What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
197 Comments
- Thepack1138, on 01/14/2008, -16/+215Seriously there is some flawed logic going on here. Turning off TVs is OK. Messing with people's presentations not cool. It's one thing to ***** with a TV when all its playing is Pirates of the Caribbean, its another thing when you ***** up some ones presentation and make them look like asses when it wasn't their fault at all.
- chris9902, on 01/14/2008, -12/+126You were invited to an industry trade show not a screening of Punk'd. Good work losing all your credibility in 1 day. That's impressive.
- inactive, on 01/14/2008, -17/+100Good job Giz, piss off the people that give you the content you need for your poorly laid out blog, smart. The Giz staffers that ran amok were clearly in the wrong, common sense says so. Just because big corporations are BIG doesnt mean you can just go around ***** with presentations that a person or people have work hard on.
Grow up Gizmodo. - esbern1, on 01/14/2008, -7/+57anyone else think they are just a bunch of annoying ***** who think they are awesome b/c they can hide behind anonymity? the great problem with the internet=every person has to act like a damn 15 year old.
- totorototoro, on 01/14/2008, -6/+52Comparing this to any form of "Civil Disobedience" is a ***** insult.
Just admit it, Gizmodo-it was a simple childish prank that went too far, and move on. - cawpin, on 01/14/2008, -11/+53Exactly, if I was Woz I'd be pissed for them comparing the two. Playing pranks on people is one thing but messing with their business is another.
Edit: I'm also just burying this without reading it so I don't give them any traffic. - SpacedCowboy, on 01/14/2008, -3/+44I've rented space at trade shows before, and if Gizmodo had done this to me, I'd not only be pissed off, I'd be suing their arse. A 20x20 booth at NAB costs ~£70,000 (or $140,000 if you're on that side of the pond) by the time you've paid for flights, hotels, drayage, booth-transport, etc., etc. That was a huge amount of money for my company, and if I happened to be demo-ing to ILM or Manix (both of whom spent more than £50,000 on our solution) when they came by and made my demo look as though it didn't work, I'd be furious.
If Gizmodo think they were being funny, I'd like to see them to see the funny side of a lawsuit.
Simon - MrUnderbridge, on 01/14/2008, -5/+40What are these guys, 10? I can't believe that was funny to anyone whose voice has changed. And equating their brainless, uncreative stunt to Woz's creative pranks, or worse yet, civil disobediance by the likes of Ghandi or MLK is insulting.
Turning off someone's presentation isn't civil disobediance, it's just childish. Grow up.
Loved the "sour grapes" angle of it too. Really? You're happy to be banned from CES? Then why did you beg for passes?
Seems completely idiotic to have a site which hangs on every word and rumor from electronics manufacturers, then slam them and the influence they wield. As if turning off their TVs would give them some sort of pathetic street cred.
Basically, grow up. - Otto, on 01/14/2008, -7/+42Weak argument. Nobody is bitching at Gizmodo because they're sucking up to the corporations. They're bitching at Gizmodo for being a bunch of lame-ass immature idiot douchebags, and making everybody else look bad by association.
In other words, Gizmodo, you actually proved what jerkoff morons you are, and everybody else is distancing themselves from you because you're a bunch of retarded school-children. Your prank was not funny or entertaining. It was childish, stupid, boring, and ultimately idiotic. Grow the ***** up. Or better yet, just ***** die already. - Protosome, on 01/14/2008, -5/+39That is the exact reason this prank was not just a prank. Presenters don't need doushebags turning off their monitors "for fun". How would gizmodo enjoy a novelty denial of service "prank" on their site? Turning off televisions in general at a show where companies and people are displaying the culmination of their hard work is also suspsect. Do those companies have to pay to get into CES and show their products?
- RaySir, on 01/14/2008, -4/+36So what I get from this is that if somebody were to "jokingly" hack their site, they'd be fine with it?
- DocHoliday22, on 01/14/2008, -4/+35Their tune would change if someone turned off the Gizmodo web servers...
- Caai07, on 01/14/2008, -14/+44Gizmodo, so what if your other competitors ran Apple's stock down or turned a blind eye for advertisers? They sucked it up and accepted the blame. I think you should do the same and stop acting like a little bitch.
- ThinkBox, on 01/14/2008, -3/+32People like you make security tighter at trade shows.... in 3 years you will be why they have cavity searches at CES.
You're a complete *****.
Why not just tase people when they give a presentation? - mobilehavoc, on 01/14/2008, -10/+38I guess they didn't get enough traffic from the video
- sleepingcitizen, on 01/14/2008, -9/+35your f******* with peoples livelihood when you mess with their presentations. if you cant see the issue with that then you have no business speaking on the matter.
- n8f8, on 01/14/2008, -8/+32Juvenile.
- inactive, on 01/14/2008, -7/+31jizmodo had credibility?
- pyper, on 01/14/2008, -8/+31Avoid the link to the gizmodo site here is the posting.
A Gizmodo writer has been banned from CES for a prank. But when I see some fellow press damning us for the joke, I feel sorry for them: When did journalists become the protectors of corporations? When did this industry, defined by pranksters like Woz, get so serious and in-the-pocket of big business? This is totally pathetic.
Consumer electronics Tech journalism is very tricky. Those who strictly cover commercial CE depend on a powerful handful of companies for the very lifeblood of their content. That's a dangerous position. A "favor" by a company can turn into the laziest kind of "scoop" imaginable, a scrap from the dinner table for the dogs of journalism. And every gadget journalist has wrestled with his conscience as he gains more access and becomes inseparable from the industry and depends on more and more of these scoops.
But bloggers and trade journalists, so desperate for a seat at the table with big mainstream publications have it completely backwards: You don't get more access by selling out for press-credentials first chance you get, kowtowing to corporations and tradeshows and playing nice; you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things. Our prank pays homage to the notion of independence and independent reporting. And no matter how much access the companies give us, we won't ever stop being irreverent. That's what this prank was about and what the press should understand.
Critics talk about the prank costing dollars and jobs. Motorola said "no harm, no foul" and enjoyed the joke. (Although they will be checking every body cavity I have for IR blasters next press conference.) Were there AV techs who got in trouble? They need only show their bosses the video to be blame-free.
Many of our harshest critics have done far worse than clicking off a few TVs. I'm talking about ethical lapses such as accepting paid junkets to Japan by Nikon, or free trips to Korea by Samsung. Turning a blind eye to Apple's mistakes when they didn't make an iPhone SDK and sought to lock down the handset. Stock prices torn downward by publishing incorrect leaked info. Writing about companies that also pay you for advertorial podcast work. All of these examples are offenses from the last year. And I consider those offenses far worse than our prank, because it ultimately it puts the perpetrators on the wrong team. As one reporter put it while chiding me, "Journalists are guests in the houses of these companies." Not first and foremost! We are the auditors of companies and their gadgets on behalf of the readers. In this job, integrity and independence is far more important than civil or corporate obedience. Every tech journalist has to decide whether or not he's writing for companies or for readers. When they start writing for the companies, covering all their press releases and regurgitating marketing jargon, you do no one any favors (not even the companies, which already hire press release machines).
Gizmodo was given access to film and interview Bill Gates again this year. Some pubs might have softened up on questioning him, but we didn't: We got the guy to open up and talk about Windows and its shortcomings like he never has before, not even on 60 minutes. If that's not journalism, I don't know what is. If we had been in the pocket of this industry, we never would have asked such a risky question - and probably wouldn't have been granted the interview to begin with.
In closing, I will fill you in on our little secret: TVs turn back on when you press the power button a second time. So, I can assure you, everything is going to be OK once the companies find their clickers between the couch cushions of our prank and your obedience. Will our critics find it as easy to turn their integrity back on? I doubt it. - diggerine, on 01/14/2008, -4/+27All Gizmodo representatives should have been banned from CES for life.
Gizmodo shows no regret regarding their stupid prank. They in fact defend it. This means they believe it's no big deal. This means they do not think it would be a big deal if they do it again, therefor they would probably do it again, given the chance.
Gizmodo reps should be considered suspect at all similar events they try to go to. Given their incorrigibility, I think they should be banned from all such events, until they sincerely change their ways.
They were a poor example for everybody, and reflect badly on bloggers. - DocHoliday22, on 01/14/2008, -3/+26I would be really pissed off if I went to the CES show after paying for the tickets and then having to watch some ass with his toy turn off all the monitors. This isn't about large corportions. It's more of a spectator thing for the general public and journalists that write about it.
- ThinkBox, on 01/14/2008, -5/+27Bury this article as spam... lets not give them the traffic. They are just attention whores...
- chris9902, on 01/14/2008, -2/+23enough to get to CES. but now that's gone.
- airwalkery2k, on 01/14/2008, -6/+26Oh no, you mean there are consequences for ruining presentations by companies and thus harming their ability to sell their product? But it was just a joke! And it was mildly funny the first couple of times they did it out of the 50 or so presentations they ruined.
- aznhomig, on 01/14/2008, -1/+21There's a difference between civil disobedience and being a douchebag.
Gizmodo deserved the banhammer. - overtoke, on 01/14/2008, -4/+23ok - boycott gizmodo completely. what a bunch of crybabies.
- asdfer, on 01/14/2008, -5/+23Where's "Gizmodo B-Gone" when you need it?????
- mateo60, on 01/14/2008, -2/+20Gawker pays these jokers by pageviews. They're just trying to generate traffic. Don't fall for it.
- CraigJ, on 01/14/2008, -3/+21"Gizmodo makes a great point." No. They don't.
- inactive, on 01/14/2008, -5/+22Good riddance, need more traffic I see?
- CraigJ, on 01/14/2008, -3/+20If you can't do the time... seriously, there is funny, and then there is excessive douchebaggery. What they did is the latter. Quit ***** whining and deal you little bitches. Oh, and I'm making damn sure Adbolck is on when I go to their site. Buried for lame, whinny crybaby ***** that it is.
- jhuebel, on 01/14/2008, -3/+19A perfect example of biting the hand that feeds you.
- RadiantBeing, on 01/14/2008, -2/+18The purpose of journalism is to reveal and disseminate facts, not to pull childish and nasty pranks. One is a proper way of sticking it to corporations, the other is plain stupidity. You're not a corporate whore just because you treat people in a civil matter. That's called common decency. If Gizmodo wants to lower the level of discourse to mean-spirited pranks then they obviously don't deserve access to trade shows and the like.
- inactive, on 01/14/2008, -4/+20Buried as Gizmodo spam.
- Emused, on 01/14/2008, -5/+20This guy is a wanker,period.
- ericdano, on 01/14/2008, -2/+16No, Gizmodo, you are missing the point. If you did the same thing at MacWorld, to Steve Jobs, would it be a "joke"? Would Woz do that? Would Woz have done what you guys did? Perhaps the general TV part, but not during someone's presentation.
Another reason I'm not going to your site anymore. - scabbers, on 01/14/2008, -5/+19Gizmondo should be banned from digg "for the lulz".
- JasonCox, on 01/14/2008, -0/+14Giz who? I read Engadget.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 01/14/2008, -1/+15If Gizmodo was 10 minutes into their live keynote coverage and I "turned off" their web site, would they laugh? No they are in the middle of trying to prove their worth in the tech world and some ***** just shut-off their product. A product they didnt even sink millions into. Admit it Gizmodo you pulled a dick move... and bragged about it. The Woz will shock you with a pen or make you think the CIA is calling, but not during your presentation. So don't put it on him.
- Lou3000, on 01/14/2008, -0/+14Brian Lam is a bitch. If you don't want to sell out, write a decent ***** article with a critical perspective. Pulling a prank doesn't garner you any more independence or credibility.
- thomasoa, on 01/14/2008, -2/+16Yeah, this is 'funny' the way kids with laser pointers at the movies is 'funny.'
- Gryffydd, on 01/14/2008, -2/+15Way to go Giz for making the whole blogosphere take a step back from gaining credibility as a legitimate form of journalism.
- chicaneuk, on 01/14/2008, -1/+14I don't understand why they're getting all high and mighty about this. There is a difference between a bit of fun and flat out unprofessionalism. They deserved to be given the cold shoulder by the CES folks after that crap they pulled.
CES is for journalists and IT professionals - not silly kids with prankster gadgets. Clearly they haven't learned their lesson yet if they're still whining about it and not just putting their hands up to say sorry. - 00Dan, on 01/14/2008, -2/+15So, if I put a transmitter in the trunk of my car and park next to Giz's office knocking their WiFi offline, it's just a harmless prank. Right?
- RadiantBeing, on 01/14/2008, -2/+14Sorry, I can't see Woz screwing with someone's presentation. Anyone who has given a presentation and dreaded it can understand what a prick move that was. Have a little compassion for the people who work for the "evil" corporations. They're human beings just like you.
- insertAliasHere, on 01/14/2008, -0/+11This sort of thing is why bloggers aren't seen as real journalists. There are a lot of them that are perfectly professional reporters with non-traditional mediums, but then there are these ***** that set the entire group back.
- Lou3000, on 01/14/2008, -0/+10Engadget calls Palm out on their crappy tech, Gizmodo ruins a press conference and then defends their actions. Which is more productive?
- CraigJ, on 01/14/2008, -1/+11the article above indicates to me that they have not really accepted the blame, even if they said they have. We did it, blah, blha, blah, not that big of a deal, blah, blah, blah, why are you all hatin' on us, blah, blah, blah...
- DocHoliday22, on 01/14/2008, -0/+9Yeah agreed. Gizmodo is run by Gawker Media and owned by Nick Denton and he's apprently worth 140 Million - So what are they saying that they're not a commercial operation themselves?
- angrynorwegian, on 01/14/2008, -4/+13took them this long to come up with THAT?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is