you should mention in this article how 99% of the people who work for techcrunch have an iphone and have twitter, and thats a conflict of interest for the articles yoiu make. (100 per day on twitter)

Mike You do a lot of crazy things – but this wasn’t one of them – the question was valid and you never suggested any impropriety on leo’s part.

Man that blew up quickly. Like a grenade with the pin pulled out.

Leo shortly after responded on FF:
“Just to be clear, I almost always buy the products I review, mostly because I don’t like “owing” the PR folks and I hate the “when are you planning on covering it” phone calls, but also to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. My policy is to always return the unit and buy one if I want to keep using it. In this case I accepted a review unit because I was concerned that I wouldn’t have one in time to review it on the radio show. It’s a 7-day return, as I told Mike. The proffer of a review unit IN NO WAY affects my opinion of a product. It is a standard industry practice to accept review units. Palm never implied or asked for a positive review and they know that if they did so I would never deal with them again. I’ve worked for 30 years to prove my integrity. Mike’s insinuation that I was somehow “on the take” with Palm was about the worst insult you can offer any technology journalist. It’s not true. It’s never been true. My opinions are my own and have never been influenced by any vendor at any time.”

I’m sorry but Mike, you were way out of line on this one. Leo is a HIGHLY respected journalist who has high morales. You know him well enough to see that. I think we all make mistakes, but this one was to great to be ignored. We will see what Leo does, but I think the way you broached the question was to aggressive.

Full show here: http://www.archive.org/download/NewGillmorGang/GillmorGang2009.06.06.mp3

It was a great show until the final minute

“We were promised one but it wasn’t delivered.”

Wow that’s a salty laporte. Though its a completely valid quesiton I do have to say though that Arrington could have been a bit nicer. Laporte goes completely batshit though — seems like a lot of pent-up anger.

So definitely definitely not pre-planned Mike…? I don’t believe so, but others reckon so

Leo felt offended Mike because he felt you were accusing him of being dishonest. You of all people should understand that he’s not.

Mike has been slowly winding Leo up over the weeks, and this caused the bottle to explode

You have some history with Leo that you may intentionally or unintentionally omitted. He called you a troll a couple of weeks ago about some comments you made. I don’t remember the specifics well so I won’t recount. Perhaps you had a conversation with Leo about the earlier event?

I think sometimes in a world of conflicts of interest and the like, some people find it hard to contemplate that some people are utterly beyond reproach and have thirty years of reputation in that regard

Maybe Tech Crunch should compare its reviews of companies that sponsor it versus those that are similarly situated, but don’t sponsor TC. That would be an interesting exercise!

I agree i was too aggressive, and he didn’t have context on the story brewing in the background about the possible shadiness around the launch. Part of the aggressiveness is just how the Gillmor Gang goes – it tends to roll that way with the personalities that Steve puts on the show. Part of it was because I totally thought he was joking.

But like I said above, I apologize to Leo. This wasn’t about whether his opinion was being influenced on the device. It was just about being up front with the audience on the conflict of interest.

This strikes me as one of those moments that I am sure both parties wish they could hit the reset button on. I’m just impressed that they were able to get there so fast without any evidence of drinking. It usually takes a few vodka tonics before I can clear a room that fast. :P

Suggestion to Michael Arrington: If you think of Leo as your friend it doesn’t matter why he blew up – something is wrong. My suggestion would be to send him a note saying “sorry if I upset you” (and that needs to be done away from the spotlight)

Oh well. I think a bit more decency on TV would be beneficial to everybody.
I think that Mike’s question was very near accusation and the re-action was rapidly insulting. Overall this does not give any of you any sort of credit.

PS: and we did not get to hear your opinions about the Pre.

Disclosure: when I got back from Virginia this morning a Palm Pre was waiting for me. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t know it was coming. It is only for seven days (I have to send it back).

Now, that said, I think it’s a valid question to wonder what Mike is wondering. It’s something I always ask myself when I get goodies from the industry. Did I get these because I’m too nice? I used to be on the inside with the Amazon Kindle team, for instance, then did a nasty review of the unit, and I haven’t been given a review unit since.

I did give the Palm Pre a nice review back in January at CES and have generally been pushing it pretty nicely for them since. I think it’s a great device and the first one I’ve seen that comes up to Apple’s standards for fit and finish. Getting the review unit today doesn’t change my feelings about that.

As for questioning Leo’s ethics, I’ve seen many times that his ethics are above question and I agree that getting your ethics questioned isn’t fun and isn’t something I take to kindly either. So I understand Leo’s response, too.

That said, I wish we could have a calm discussion about this issue, because it’s one that affects the coverage companies get. Often when I get free stuff, though, I find I’m actually harsher on the product, or, even, refrain from writing about it altogether because it just makes me feel conflicted because this argument, or one similar to it, plays inside my head.

Mike does poke at people, which is why I love him (even after he’s done that to me several times). He’s a good influence in our industry because he does make us think and gets us to talk about issues we otherwise wouldn’t talk about. It’s not always fun at the time, though.

Very unfortunate that this situation occured. Happen to think highly of both of you but I have to admit that I’m disappointed in Leo for losing it and you for instigating and being aggressive.
Best thing to do is kiss and make up ASAP!

no idea. really.

its seems like people above reproach would lose it when someone ask them to disclose a conflict of interest. that’s why I’m so confused.

Problem was speaking over the host, nobody likes for somebody to take over the show.

i called him and left him a voicemail right after the show.

Painfully over the top….

Wow, can’t say Ive ever seen leo like that. There has to be a bit more to it.

It’s like that movie “The Best of Times” “Reno Hightower is being an asshole, but when he’s an asshole, he’s the best quarterback in the whole state”

I would just let it go and let time heal it. It’s sad in a way because you and Leo have the utmost in integrity, and that’s why you both have successful businesses, but your just two different styles.

He had a right to be angry, but not that angry as to pull the plug. Plus it would have been far more valuable to have a real throw down debate about the Pre. Too bad it has to get personal.

Oh well, just let it roll. Time will iron things out.

Best,
Stephen Pickering

Odd. I didn’t think that questioning journalistic ethics and integrity is taboo.

Mike you are jerk very often.. BUT THIS WAS TOTALLY FINE.. you behaved very well. I think the guy made a jerk of himself and he is the ones to apologize. Calling you assholes, jerks, trolls..
And I am glad you brought this thing up.

I’m not sure how i’d feel if this was all staged to be honest..

I am a big leo fan and I work on wallstreet where conflict of interest is just a fact of the business. I believe there was nothing wrong with mike pointing out it was a review unit and I believe leo took this one to literally. By his own admission leo doesnt like to get review units for free for just this reason, so why would he take such offense to the fact that this was a review unit. Again, I am a leo fan and his integrity is stellar and it was obvious why he would take a review unit in this case. But, that said, if he didnt recognize the conflict exists, then why would he make a point not to take the 100′s of review items he is offered regularly. I say it again, I am a leo fan, but mike also asked if he was joking, so that shows that mike wasnt seriously questioning his integrity, he was just making the point, as they do on cnbc with any wallstreet person they interview, if there is a conflict and that is that. Mike apologized and I think leo will accept it and it will go down as just one of those things…..

I don’t like Mike’s tone either, but it helps to know more the person being questioned which is key to keep BS out of GG.

I actually like Leo, but this time I was expecting more from him, it was not a hard ball, he didn’t need to overreact.

In such a young industry with so much turn over there’s something to be said about the sustained longevity and relevancy Laporte has displayed. The question is, does that buy him the default assumption of honesty? I think so, to an extent, but did it warrant that kind of reaction?

Don’t we expect the Leo Laportes and David Pogues of the world to get free shit before most people do? Isn’t that their job?

I think Arrington’s mistake here is that this is a phone review, not a murder trial or a contract negotiation. Interrupting a guy mid-sentence with “alright lets get these disclosures out of the way” is the kinda douchy move that makes people hate lawyers.

I think you will find writing stories base on a financial or other form of incentive is a conflict of interest not merely being a user.

i understand that you wanted to point out that he didnt have to buy the it so he probably is leaning a bit towards liking the Pre, but leo is highly respectable and is above bribery and the such. Many things have happened in the past that leo was professional enough to hold back but this one was larger and pushed him over the edge. i agree with leo in this but i see your point mike.

So you might have done a little research about the Palm Pre, but you clearly didn’t think about the research over time you’ve done on Leo. You came across like a dick and this post should be an apology upfront instead of trying to put out a blog post that has the appearance of being news.

Hi Mike,

There are many situations in life that we learn from, this may be one you will and can look at over and over again for the obvious solution. I commend you for apologizing here but I would rather you apologized to Leo’s face before we read about it. That’s just me.

I know you are a passionate man and the profession you are in is not unlike a double-edged sword. Your damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

One of the things I have struggled with during the Gilmour Gang Show is the apparent disrespect you seem to have for those around you. I only have the show as my only source to pass judgment as I do not know you personally. I have learned in life that given enough time, waiting long enough, everyone shows you their good side. So I’ll trust you do indeed have a good side.

I recognize your job is to find truth, draw attention to you & Techcrunch for it’s success but I think you may want to consider a different approach. Or at least be more tactful in who your are accusing of ethical misconduct.

Having said all that, I should walk a mile in your shoes first before passing judgment but in this particular incident you were out of line.

I hope you can recover the relationship with Leo with a renewed level of respect for him and more importantly yourself.

Many Blessings,

Owen Greaves

Leo is being WAY too sensitive. Dude needs to humble himself – Mike you were not out of line at all. To me, Leo comes off as the turd.

Definitely a major contributor.

Mike, you should have asked if it was a loaner to be returned first. That would have easily avoided it. You should apologize to Leo.

Leo has been up front 100% from the minute he put the Pre on his desk still in its box. If you gave him about 5 more seconds before jumping him .. he would have told you it was a review unit.. and if you knew anything about Leo’s feeling on the phone thus far…its less than a glowing review. I guess its only fair that this week Leo kicked you off.. unlike a few weeks ago when you ran off like a child when Loren called you out on your contribution to the show.

I’m also a bit confused. If signing up for a service or buying a product implies a conflict of interest, how are we supposed to review stuff?

I think you should apologize in a proper public fashion. Either edit the “Ouch” post, or better still, write a new “Sorry” post.

Completely agree.

well, the issue is more complex than that. As I said above, most loaners are never returned. But more important is just the fact that some people get units and some don’t, and that Palm seems to be deciding based on how positive they think the coverage will be. That’s the story that’s brewing, which has nothing to do with Leo, and which I would have talked about if the show hadn’t imploded.

I think ‘blew up’ and ‘lost it’ might be a bit strong, but in years of watching and listening to Laporte, I’ve never seen him that pissed.

New moon.

Leo said more then once that the phone was on loan and you kept going on how he got a free phone. Why isn’t this mentioned by you. It’s your fault saying Leo got a free phone when he didn’t get one!

It still has “Michael Arrington is a troll…” on his wikipedia profile…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Arrington. Some ought to see to that…

And if this was planned and scripted to generate traffic, I think there would have been a better script. There also wouldn’t be talking over each other. Leo was trying to explain he was going to go buy one, but would have to wait. Seems real enough.

Leo was not professional Period. This is not how you react in the industry.

He basically showed the world that he is a liability regardless on what show he is on.

A man in his caliber needs to deal with questions like that, he needs to have the stature, humor to circumvent stuff like that. Otherwise he is toast and anyone can punch that button if they want to.

Lets face it time moves on and those old guys just can’t keep up anymore. It’s not like it used to be, things are more rough, questions are being asked and you can’t get away with anything anymore.

To me it just shows that Leo’s days are numbered and he’s on the way out… if you can’t deal with comments like that, and just completely throw a tantrum.. being insulting… jesus I don’t want to be that guy’s wife… or family. Losing it like that….

Mike, you should apologize to Leo. You were trolling a bit :(

PS: First article on TC today without mentioning Twitter! WTF happened??? ;) ;)

Mike, you are on to somthing!

*I got a friend that works for Palm and i can confirm that it’s all a marketing scheme by Roger-McNamee. He is playing dirty…this is just the beginning of the story…!

Michael, you were way wrong in that line of questioning. You cornered the guy right away. The guy wouldn’t say a phone was great because he got a demo unit. Everyone knows that. He’s been talking about wanting to get a Pre for weeks.

a blow up was necessary, that big of one? maybe not. i respect leo though.

micheal arrington has a valid question, but wrongly asked. i respect arrington as well.

He’s not being too sensitive. This was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Leo has thought of Mike as a troll for a while now.

I think it was a valid question, and maybe one that would have been answered shortly. There was something in your tone that implied familiarity with Leo and that it wasn’t intended to be off-handed – but the dialog went south from there.

The question was not out of line, unfortunately the way it unraveled put Leo’s integrity in question, but given that he blew up almost immediately, I don’t know that it could have been avoided.

Well you apologized, so the ball is in Leo’s court.

The comments on Leo’s Friend Feed announcement are pretty Deep, and extremely negative towards you Michael. http://tr.im/nFo2

Thanks for the post, Mike. Apology accepted. Now that I know what was going on in your mind, I apologize to you.

There seems to be something about the Gillmor Gang that just engenders over the top passion. I’m embarrassed by my overreaction. Peace.

Mike, there is just something in the tone when you ask questions like this… it definitely sounded accusatory. Over the past year, I have heard Leo rave about the iPhone and offer skepticism about Palm on his radio show. So I don’t think he has his Palm lipstick and knee pads out. It seems like you are actually miffed that he got one one in advance and you did not.

I have never seen Leo have a run in.. I could be wrong on that as I have not seen every show. But it does seem that you have had a lot of issues where even seemingly random people spit at you. Chill.

I think GG could be one of the top tech podcasts up there with Twit or even higher, if it became more professional, more respectful. I know a lot of people like the edginess. If you’re going to be there, be there, and don’t leave after 10 minutes, and don’t call in from the airport and places like that or out in the wind in the middle of a field. If it wants sponsors it just be professional. I think even Loren was saying something like that last week (not about sponsors but being more respectful)

I listen to Leo’s shows quite often. And I know that he works tirelessly to be objective. Even with the advertisers on his shows he has no problem criticizing them and rejecting companies he doesn’t believe in. For weeks Leo has planned to wait in line and buy a pre, just like he waited in line and bought an iphone. He needed the pre for his national radio show this morning. On the radio show Leo and David Pogue discussed the good and bad of the pre. In the end Leo said he would put it second behind the iphone.

Did Leo overreact, maybe a little bit, but knowing how much Leo cherishes his objectivity and his good name I can understand. Arrington’s apology seems appropriate, hopefully they can work things out.

Mike, I agree with your sentiments and thoughts in the post. But, I know this situation will color future conversations you have, both consciously and subconsciously, and not only in the tech world, but, also other conversations outside the tech world. How you choose to approach future conversations in the tech world, and outside the tech world is your decision.

well that certainly isn’t what he’s said to my face. I actually thought we were friends.

I watched it semi-live. (rewind in BitGravity) Leo appeared frustrated at something in studio (before where the posted video starts) and then for some reason Mike’s comments just set the whole thing off.

I say let things cool off and see what happens.

FYI, Steve Gillmor is the host, not Leo Laporte.

It was a very quick clip but I do have a few thoughts.

I believe Mike’s question was valid and Leo immediately, and without pause, claimed that this was a “one week review unit” and I believe that was all he had to say. Honestly, he didn’t have to say anything at all and ignore the question so good on Leo for admitting it.

Leo was ticked but not pissed at that time and I felt that Mike kept on a bit to somehow show why he asked that and continue on a bit which did piss Leo off.

There are a ton of jerk-offs in this industry and way too many people that don’t disclose shit but I have always felt that Leo isn’t one of those guys as he’s been a very well respected broadcaster since before I knew what broadcasting was. (I started watching The Screensavers on TechTV when I was 16 years old).

However, I feel that Mike is always on this witch hunt to catch people in the act and it’s what I enjoy about his articles ON TECHCRUNCH but on someone’s network / show / feed, it’s inappropriate.

Mike, keep up the witch hunt and keep doing your party to “protect the industry” or whatever it is you classify it as but I side with Leo on this situation and feel he acted appropriately given the situation.

Additionally, I’d like to add that I feel Mike gets a ton of flack for shit that he didn’t do (non disclosure, being paid by Twitter for posts and basically everything else) but instead of going the extra mile to completely dissolve of those rumors, he turns it around on other sites, companies, people & industries.

In all honesty, that’s why I read TechCrunch cause it’s mostly entertaining to see Mike expose the truth on things but it wouldn’t hurt every once in a while to look in the mirror and put a stop to these lies about Arrington and TechCrunch once and for all.

I’m a fan of Leo and Mike and hope this blows over.

I can see your point about non-returned loaners.

But I watched Leo’s review of the Pre and it seemed any positivity was well founded as everything was in full view. I’m an iPhone lover and it seemed genuinely well done. If there was any hint of fakeness to a positive review of the Pre just because of an early review, I would be critical of it.

Maybe your right that Palm decided who got them based on what review they might expect. I agree.

Still, saying that is an insult to Leo. Not everyone wants to be an extreme critic. That should be okay. Neutrality can be good. I was just kinda happy to see Leo’s video and close-ups.

Of course there is more to it.

I completely agree. What Mike asked was a valid question to ask. If Palm sent me the Pre, I’m sure I would be inclined to say that I like it.

I don’t ever expect anyone to “know who I am” so all questions are fair and to be expected.

On the issue of disclosure, I think the same ethics for journalists should serve as an ideal for all people in general in their day to day lives too.

I think “blew up” and “lost it” are significantly understating what Leo did in that video.

This could be just like Christian Bale’s outburst

I think it’s because you said “So you got a free Pre, you were one of the very few” after Leo’s disclosure. To my ear that can only be interpreted as insinuating an untoward relationship between Leo Laporte and Palm.

So much anger and hate over a telephone.

Hmmm … interesting day in Blogganistan … I must say there is a strong underpinning of “gadget envy” to this story. When A-listers get gadgets, whether to keep or return, the peasants get a little restless.

And of course who doesn’t love dissing Arrington?! As for me, I LIKE MIKE and I’m glad he brought up this issue.

But are any of us editorially pure? We all buy stuff. We all like one brand over another. We exist in the real world, picking Pepsi over Coke or Coke over Pepsi.

Leo definitely over-reacted and should not have! But I wonder if this was brewing over time (perhaps, due to unrelated past exchanges) and this specific comment took it beyond boiling point?

It isn’t.

Mike, I suspect you know that the reason you didn’t get a Pre ahead of time was not because Palm was worried about critical coverage, but simply because you have stated that you don’t honor NDAs: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo Big tech companies willing to give out code and devices ahead of time want to know that their big launch event won’t be spoiled ahead of time.

Now Leo apologize. Don’t let this one go Mike, this is a big story and only you can get the truth out!!!

Well that backfired pretty well!!

Pre-planned?! Are you – or rather these others – kidding?

Logged into my first ever viewing of the Gillmor Gang (@ajkeen having gone on about it on Twitter so many times thought I should check it out). Just in time to hear Leo Laporte unleashing a torrent of abuse at @arrington. Frankly neither of you came out of it with any credit. You & people who have left comments above talk about your “community”. Working as I do in old fashioned print publishing yours is a community I need to learn something about. But at first sight it looks pretty much like what I see at home when my overtired young teenagers get irritable with each other and things get out of hand.

Two key differences

1. When my teenagers misbehave they (usually) do it it is in the privacy of their own home and they can make up afterwards. That’s how teenagers behave

2. You’re both professionals. That was not how professionals behave.

Now could you please kiss and make up so I can get on with finding out how the hell my bit of the economy is going to interface with yours (and whether mine can survive the transition)….

Thanks.

I agree that Leo could have handled it better, if you wanna be what is currently called “professional.” But myself, I probably would have done the same thing because I don’t tend to handle situations well when something just doesn’t smell right.

In fact, I kinda don’t like it when people are PC and don’t say what their thinking. In fact, the whole twitter positivity push is somewhat annoying. But that’s just me. If you’re going with the traditional workplace kissbutt don’t ruffle feathers “professionalism” then, yea, Leo should have handled it better.

Me, I wish more people were blunt like Leo. And you can see that I’m not alone. Tons of people tend to react positivity when people are blunt in these situations. Maybe what is currently considered “professional” won’t always be same?

Leo and Mike I think you both had valid points that came from overall context rather than the Palm Pre Launch itself..

Hopefully the range of both points are covered at a later date..

“jesus I don’t want to be that guy’s wife… or family. Losing it like that….”
You’re seriously questioning Leo’s professionalism, while assaulting his personal life?

If you ask me, the whole thing looks like a PR stunt Palm is pulling on us, Mike and Leo being part of the whole thing. They’re sure gonna get a lot of exposure over this.

Have to be honest, as I’ve said on Friendfeed threads on this issue, I thought it was a fair question.

For a guy like me who is just now getting to know the tech scene and it’s players, I have no frame of reference for Leo, and so I had the same question Mike did.

I also feel Leo’s reaction was probably the most classless thing I’ve ever seen. I understand his reaction as a journalist, but he should have just taken a deep breath, said there was no bias, and moved on.

The tempertantrum was a disgrace, and sadly I’m starting to associate tempertantrums with many of the popular web personalities.

:)

Like i said, i don’t believe it (in case you think i’m bullshitting about the others btw…see here: http://friendfeed.com/the-next-web/33d9fb51/leo-laporte-loses-it-with-mike-arrington) …Whilst I don’t believe, it is obviously possible. So it would be great to hear a flat out “no” from one of them.

Leo’s and his army have a low tolerance for what they call trolling behavior. If you agree with them, no matter how you do it, you will not be slammed, disagree and do it more than once, you are branded a troll.

yeah but consider the comment was literally questioning the other guys integrity as a journalist. In journalism that’s all you got….. And the comment was being used to create ‘entertainment’. Bad call, apologise, learn and move on.

I watched this video twice, and Leo seems very reasonable with the question until it is later asked again somewhat more aggressively perhaps even accusingly.

Leo may have overreacted and perhaps the question was out of line, but either way I think Leo has proven himself to be a stand up guy and to imply it on a public forum he is compromised even only somewhat is not cool.

If this is SWEEPS week, Laporte just put the Gillmor Gang on the top of the chart!

You’re all class Laporte.

Maybe this is a big straw that is breaking more than one just camel’s back?

If you wanna know what people think about you. Get your friend to tell you off and see who supports him?

Still the nicest guy on the internet.

Yep, we are very fond of Leo, he is a hero to millions – literally – of us tech geeks.

Funny Farm?

[...] [Via TechCrunch] [...]

What we need is a tech MMA….

Dude, now we should start a conspiracy theory about the apology. lolz kidding.

Less than glowing? “love it” “impressive” Are you kidding me?

Leo said this BEFORE Gillmor Gang. How as Arrogantington supposed to know this? Some people don’t sit there all day watching twit.

Getting the product *free* (rather than signing up or paying for it like everyone else) is what they’re talking about.

My honest impression of this is that Mike was poised to make a point about how and to whom Palm is giving these Pre loaners out to. He wasn’t calling Leo out on ethics at all. He was literally about to make a point about how Palm is trying to control the story around the Pre by rigidly selecting who it sends the Pre to. CrunchGear has called out the Pre several times for instance. But Leo blew up before that point could be made. That’s what happened.

Michael Arrington: you were right to ask this question and reaction of Leo Laporte was wrong. I am getting review phones too and I know that it CAN influence one’s judgement. Leo should just say “no, I am not influenced by getting it for free” and that’s it.

I’m guessing this was a “final straw” type thing Leo? Weird seeing everyone’s favourite tech uncle go off the deep end like that, seems so out of character.

I think Mike was overly agressive, though I’m not sure he was being as accusatory as it seems.

Anyway, a bit of drama for the weekend, everyone has kissed and made up and we can look forward to bitching about WWDC now :)

As I listened to Mike make his statement and watched Leo, I really couldn’t tell if Leo was just hamming it up… like he sometimes does. Then all of a sudden he just blew up. Leo did an unboxing on Friday and had repeats of that show on Saturday. He also spoke to David Pogue earlier Saturday on his radio show. We all knew Leo’s opinion of the Pre. He liked it overall but that their were some problems with the Pre and that as a version 1 it wasn’t that bad. Leo even mentioned that he probably was not going to get a Pre and that he would stick with his iPhone. It just got out of hand quickly and then Leo left.
Bad on both parties account.

Just read Michael Arrington’s explanation and frankly, I’d like to hear about the “story that is brewing about favoritism at Palm” and TechCruch’s analysis of reviews. It’s obviously an important and sensitive issue if it engenders situations like we have just witnessed. Leo should bring Michael back and let everyone talk about disclosure issues, favoritism, and gadget reviews from everyone’s perspective and experience. Your audience will benefit from a rational discussion of this important issue.

He’s referred to as an egoblogger for a reason, but he makes a good point. 24 “I” have little to do with that.

All that aside, Mike Arrington is good at what he does, even if that means pushing people’s buttons sometimes. I think both Arrington and Leo are out of line here: Mike for not letting Leo respond, and Leo for blowing up like he did.

I want to see some sort of resolution on the matter, publicly. I would hate to think that some silly little piece of plastic would engender such a hostile relationship.

Mike,

Only you know who Mike Arrington really is and what he is like. You truly have a friend in Robert Scoble. Please cherish that.

[...] I was not surprised when this post by Michael Arrington popped up about his recent appearance on The Gilmore Gang with Leo Laporte.  [...]

My honest impression [interest disclosed, TC writer] of this is that Mike was poised to make a point about how and to whom Palm is giving these Pre loaners out to. He wasn’t calling Leo out on ethics at all. He was literally about to make a point about how Palm is trying to control the story around the Pre by rigidly selecting who it sends the Pre to. CrunchGear has called out the Pre several times for instance, prior to launch. But it looks to me like Leo blew up before that point could be made.

Wow, excellent analogy.

My honest impression of this is that Mike was poised to make a point about how and to whom Palm is giving these Pre loaners out to. He wasn’t calling Leo out on ethics at all. He was literally about to make a point about how Palm is trying to control the story around the Pre by rigidly selecting who it sends the Pre to. CrunchGear has called out the Pre several times for instance prior to its launch. But Leo blew up before that point could be made.

That’s a step in the right direction…

It was a bit of trolling and I can can understand Leo’s response. The content of Leo’s response (regarding the retail scarcity of the product) supports Michael’s rationale for asking the question, aka, how might being one the “the lucky few” color a review. If Leo hadn’t been caught off guard, and was given some time to gather his thoughts, I suspect it would have been a more interesting discussion, albeit not a discussion about the Pre. The makeup sex on this will be great.

We also use computers, use email, watch television, do a million other things. Better not write about any of those either, I suppose. What an idiotic thing to say.

An apology with a whole explanation after is a claytons apology. Just say sorry, period, that’s the big thing to do.

Do you know who this guy is? I think it’s OK for him to share his opinions with us at length.

[...] Mike Arrington’s post : http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/ouch/ [...]

its like being faithful to your girlfriend even when numerous chances came up to be unfaithful…but yet she somehow insinuates that you have cheated…..there’s a “hurting” feeling that comes with it….I know the feeling. And so I understand Leo’s reaction.

Mike, I’m not sure if this is the right term to use, but even from your posting above, it sounds like a touch of jealousy on your part in that he got one and you didn’t….I think it’s the wrong term to use here.

however, the part that really told your true feelings was the paragraph starting with “I ask Leo whether he bought the pre…” This paragraph actually implies that his integrity is invalid, especially the part you said “as long as Palm sends out a letter with the device asking for it back in a week, it isn’t considered a financial conflict of interest. The fact that few people ever return them is rarely brought up.”

Good observation. I’m just saddened that this all happened over a Palm Pre.

Good call. Looks like several people have been adding that back in each time it’s deleted. I removed it again, we’ll see if it stays that way.

That was interesting. I think that Leo Laporte must learn how to control his temper while on the job; as a media professional, one has to be ready to have anything thrown at you, and take it with dignity, or better yet, a sense of humor. If he is indeed beyond reproach, which I am happy to believe, then he should simply have said so. That being said, it is a nice gesture to let him know that you are sorry to have communicated your intent improperly; media professionals are people too. Anyway, this is nothing worth losing sleep over.

Just saw that Leo Laporte is heading back to his studio for round 2 of GG tonight.

But Mike, at the point you made the allegation, no “conflict” existed. He had said nothing positive or negative about the Pre yet. I think that’s what he objected to. If he had gone all gaga over the phone then you would have been right to question his motivations. Timing is everything my friend…

of course not. no. this entirely ruined my weekend. for fuck’s sake.

[...] retrieved 6/6/2009 Arrington follow-up comment: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/ouch/ retrieved [...]

That’s how I feel too. Perhaps Mike rubs someone the wrong way so they can’t be “on the same side” in this issue.

I know it wouldn’t be a comfortable thing to examine–that Palm sent Leo the unit for that reason. It implies that Leo is not professional enough to judge for himself. But journalists that can overcome that discomfort are the ones I pay attention to.

Leo is back live at the moment and is apologizing. for his outburst.

Every cellphone manufacturer on the planet sends out review units. This is nothing new. If they didn’t only a handful of products would ever get reviewed. I am a former technology columnist myself and I reviewed many different products just like this and I always sent them back after review. There were several though that I liked so much that I ended up buying them anyway. Mike was out of line by even implying that Leo was given a free Pre and thereby giving a positive review. Leo’s journalistic ethics which he is very proud of would never let him accept such a gift.

isn’t that what PR is all about though? i can see it’s a bit shady of palm, but doesn’t every PR firm do this?

Don’t speak too soon. The day isn’t over yet. Plus I’m sure MG Siegler has several twitter posts ready to go before midnight.

haha. This post was a reply I was writing to a rather negative comment. The comment was deleted before I hit submit, so now I have this abandoned reply that doesn’t make any sense!

Cheers…

this was a commercial. cover the news!

I have to try to find a way to phrase this politely… not easy…

I’ve always had a bit of an issue with Leo in the way he treats certain people. Sometimes it’s verging on the downright rude – something I’ve noticed particularly on TWiT with female guests.

But that outburst was the most unprofessional behaviour I’ve seen in a long time. Mike didn’t even get a chance to explain WHY he was asking if it was a “free Pre”. Leo’s reaction just to being asked that innocuous question was to go completely ballistic, which suggests to me that there’s a whole lot more going on (in Leo’s mind). I think he was just looking for an excuse to do it.

Leo just gives me the creeps these days. That fluffy image of himself that he likes to portray just doesn’t fit with his words and actions.

(IMO)

I’m surprised. Leo made it clear: ’7 day review model’ – end of story isn’t it? The assumption is it will be returned, Leo said that so where does ‘free’ (as in the assumption he’s been given something to keep) come into it? I don’t get it.

Many years ago companies regularly sent hardware to magazines for review. As far as I can recall, they were always collected or returned unless they were things like network or AV cards that were not worth the cost of collection. At least they were on the titles I worked on. There was never an issue around objectivity and this doesn’t seem any different. At least not from Leo’s perspective.

Think about it for a moment. If every hardware company that wanted a review was basically offering the title or person a freebie for keeps, we’d be inundated with kit. That doesn’t happen. What would anyone do with x cell phones, computers, cameras etc? Have a yard sale? It doesn’t make sense for any of the parties involved.

All the same, it is good to see that Mike offered an apology. Let’s hope it’s on the basis of understanding where Leo is coming from and the way hardware reviews usually work.

My brother thinks of my dad as a total ass. But that doesn’t mean he comes out and says it to the old man’s face. Everyone is a lot more careful about what they say to people they know (and especially those they know well) even if they try to be totally open and honest, and the reason for that is because at some level we’re all uncomfortable about how that person might react to our potential “betrayal”.

Mike, I don’t know you well at all, just what I see on here and various other things online. And so I’m not afraid to come out and say that sometimes, you really are a jerk. But if we went back a long ways, would I really be able to come out and say that to you, without being pretty pissed off about it first? Most people probably can’t do something like that.

My suggestion is that you and Leo go for beers at some point, get totally open with your opinions about each other, and get it all out. If there is a friendship there, it might be temporarily weakened, but in the end it’ll become a much stronger bond than it is today.

Anonymous is fail 99% of the time. ;)

there must be more to this – Mike, did you “needle” Leo about this beforehand? It seems like that button has been pushed before …

Frankly, I think the last line you wrote about comment moderation is quite ridiculous! You can’t just censor people just because they don’t agree with you… If I say “I think Leo was right and you were wrong” (which I do believe) that doesn’t give you the write to censor my comment and leave all the positive ones about yourself.

Bad form, Mike.

Leo Laporte has got to be one of the best technology hosts I have ever seen. Probably one of the best hosts in media period. He has a knack for making you feel welcome into a world that a lot of people find very intimidating and over their heads. He is the reason that people watch live.twit.com for hours about any subject related to Technology. His show is fascinating and very entertaining. He is a consummate professional and I don’t think anyone has ever seriously questioned his integrity.

TechCrunch is the best technology blog in the US, bar none. It got to be that way because of Mike. Part of his interviewing style is to ask cold, direct questions without smiling, but with the best of intentions, because they put the person being interviewed on edge just enough that they may end up divulging something that they are thinking but not saying. Take the interview with the Topsy founders where he says “So who would you rather get bought by, Google or Twitter?” or when ask the Google Wave team “and you were saying earlier that you definitely think this is a sort of Twitter killer?” or when he asks Yuri Milner “would you have paid a higher valuation [for Facebook]?” in front of Mark Zuckerberg. These are all funny, legitimate questions because they are what the readers are actually thinking. It livens up the interview and often leads to a scoop. Thats just Mike’s style.

This appears to be just a one off situation and I think its commendable that Mike and Leo both apologized to one another. Good form gentlemen, keep up the good work!

Mike, I have to say it felt like you were attacking Leo on his basic integrity and honor; and that his in the moment reaction was appropriate and reasonable. That is, unless you ask all reporters and reviewers comparable questions.

If you feel this is an issue worth perusing a clearly defined policy on the subject may helpful.

In full disclose both Leo and I live in Petaluma California.

All objectivity is an illusion.

Jake

I’m offended for Leo – he’s got such high journalistic integrity, buys SO much of his stuff, and often gives negative reviews of hot products. I can understand Mike wanting to do some evaluation of press reactions based on review status…. paid or loaned… but Leo isn’t some run of the mill reviewer and while not above reproach – has earned the respect in this regard.

Shame on you Mike and bravo Leo.

Mike likes to poke at people and Leo just doesn’t have that kind of personality. It was really just a conflict of personailities that was going to boil over (from Leo’s point, obviously) eventually. After watching/listening to the two guys for 20 minutes you can tell one is going to get on the others nerves (and not because the other guy is OVERLY annoying, but just because their personailites don’t quite mix). This happens all the time, it’s a quite obvious case, and always ends the same way (with one exploding and the other never seeing it coming – both products of their enviroment/personality development).

Doesn’t mean they can’t be friends of get along – just means being together on a routine like basis is going to cause some friction. Question was out of line, but not shocking. And a clear over-reaction due to building tension.

I was right. The makeup sex is great.

WoW that was great. Leo looked pissed before the question. I wonder if this is about something else.

[...] after, Michael Arrington wrote about the exchange in a post on TechCrunch. He apologized – and then added a short message from Leo Laporte [...]

Unfortunately it’s all too easy to miss a critical facial reaction for a comment/question, and then a communication train wreck occurs. Glad to see you apologize, and Leo accept it. We’re all human, and that means messing up sometimes.

A nerve was definitely struck on Leo, maybe he was tired/cranky. I get like that after staying up and forcing myself to keep working on something too long (usually due to social pressure/commitments).

Did you miss the part where Leo said, “Love it! It’s quite impressive…”

Your chat with Leo on gilmore gang, Looking forward to hearing more from you.

I suppose if somebody questioned my integrity, I would answer their questions to clear my reputation, regardless of their motive.

I *wouldn’t* swear at them and end the interview. That does not strike me as something somebody with integrity would do.

So, Chad… By your analysis, TechCrunch shouldn’t review Twitter, Facebook, bing, Google, Flickr, free iPhone apps, or any number of other things because they don’t “pay” for them?

The implication is inescapable – ‘you got one and I didn’t because you’re a known pushover reviewer and I am a known tough and impartial reviewer’.

Mike, I think you’re getting a bum rap on this. You very clearly said, “Let’s just get the disclosure out of the way.” Which is *not* the same as accusing Leo of *anything.* It’s just calling for the disclosure. Yes, it does derail the discussion from “what do we think about the Pre” to “Should review-discussions begin with disclosures?”

That’s a rather mild sort of “trolling” if you want to call it trolling. This is my first time viewing a “gang” program, so I don’t know about the background of the personal styles or group energy from the past, but to this noob the interaction strikes me as an instance of catching a host on a bad-hair day (or hair-trigger day to use a different metaphor).

From what I saw, I think it was generous (but still appropriate) for you to apologize. I think Mike owes you and the viewership an apologize for *truly* melting down into name calling and vulgarity. IMHO

anyone who listens to Leo regularly knows he always buys products, just for this reason. I’ve been watching/listening for years, and the Pre is the first time I remember him getting a pre-release unit. He usually goes and buys it just like everyone else.

+1 Chris

I agree. That makes no sense. By his standard, we shouldn’t even review air (as it is given to us for free). Just my 2 cents. :-D

Mike asked a valid question in a unpleasant manner, you overreacted.

I love you leo, and I’m glad to see such a mike character exist in the industry at least.

I just don’t see how anyone could go off the deep end with the question Mike did, and that’s why the others were so dumbfounded.

Your response reminded me of the old-saying: The dog will howl, which is hit by the stick.

When the BlackBerry Storm was being doled out to the sites that were reviewing them you could clearly read comments from reviewers that were far less favorable than final reviews.

I believe (as I think this post implies) that initial device reviews are unduly favorable in hopes that they will earn the site future early looks (or leaked info) about future hot items.

There is a distinct difference between reviewing something you paid for versus what you’ve gotten free.

Mike,

I have been following Leo for as long as I can remember, well a long time anyway. He has been constantly talking on every podcast recently about how he was looking forward to the Pre but then in the last few days he said that due to scheduling conflicts he would not be able to stand in line to go purchase one. I believe him when he says this was a seven day return demo unit. Leo goes way out of his way to purchase everything that he reviews and this exception I feel that it was not proper for you to insinuate the way you did. If I was he I certainly would not apologize. You were out of line.
That’s my opinion.

You guys are both highly respected adults.
It was very uncharacteristic for Leo to blow up like that, and im sure that this was just some little erk Leo had that just grew into resentment. Sometimes it starts small and just festers until one person blows up, and the other didnt even realize there was a problem. The pre statement just seemed to set Leo off, and unfortunately it happened on Steve’s podcast, for all of the internet to witness. I saw it live, and honestly I thought Leo was just joking or mouthing off at first as well. And that as a regular watcher of Leo’s live stream, on most all of his shows.
I really hope you guys can reconcile your differences and forgive one another.
You are both men of integrity, and the ‘tech’ stuff that you guys have built your lives around, when you step back, doesnt really matter, they are just tools.
The loss of Rajeev recently makes you realize what really matters. Its unfortunate that Leo lost it, but now you guys can hopefully open better communication between the two of you and work out what it is that caused this animosity to grow.
You two are both highly respected. I hope the two of you can work it out and continue both a working relationship and a friendship.

If any company sends review units only to those whose early coverage reflected positively, then shame on them. Review programs must be egalitarian and transparent. It’s one thing to accidentally miss someone on a media list, another to cherry-pick the recipients based upon coverage tone. And all reporters should be asked if they are interested before a unit is shipped.

Any company should welcome all third party reviews. Sure, positive coverage helps sales, but even negative coverage often contains real, actionable feedback that you’ll never hear from your suck-up employees or even customers. I can count on one hand the number of reviews I’ve felt were patently unfair over the years. Many more were critical.

As long as a review unit is for temporary use, I don’t see a conflict for the reviewer. Imagine if media outlets all had to buy everything they reviewed…the number of reviews of any given product would drop dramatically. How does that help consumers make educated purchasing decisions, especially for the more pricey electronics where legitimate reviews by credible sources are so extremely valuable?

Plus, many newer products, lacking brand power, may go unreviewed with no one ever discovering their great superiority.

I have no idea why TC didn’t get a Pre. Maybe an embargo concern?

Upon reflection, we all have moments when we overreact.

The incident on the show was a more public overreaction than most, but completely understandable.

In fact, I’m glad this ‘incident’ brought Gilmore Gang to people’s attention, I’ve never heard of it before, but will sure follow it from now on.

I personally have no use for Michael’s general attitude, either…which accounts for the fact that I haven’t visited TV in a good six months or so. It’s just not my cup of tea.

That being said, both Mike and Leo were at fault this time. Mike should have pounced more slowly, if at all….and Leo should have said, “Mike, do you really mean that? You understand that this is a 7-day loaner, right?…”.

Sounds like Leo was having a bad day already, and Michael was just the frosting on his cake.

Ego Wars….

Actually, it there is a lasting rift it will be with Steve Gilmour, whose show it is and whom Leo publicly and arbitrarily kicked off his network at the drop of a hat because of what SOMEONE ELSE said.

Gilmour became a ‘collateral damage’ victim as it were.

I hope that folks got to watch the whole second show rather than just take the first ball and run with it. I took away a lot from it. Good job Mike and Leo.

Mike, I applaud, and respect what you just did Steve, Robert, and Leo on the second half of The Gillmor Gang podcast today. I agree that discussion and thought is needed on the razor’s edge balancing act the podcast, and the panelist’s must do while doing the podcast. I know that this podcast is unique, and thought provoking, and reflects the energies and passion of The Gillmor Gang. For some people, those qualities will be too much to handle a live broadcast such as this, but, they are the ones who need to either get used to it or not listen to the live broadcast.

that is NOT questioning the guy’s integrity as a journalist…i see it as rather irrelevant though..for example, i never even care if mossberg is being floated stuff, whether it’s free product or advance views of free services and software…but asking the question seems quite harmless, and not sure why leo would get his panties in a bunch over it rather than simply reply yes or no…

[...] Pre to check out before its launch today — something which is a bit fishy and contributed to a big heap of drama earlier today. But it does seem like a ton of people both on the web and in real-life are very [...]

[...] Pre to check out before its launch today — something which is a bit fishy and contributed to a big heap of drama earlier today. But it does seem like a ton of people both on the web and in real-life are very [...]

wow i got here late i missed all the fun

Says the guy who follows 78000 people.

That might be true if you haven’t spent your life in the industry proving your integrity over and over again. Have you forgotten this is Leo Laporte we’re talking about? He’s never given anyone any reason to suspect a lack of integrity, and Arrington knows that, which makes his statement completely rude and out of line.

I agree with Leo’s description.

Why hasn’t the Gillmor Gang page been updated since 4/18/09???

I completely agree with John, Leo of all the tech journalists I read seems to be the most fair. Even as a well known Apple fan boy he can actually criticize them. I think that you need to look a little deeper at your self before making such crappy comments.

Leo & Michael, I have respected you both at a distance for years. You are to be commended for apologizing to one another and putting this behind you – a sign of true professionalism! Well done.

I agree with John and Chris

Love the drama guys. Good work. I think tech coverage has been stale for too long. This is becoming some good entertainment. Peace.

[...] Arrington, of course, quickly posted on TechCrunch what happened with the video embedded in the post. He explained his rationale for what he said [...]

I can understand both sides here and I am a bit disappointed that Leo reacted that way, but I can understand that. The problem, though, is that if Mr. Arrington had watched Leo’s unboxing of the Pre, he would have known about the loaner unit and seen Leo’s reactions. As someone who did stand in line – a small one – and bought the device, I can say that Leo’s reaction to the device is justified. It is a really nice device.

Leo later hit the nail on the head when he said that it is so much better to have ‘real’ discussions between people who basically respect each other than smarmy talk between people who aren’t brave enough to disagree/argue etc. The difference between the crap on TV etc and TWiTLive is that the guys are having real conversations with each other – not scripted, politically correct ‘interviews’. Give me the real stuff any day.

I am proud that Leo and Mike were able to discuss this publically and resolve it – a wonderful example to us all, and thanks to both for weathering it through!

Can I have a pre? I’ll review it honestly, honest to god I will, no questions, I will be honestly so pro the pre your eyes will water, cos I know its going to be the best – specially if I get one free.

Ugh. Mike & Leo are both great guys, and do important work in the tech journalism world. I’ll be honest, this was hard to watch. Just no good all the way around.

I see both sides points, Leo’s reaction was WAY out of character for him.

“Anyway, Leo lost it …”

I don’t think Leo lost it. I think his response was fine and under control, based on what he felt. It was just a misunderstanding – I like the fact that you said the “what are you going to do about it” didn’t sound so good on replay.

Leo should have gotten the “fine print” out of the way right up front – eval unit, no financial exchange, blah blah blah. It sounded (to me) like you were trying to give him a lead-in for that.

Simple misunderstanding. It happens. Just usually no so publicly! LOL

Glad to see you guys got your stuff worked out.

Everyone has one issue that they are very touchy about. Leo values his reputation highly. He knows that his reputation for integrity is his biggest asset. That is what his credibility is based on.

Implying that Leo was bribed with a free Pre was an attack on the foundation of his public persona. I completely understand why he blew up while being disappointed with his profanity laced tirade.

Its rather interesting, that you shut him down with one sentence. obviously hit a nerve. It was unprofessional how he handled himself afterwards.

Mike – 1, Leo – 0

[...] Pre to check out before its launch today — something which is a bit fishy and contributed to a big heap of drama earlier today. But it does seem like a ton of people both on the web and in real-life are very [...]

Second this.

The question was legitimate but the way you asked the question did come off as, he said, like a “troll” and “jerk.” It also openly questioned his integrity.

Also, he seems to be trying to answer your original question about disclosure when your follow up responses about other journalists not getting a demo unit come off as juvenile and that’s probably what set him off.

Anyway, no big deal. We’re all bound to rub each other the wrong way (by accident) every now and then. Hug it out and move on.

That’s got to be embarrassing for Leo! Oh well, I can’t disparage him for it — spend enough time in front of a live camera and eventually you’ll make an ass out of yourself. It’s no big deal.

[...] Mike apologized via TechCrunch and it looks like he has been forgiven. [...]

disagreeing ≠ trolling

Now THAT’s trolling. Yeeha!

[...] Meanwhile Mike Arrington responded: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/ouch/ [...]

Mike is in the right. Leo needs to just answer the question and chill. Why is this so difficult for Leo?

Mike,
I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest, at least not for highly regarded tech journalists with high morals such as Leo. I honestly believe that even if they gave him the phone for free, to keep, if he didnt like something or anything about it, he would share.
As far as your “brewing story,” I think it was a completely wrong way to bring it up, as it seemed that you were shifting blame from Palm (who if your theory is correct, is in the wrong), to the journalists who are mostly trustworthy. I trusted Pogue’s early review of the iPhone even though Apple had given him one WEEKS in advance, and I don’t think of that as a conflict of interest.

First, the slightly bitchy comment: If this post was meant as a sincere apology, it failed: graceless and transparently self-serving. A skim through search results for “how to apologize” would probably be a useful exercise for anyone, Mike included. (I think this one is nice: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/01/02/how-to-apologize.html)

Second, the (hopefully) constructive comment: I listen to a number of TWiT shows, but not GG. So when I first watched this on YouTube, I was kind of stunned by the needless aggressiveness of Mike’s questioning. But that’s because I don’t follow GG, where I gather that’s more the norm — which is fine. I think what happened here has little to do with the content of the disagreement and much to do with the mismatch of tone; sort of an argument purely in the NONverbal layer of the communication. All of the TWiT shows I follow take the form of an informal conversation, filled out with friendly bullshitting and digressions, rather than the kind of tech-punditry cagematch that GG seems to be. If Laporte and Arrington sat down privately and talked this out, I wonder how much disagreement there would really be.

It seems like the only real problem here is that Leo and Mike showed up to the game prepared to play by two different rulebooks. It’s no surprise they’d end up limping off the field, with the fans spoiling to rumble.

I understand the comments and apologies. What I don’t understand is why I cannot locate links for the Gilmore Gang podcasts. Links, please. Help.

Stephen Arnold

Mike, I think this might be a case where your reputation precedes you….therefore, he was defensive.

But yeah, he did flip out !

Yeah but Leo is not some hack on Fox News. He has never given anyone any reason to question his integrity before. Yes, Leo’s response was out of character but I find it very curious that his integrity would be questioned so flagrantly over a stupid little phone. There has to be a bit of back story here that neither Leo nor Mike are admitting to.

The reason I agree with Leo to an extent is that Mike was disrespectful and even said “what you going to do about it” I mean if he just would have said something along the lines of leo I didnt mean it that way or something along those lines it would have been different. Leo has been working 30 years to get people to trust him and he takes it seriously I can respect that. I mean its his Job his way of making a living. When I am working I take that seriously also

I was watching live today, because lately it seems, that’s the only way to catch the Gillmor Gang. And was just taken aback by Mike’s “What are you going to do about it?” comment.

Everything that ensued, I felt, was justifiable. Mike, if your going to challenge somebody on such childish terms, you must expect the same.

I believe Leo did the right thing, after all, it is HIS network, and when challenged in such a childish manner, rather than go on… he took the show off the air, as if to say.. “This! this is what I’m going to do… you’re off my network”.

The question is a good one because if he got the phone free he gets conversions on hyping it up. This is a simple fact. I firmly believe that all of these phones have been way over hyped. It was not until way later after the iPhone release came out that people started going negative on it, for instance. People bought the iPhone on the hype. If someone really called it out for what is was besides a few sites then Apple would claim that they were tainting the business. I believe that the bottom line that issues of bias should be the biggest things that we consider when talking about these things. Unless we want to just contribute to the business scam cycle. I would be fine with scams if every person benefited but that is what a scam is. At the end of the day it is the people who get hurt and the tech industry that happily gets conversions. People throw their money at things like lemmings. That is sad. At least to me. But everyone makes better points than mine so you are probably correct.

A nice twist for the TWIT network, only Howard Stern does it better.

I think Leo should definitely keep the show with all its honestly and passion…but keep it contained to this 1 show.

[...] Arrington posted on TechCrunch that he was upset with Palm for not providing them with a review unit, which he feels is due to the bad press his website has given the device. He also explains how he considers the fact that Laporte received the device for free, while he is expected to return the device to Palm, is a conflict of interest. [...]

I always thought Leo was a guy with integrity and character, and as some others have mentioned, seemed to be a genuinely nice dude. He really showed us his true colors with his completely unacceptable behavior on the show. Being offended is one thing; his reaction of repeatedly cursing at Mike and shutting down the show is another. The question wasn’t even out of line, in my opinion: Leo should have played it off as a good-natured ribbing, and nothing else. Instead, it really makes one wonder if the whole ‘nice guy’ persona is really all an act.

I think Leo’s fan base will shrink after this little stunt…

The problem is that Leo was talking and you rudely interrupted him and were way too aggressive.

Besides, I don’t see why would Palm send you a phone anyway when you have already been critical of it without even holding it in your hand.

Don’t feel too bad, Steve Gillmor should be slapped for laughing like an idiot in the clip.
You guys seem to get off on pissing people off and stirring the pot and this is not Leo’s style.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheGillmorGang/

Agree with pim’s take on the “apology”

[...] is often visible in blogs that embed YouTube videos and other Flash content.  Case in point, this recent post on TechCrunch.  When you mouse over any of the text links which spawn popup windows, you’ll notice the [...]

The REAL asshole here was John Gruber at Daring Fireball. He loves hiding behind other people’s disputes to launch his own attacks on people. First-class coward.

I’m glad you two cleared things up. Miscommunication is all it was. No need to let it get out of hand, especially since there are always sniveling little second-guessers like Gruber always ready to fan any flames.

I both read Tech Crunch and listen to a lot of TWIT podcasts. And, I’ll continue to do both.

My take is this: Mike, Leo was harsh with you. But, you provoked it. I’d have said the same to you & probably worse, especially after the “What are you going to do about it? ” comment.

Leo did over react when he threw everyone off the show. I’d have have thrown only Mike off .

But, ya know, we all screw up. And a public apology is a good start toward mending fences. I’d probably send Leo a bottle of wine or something as a peace offering and hopefully you two can move past this.

Leo, you’ve already been Keyboard Catted.

Way to go guys. LOL

You guys should team up with that “Linux Sucks” Lunduke genius while your at it.

In all honesty I would have gone further. Working in the industry that long makes for a very low b.s. tolerance. When you’ve been in the IT industry for a few decades you might not hesitate to stab someone with a pencil for stupid questions.

“I ask Leo whether he bought the Pre or got it free and in advance of the launch, which I think is relevant”

So relevant that you didn’t “ask,” you interrupted, interrogated and implied everything that Leo objected to.

Leo is making too much money to even consider a free Pre as a potential conflict of interest.
Leo is not suited for such an aggressive rough show anyhow.

er, sorry but that’s the old feed for it – new feed will be back on twit.tv from the look of things

I hope you die soon.

Mike, you might be a smart guy, but your people skills suck! Your timing of the question was horrible. Let the man speak and then, at the end, ask if the Pre was a review unit.

Being a journalist myself, I never take offense at being asked such a question. And I know that it’s a legitimate question. Now, it was unfair to assume Leo wasn’t sending it back unless you had specific knowledge that he’s one of those who violates the code of ethics journalists are obligated to follow if they accept ANY give of any kind for any reason from someone they are covering.

You and Leo both show a lot of class in being willing to admit error and apologizing. That takes a lot of integrity to be willing to do that publicly. Hats off to both of you.

I think you asked a legitimate question but were overtly confrontational and aggressive. You had substance, but lacked style, which lead Leo to believe you were attacking his credibility.

Since credibility is in the limelight and since Leo has vowed never to work with you again, your only recourse (if you wish to salvage your working relationship with him) is a swift, well worded apology, even if you think you were in the right.

Mike, your care for Leo’s friendship is apparent in the way the situation was handled after the fact. Trying to completely diagnose the issue is tough here and I am not sure it matters.

Probably just a bad moment for Leo and I am glad to see that the two of you have patched it up. Both you and Leo put yourselves out in the public on a continuous basis. I am happy the world does not see all the times that I have moments.

Persevere and thanks to you both!

Wes Spears

Tech journalism is a joke, guys. You obviously can’t ask the hard questions, so you must think you don’t have to answer any either. I can get a daily dose of whatever youre selling on any local talk radio show in the country. Cept Im not listening to those either.

Srsly, nobody friggn cares.

mike’s tone of voice gave it away. he might not notice it, but he should listen to himself more.

Hey, I got a free one and it still sucks.

This thread has held my depleted capacity of attention as long as anything recently. Mike, you didn’t think before you spoke – big mistake. Leo, you overreacted. Now that we’ve established that, let’s move on.

nooobsss don’t be so dramatic. Leo didn’t “lose it”. He got angry and ended the show as was his right. I don’t know what sheltered life you live but sometimes when a man gets angry he curses and tells other people to shove it. Sorry to crush your dreams about candy canes and puppet shows. If Leo’s a liability then I don’t want to be an asset. -Pete

As a tech reviewer myself, I know that there is always a voice in the back of my mind reminding me that I need to keep reviews unbiased despite the fact that I have a cool gadget in my hands that a company was generous enough to send to me. It is always a difficult thing to work around and one of the more agonizing things about this job.

The last thing that I would want is for someone to accuse me of giving in to that bias, let alone ANOTHER JOURNALIST.

That, in my and quite likely many others’ opinions, is quite inexcusable and very much unprofessional.

Legitimacy is what we are all working for and scared of not being granted same and for someone to open up the question of that legitimacy in front of an open audience undermines all that tech journalism stands for. This is a topic that is just best not brought up as it simply has no redeeming value in its accusation nor subjectiveness.

Leo had every right to be p*ssed off, though his manner of addressing the matter was not professional either, admittedly.

Important here to realize that integrity is really one of the bottom-line issues for Leo and should be also for Arrington. Leo has sponsors and listeners that depend on him giving opinions that are untainted by undue influence from people and companies in the industry. To impugn that, even in jest (though it didn’t sound to me as if anyone was kidding around) is to risk serious damage. Even the inference that Leo could be “bought” with a free phone is ridiculous, and a little sad. If Arrington is mad that there are “ins” and “outs” in the eyes of a particular company or publicist, that’s a legitimate issue but not a basis for accusations. (I’m shocked; shocked to discover that Palm is cautious of writers that have burned them before. Round up the usual suspects. ) Leo’s unboxing of the Pre yesterday was properly skeptical, especially in the context of an tech media that practically salivates at the mere mention of any new Apple product. Obviously it benefits Palm to put their products in the hands of reviewers that will be fair, but it also benefits Leo to be evenhanded, and sometimes that means critical and sometimes it means giving praise where due. In general reviewers in all fields want to be positive. Sometimes it’s deserved and sometimes it isn’t, but poking at a reviewer’s integrity and even the implication that an opinion can be bought, without any actual evidence, is just wrong. It’s OK to be a provocateur and a gadfly, but Arrington pushed too hard. Leo’s reaction was unexpected, perhaps, but not unwarranted if you think about what’s at stake.

[...] But yeah, this Leo and Mike bit. At least they’ve mended fences. [...]

i hope u guys can work it out… there is nothing better than friendship. im sure leo is just having a rough day and this all is a big miss understanding. u both needs to let this passby just dont care wut other people say. pride kills everything

Nobody should ever dare to question Leo Laporte. Leo has spent 30 years building one of the most solid and honest reputations in media. I completely agree with him and I think his actions were warranted.

Leo didn’t need to cuss out Arrington like that, I have never heard of Leo myself but after watching that I was left with a little distaste in my mouth. Obviously though, Leo is very respected.

Arrington, you did come off as a little accusatory, I will say that. It seems both parties just took things way wrong here, and hey? We move on. No point in dwelling on it forever. Misunderstandings happen.

It was a legitimate question but you just came at him too rash. I see a lot of people coming to Leo’s defense, but I thought his reaction was unmeasured as well. I don’t think this poor communication would have happened in person. An unfortunate altercation but tmrw will be forgotten. Worry not my man and keep sharing w/ the world.

Wow.. I’m shocked….

I guess I’m the kind of guy who thinks critically about everything.. I love Leo.. and so many of his podcasts.. been listening to them religiously for… well I guess a few years now? And its one of the things I really love and respect about Leo.. how well he treats people.. among other things.. but.. especially as I grow more sophisticated about particular subjects.. I do think more critically about what he’s putting out there..

I don’t understand Leo’s reaction.. but I figure we all can have our moments.. and just cause you’re a tech celebrity doesn’t mean you’re suddenly not human like the rest of us.. I kinda feel a little bad for him that this video is out there..

And I certainly don’t look at you, Arrington, and think “oh you were a dick” or anything like that.. I’m not sure I’d come down exactly where you do on.. how you interpret the issue of getting an advanced issue of a Pre, and how that might prejudice a journalists review.. But I surely think it’s a totally legitimate point of view.. and its the kind of questions we all have to be asking our selves.. and thinking about..

In any event I just hope you guys are able to.. not have this negatively effect your relationship and all that..

And you know.. in the big picture.. I mean.. compared to my grandmother dying a couple weeks ago.. what does it matter anyway? I mean.. things getting a little out of hand for this one thing? Its just life.

See, that’s where I am with this whole issue. At least Mike was completely professional, if a bit churlish. Leo – I don’t care *what* Mike said – immediately starts cursing, calling Mike a troll, and acting like a pretentious pr…well, I shouldn’t use that word here because it might get people mad, but he most definitely acted like one of *those*.

If I were Mike I would not consider someone who publicly curses me out and insults me on video for the entire world to see a “friend” (I keep seeing that word used here and I don’t know why – I don’t care if they’ve known each other for years and sleep over each other’s houses every weekend, that is not his “friend”).

That to me is simply a guy who seems to feel he’s more important than others and more entitled to his own opinion than others are to theirs. His behavior was a complete turnoff in every way imaginable. I don’t follow Leo anyway, never have, and after this, most likely never will.

Mike, if you’re a troll (you’re not), you are the best troll ever – keep up the good work, and don’t let people who think they are more important than and better than you hold you back (and maybe stop apologizing, too – he looks – and sounds- much more wrong here than you do).

Mike apologized and to me that’s all that matters. He explained where he was going with his question, and didn’t mean to come off like he did. I’ve watched the Gillmor Gang a few times on TWiT and I know just how things can heat up, but this was something that both sides are embarrassed about, and I’m sure Mike would like to put this behind him.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=palm+pre+review+usual+suspects&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Search Google for ‘Palm Pre review usual suspects’, there’s an echo across main stream media and blogging calling David Pogue and Walt Mossberg ‘usual suspects’.

A dictionary definition of usual suspects:

‘the persons most often involved or suspected in an activity, esp. criminal; also, the persons predictably involved in a certain context’

What’s going on here?

Disclosure was fine at a review model and if the journalist says he returns review models I believe him.

Oh please, how professional is anyone who launches into an ugly, unnecessary tirade over a simple and decently worded question?

Tech is this guy’s *work* so he should act “*work*manlike – professional. This isn’t some unknown dude who writes some unknown hacker blog from his mother’s basement who got lucky enough to get invited onto the show one day; this is one of the Faces of Tech for the last however-many-years – he should conduct himself in a manner fitting his stature in the tech world, not act like a kid ready to fight in the back alley with the guy in gym who just called him a dweeb. The public deserves better than to see him throw a fit simply because someone asks a question that jars his unhealthy ego.

Being ethical does not give you the right to act ugly because someone questioned your ethics.

If you want to get angry, fine, but at least leave the cursing, insults, and attitude (“turn the cameras off, we’re done”) out of it, if you don’t want to seem like the only person on Earth who could possibly think that much of yourself.

Even the other guys there didn’t believe Leo could mean a word he was saying and laughed it off until Leo made it painfully obvious that he was *really* throwing a fit; that should tell you something (that Leo was so out of line it’s almost unbelievable).

Exactly. I work from the same premise: I don’t expect anybody to “know who I am” – it’s when someone jumps to conclusions that I might get ticked- *not* when someone merely questions me to figure out what conclusions they should jump to.

In other words: “Did you get that for free?” Leading question, but not the end of the world; probably not going to start me cursing, yelling, and taking my toys away to go play with the other kids in the neighborhood.

On the other hand, “You got that for free! You’re cozy with them!” might completely flip me out, because now you’ve falsely accused me. I have a hard time handling all the conclusions you jumped to- without even asking me for some background first- to get to the point where you’re saying that.

THAT might be infuriating- not *questioning* me to determine where I stand, but *telling* me where I stand without even asking me first.

Even then, if I was the great Leo LaPorte, I might think twice before I broke out into curses and insults – it looks unprofessional in any situation.

I didn’t offer an unqualified apology. I offered an explanation and then an apology. I quite clearly meant exactly what I wrote.

I’ve explained the “what are you going to do about it” line. It looks bad. I regret it. However, I absolutely thought Leo was joking around with me, as did Steve and Loren who were clearly chuckling on the video. I would not have said that if I understood he was actually angry.

Now I know that. Don’t dare question Leo. Or you’ll get comments like “I hope you die soon” and worse. I let that one in, deleted the rest.

What kinda cheapass air are YOU breathing? Free air? That’s stuff’s full of carcinogens.

THIS is what we saw last summer, starting with our posts that were opposed to the Google/Yahoo search deal. The community just skips on by, but this stuff turns very real. It should never turn to this, but it always does. And I end up with a police car parked in front of my house for two weeks.

I’m certainly glad to see two professionals I certainly respect to come to an agreement and understand each other. We are all in this together guys and it’s good to know we can get heated at times but come back down to earth and shake hands. Good ending to a drama filled story.

Leo obviously had a backlog of unvented stuff, and you tripped the fuse with a bit of agressive banter.
Normally, Leo rolls with this sorta thing…he’s usually a gentleman and likes sparring now and then, and even dishes out his own occasional unabashed or speculative accusations.
Most people lose it now and then…

Looks like misunderstanding to me. I got impression that Mike and Leo were joking around until very end of the video. Good example of how easy two men may get into a conflict and also how they can resolve it.

i’m sorry. i have to turn comments off now. this is just too vicious. i can’t keep reading this stuff even if it’s just to delete it.