Louderback, the editor in chief of PC Magazine, blogged about a comment made by Steve Rubel, the prominent blogger for Edelman PR. Rubel had Twitter-ed that his free subscription to PC Magazine "goes in the trash."

Louderback's response to this candid, spontaneous remark was less than forgiving.

Should I instruct the staff to avoid covering Edelman's clients? Ignore their requests for meetings, reviews and news stories? Blacklist the "Edelman.com" email domain in our exchange servers, effectively turning their requests into spam? If we're not relevant to Edelman's employees, then how could we be relevant to their clients?

He concluded that "in the future, if I'm on the fence, I'll probably be somewhat less inclined to take a meeting with one of Edelman's clients."

Louderback's comments are flawed logically. Why assume that if one Edelman employee doesn't read PC Magazine, others don't, either?

The truth is, Louderback was simply offended by Rubel's offhand jab -- and, as payback, threatened to use his organizational power as a cudgel against Rubel's employer and clients.

That's a real argument in favor of honesty, isn't it?

As you would expect, Rubel quickly assumed the position and apologized to Louderback, explaining that he only meant to say that he reads the online version of PC Magazine instead.

Is that the truth? It doesn't matter, does it? It was the response demanded by Louderback, if Rubel and Edelman knew what was good for them.

In other words, be careful what you say in the media, guys. Watch your language and control your messages, or pay the price.

One final point. Even if you believe that Louderback is justified in wielding his power in this way, does this best serve his readers?

Essentially, the editor is saying that he'll decide what his staff writes about, and what his magazine publishes, based on the standing of his personal relationship with a particular PR person or agency.

Hmmm. Shouldn't Louderback be pursuing the best story ideas that come his way -- without prejudice, no matter the source?

Candidly, yes.

(Other thoughts on Rubel v. Louderback here, here, here and here.)

Labels: journalism, media training, public relations, steve rubel, twitter

Labels: deep thoughts, twitter

Labels: pc magazine, steve rubel, twitter

Steve, you're crazy for throwing this magazine out!

Labels: pc magazine, steve rubel, twitter

I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the populous of the Interwebs with this post.

Labels: pc magazine, steve rubel, twitter