Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1.    #1  
    Palm Pre Discussion Gone Terribly Wrong | Palm WebOS

    Kinda funny to see him going ape poopie.... on this tech crunch guy, kinda old but thought someone else would like to hear some swear words on saturday...
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  2. nhyde's Avatar
    Posts
    118 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #2  
    Good for Leo.
    I really hate Arrington, and I hope his CrunchPad fails.
    Arrington has always been an arrogant *****.
    Number of Pre's in household: 2, one for my wife and one for myself.
    Follow me on Twitter @Nhyde
  3. #3  
    Oh my God. I am sure that they were all sent both devices to test fro FREE.
  4. #4  
    Yes, an oldie but a goodie.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  5.    #5  
    I get why he is upset, his integrity is being directly challenged. On his show no less! but bloggers need to have some ethics, and he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start...The FTC is going to be coming down with some new rules for bloggers because of the obvious and flagrant conflicts of interests being driven by pay for good press schemes...
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  6. #6  
    That was HYSTERICAL! Perfect way to kick off my Saturday. Classic smack down
    "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." ~ Samuel Beckett
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    but bloggers need to have some ethics, and he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start...
    Let's be fair about it. He didn't get to finish a single sentence, beyond "I've got a Pre," before he was interrupted. For all we know, he could have been about to say, "I've got a Pre, which was loaned to me for this review." It's not like he even flinched or changed his tone of voice when he answered the question about whether or not he paid for it. I obviously can't speak for the man, but I can say with confidence that he showed no visible signs whatsoever of being uncomfortable with the question, or of being reluctant in any way to disclose the answer. He just very matter-of-factly replied that it was a loaner (and then was interrupted again). I think it's likely he would have mentioned it whether he'd been asked or not.

    What disappoints me in Leo's behavior here is not anything he did or didn't say about how he got his Pre, but the unprofessional way in which he reacted to Arrington's further goading. Quite obviously Arrington wanted to get under Leo's skin, and he succeeded. End result, Leo ends up looking the fool, which I'm sure is exactly what Arrington wanted, as evidenced by his "What are you gonna do about it?" comment.

    If Leo didn't want to continue to deal with Arrington after his accusations, fine; I wouldn't either. The right way to handle it, rather than cursing up a storm and then abandoning the discussion altogether, would simply have been to state emphatically but politely that Arrington was way out of line, disconnect him, and then continue the session with the others.
    Last edited by ABBlockhead; 07/11/2009 at 11:16 AM.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    but bloggers need to have some ethics, and he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start...
    Is there seriously anyone out there that thinks that every reviewer goes out and buys the device they're reviewing? The providing of review units is completely standard in most industries. Car magazines don't buy every car they review, gun magazines don't buy every gun they review, and so on. Maybe people are fixating on the "free" part and not on the "review" part. Why is the word "free" needed? Are "paid" review units so common that they have to be differentiated somehow? Anyway, it's a review unit. It's going back to the owner when the time is up. How could that affect the review? There would be absolutely nothing unethical about not mentioning that it's a review unit, particularly since everyone already knows that.

    And, yeah, everything he said about Arrington was correct. The guy is "trollish" and is a complete dumbass. I really can't understand why anyone, anywhere gives a damn what he thinks. That said, I wish that the host had just said, "Thanks for your comments, but you're trolling now. You're off the show.", then booted him.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by froggersloth View Post
    Is there seriously anyone out there that thinks that every reviewer goes out and buys the device they're reviewing? The providing of review units is completely standard in most industries. Car magazines don't buy every car they review, gun magazines don't buy every gun they review, and so on. Maybe people are fixating on the "free" part and not on the "review" part. Why is the word "free" needed? Are "paid" review units so common that they have to be differentiated somehow? Anyway, it's a review unit. It's going back to the owner when the time is up. How could that affect the review? There would be absolutely nothing unethical about not mentioning that it's a review unit, particularly since everyone already knows that.

    And, yeah, everything he said about Arrington was correct. The guy is "trollish" and is a complete dumbass. I really can't understand why anyone, anywhere gives a damn what he thinks. That said, I wish that the host had just said, "Thanks for your comments, but you're trolling now. You're off the show.", then booted him.
    There is no problem with simply reviewing the phone and sending it back, but if your sponsored (paid, free gear ect..) by a company can your review be considered impartial? Would the public think it is?

    I am not saying that is what is happening in this case, I am saying that it has become a journalistic integrity problem that could be leading consumers to believe a review is impartial when in fact the "blogger" is being paid for that positive review. This is not exclusive to cellphones, its such an issue the FTC is looking into ways of expanding disclosure laws to include the blogosphere...
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  10. #10  
    Leo Laporte is one of the most respected tech guys in the industry and has always conducted himself with nothing but integrity and professionalism. So in the dozen years or so that he's been covering tech, between all his (former) TV shows, podcasts, and radio shows, to have him blow up once to some jerk goading him is completely forgivable. And I even applaud him in this case. In fact, the only complaint I've had about Leo over the years is that that he has been too nice, not fighting for his point of view hard enough. It was really nice to see him hold his ground, even if it meant cancelling the rest of that show.
  11. texasjack's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    94 Global Posts
    #11  
    I love my pre!
  12. Kedar's Avatar
    Posts
    994 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,071 Global Posts
    #12  
    Can someone explain this to me? He got a free review unit and ... what?

    And yeah, ABBlockhead, that would probably be the best way to deal with people like Arrington.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedar View Post
    Can someone explain this to me? He got a free review unit and ... what?

    And yeah, ABBlockhead, that would probably be the best way to deal with people like Arrington.
    the guest was insinuating that his review was biased because he did not pay for the unit..
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    There is no problem with simply reviewing the phone and sending it back, but if your sponsored (paid, free gear ect..) by a company can your review be considered impartial? Would the public think it is?

    I am not saying that is what is happening in this case, I am saying that it has become a journalistic integrity problem that could be leading consumers to believe a review is impartial when in fact the "blogger" is being paid for that positive review. This is not exclusive to cellphones, its such an issue the FTC is looking into ways of expanding disclosure laws to include the blogosphere...
    You should have stopped at your first comma. The rest of the post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand. It was a short-term, loaned review unit. It wasn't a free Pre. It wasn't a sponsorship. It was a review unit that he had already sent back (as of now, I mean). You said, "he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start." That's not relevant. The word "free" is in every way completely irrelevant, in the same way that we don't bother mentioning that we checked out a "free book" from the library for a week. It was a loan of a testing device. If it had been a free Pre, as in, "Here, have a Pre, and you don't have to send it back", then it would matter. That wasn't the case. Not even close. This is a complete non-issue that Arrington decided to be a whiny little dumbass about.
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by froggersloth View Post
    You should have stopped at your first comma. The rest of the post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand. It was a short-term, loaned review unit. It wasn't a free Pre. It wasn't a sponsorship. It was a review unit that he had already sent back (as of now, I mean). You said, "he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start." That's not relevant. The word "free" is in every way completely irrelevant, in the same way that we don't bother mentioning that we checked out a "free book" from the library for a week. It was a loan of a testing device. If it had been a free Pre, as in, "Here, have a Pre, and you don't have to send it back", then it would matter. That wasn't the case. Not even close. This is a complete non-issue that Arrington decided to be a whiny little dumbass about.
    I don't think this is a case of free equipment being given to leo. However there are instances where bloggers are being paid in one way or another without disclosure to the people reading their articles. It is relevant because that was the position Arrington was taking. While I agree I thought it was uncool to question Leos integrity on his own show, it does make sense to point out that there are people receiving freebies for positive reviews...
    Last edited by mrloserpunk; 07/11/2009 at 02:11 PM.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    You should slow down when reading. And reread my post. I don't think this is a case of free equipment being given to leo. However there are instances where bloggers are being paid in one way or another without disclosure to the people reading their articles. It is relevant because that was the position Arrington was taking. While I agree I thought it was uncool to question Leos integrity on his own show, it does make sense to point out that there are people receiving freebies for positive reviews...
    You weren't talking about people in general. You talked about the host specifically. You said:

    ...he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start
    No, he shouldn't have. Either you're incorrectly criticizing the host or you're using this as a platform to address an unrelated topic, an action known as threadjacking. What, Arrington's stupidity is a good reason to say that the host was deficient in his disclosures? Yes, Arrington tried to make that accusation. He was wrong. If I accuse Obama of strangling a puppy in front of a kindergarten class and am shown to be wrong, should the evening news run specials on the evils of strangling puppies in front of kindergartners? Again, non-issue.
  17.    #17  
    I'm jacking my own thread? What was the topic again?

    If you disagree that there are bloggers or journalists that are being paid or otherwise compensated for positive reviews, I can accept our difference in opinion. I made it clear(at least I thought) that I did not think that this was the case in this instance, but rather that it does happen and it is something the FTC is looking into to keep consumers in the know about whom they are taking their advice from and any conflict of interest that may exist with the reviewer. either way, it was a funny video clip and made me laugh.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  18. #18  
    If you listen to Leo's show you'd know that he told listeners weeks in advance that he'd be getting a review unit.
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdmogren View Post
    If you listen to Leo's show you'd know that he told listeners weeks in advance that he'd be getting a review unit.
    I have not listened to his show very much, but I appreciate you pointing that out!
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    I'm jacking my own thread? What was the topic again?

    If you disagree that there are bloggers or journalists that are being paid or otherwise compensated for positive reviews, I can accept our difference in opinion. I made it clear(at least I thought) that I did not think that this was the case in this instance, but rather that it does happen and it is something the FTC is looking into to keep consumers in the know about whom they are taking their advice from and any conflict of interest that may exist with the reviewer. either way, it was a funny video clip and made me laugh.
    Sure, that makes perfect sense... Here's a video of someone who *didn't* accept compensation for a good review as a lead-in to a discussion of people accepting compensation for good reviews. Got it.

    ...he should have told us it was a free review unit from the start
    Really, I think I wouldn't have even bothered if you hadn't accused him of deficiency in his disclosures. Without that, this thread would have simply been a funny video with an awkward segue into an unrelated topic. But that accusation jumps right out. On top of that, it turns you into a fill-in for Arrington. I could be wrong, but I have a hard time believing anyone would want that... Apparently this is a weird little pet topic for him, assuming he's not just doing whatever he can to be disruptive (which is entirely possible).
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions