It's Not Often I'm Speechless.

I agree that Michael is the best blogger on the site and to be honest if I don't see his name as one of the authors it just doesn't mean as much to me. I would love to have seen a video as although I believe it 100% it is always harder to go on people's word especially somebody as controversial and as attention seeking as Michael. I would be surprised if it was a month off and although banter and a bit of Europe/USA slagging is good craic and good for traffic/business it should never ever get to this level.

So basically you said that the rest of the TechCrunch team (myself included) sucks at blogging? Typical shortsighted comment, must be because you're a WOMAN.

[please note: tongue firmly in cheek]

hahaha- i didn't say "sucks"!! i link to *you specifically* all the time from techticker! would it help if i got back in the kitchen and made you something?

It's a bad situation any way you look at it. What entrepreneurs have to understand is that writers/bloggers can HELP them but they can't MAKE them. At the end of the day it's always about the product. Start-ups are like science experiments, they don't all work so if you fail you have to go back and try it again. Being from far west Texas, you can't spit on someone here and not expect a really good fight, it's definately a different culture. I wish Mike would have ran the guy down and beat his ass but he didn't and now people that use the site to actually learn something will suffer.

I read Michael's blog this morning and yours this afternoon (oh, and Valleywag's in the middle of yours -- sorry).

I've experience something similar to this before and it really sours your soul. You put your heart and soul into your business and if you're successful: 80% of your users will love you, 19% like it enough to complain to others that it's not good enough, and 1% will turn out to be a crazy user or worse a "social engineer". That 1% is out to bring you (and your company) down emotionally, financially or physically. The crazy user is just crazy and you just happen to be a convenient target for their craziness. The "social engineer" is motivated like a climber is motivated by Mount Everest -- because it's there.

For one's mental health, it's best to keep the brand in foreground and the focus on satisfying the needs of that 80% who love the brand. Don't make it "Bill Gates' Millennium OS". Make it "Microsoft's Visa" -- and allow others to run the business while you're out enjoying your success. You're employees will be happier. You'll be happier. ...and that 1% won't know who to blame for their problems that they themselves have created.

Why does every conversation about blogging seem to turn to the death of journalism and the sad, downtrodden journalists?

The reality is that yes, journalism is changing, but so is our culture and our youth. Who knows what the real evolution of "journalism" will be.

We wanted to be pioneers; we wanted to see things change. With every change there is a troubling backside. It doesn't tend to last forever, and the culture catches up, hopefully sooner than later.

We're in a troubling period in many ways, and a fascinating and fantastic period is so many other ways. Things will even out, but not if every discussion ends by pointing out a perceived doom and gloom of journalism's future.

jake: because thousands of hardworking journalists are losing their jobs as properties go out of business en masse. that means they can't pay mortgages and pay for their kids educations. "death of journalism" isn't a hollow concept- it has real world implications. clearly you're not in that boat or you wouldn't have written the above.

fwiw: i am *very* optimistic about journalism's future. i think there is huge, huge opportunities in any period of volatility. but it's incredibly naive and disrespectful to people losing their jobs not to acknowledge what's happening.

I *told* Geoff this is what would happen if he let you have a career.

Sarah...you write "It's one thing to expect this kind of abuse and scrutiny if you're a Hollywood celebrity, a public company CEO or a politician. But someone writing about startups? Why? That shouldn't come with the territory."

Of course, it comes with the territory.

I think what happened to Michael is despicable and horrific. Totally unexcusable...but not surprising.

I'm both a stage actor and an online community manager. This behavior (spitting) doesn't surprise me--any time you put yourself in front of the masses, you have to expect that x% of them are going to be what most folks call 'disturbed'.

That's just a fact of life. The more people you put yourself in front of, the greater the likelihood you will run across multiple disturbed people.

WE put ourselves on this stage. How many different places do you publish and try to attract an audience? You ARE seeking a celebrity of sorts, because if you don't connect with a large audience, you don't get paychecks, correct?

This is the seedy side of online community, Web 2.0, social media that very few people talk about, but those of us who have been practicioners for many years know quite well.

There are some nutjobs out there. The larger audience you connect with, the more nutjobs you connect with too.

Please take personal safety precautions and be safe. Michael should just carry a gun (and know how to use it) if he feels personally threatened.

But what Michael produces...what you produce...is only valued because it reaches an audience. If you don't want the ramifications of 'celebrity', stay off the stage and find another way to make a living.

You can't have it both ways...to put something in print for the whole world to see and then claim to be a private person.

I hope my words don't come across harshly--I do have great empathy for Michael's and your experience. I've got similar stories too, so I know what it feels like, but the bottom line, is that I put myself out there, and it comes with the territory.

Best wishes to you.

not harsh at all, and really i agree with you. while i don't think reporters *should* have to be public people-- and it surprises me anyone finds us that interesting for one-- i accepted long ago that i am, whether it's right or not. and as i said above, it's not changing. whenever people ask me if it upsets me, i say it's part of the territory. if i'm paid a premium because i am a brand-- i have to pay the price for that too. i totally agree i can't have it both ways. but it does make me worry, because i know a lot of *amazing* journalists who would not make that trade-off and that's bad for media.

btw...weirdness in signing in...my name is Mark. (@markwilliams on Twitter) Nice to meet you.

I hope Michael comes back rested, puts into perspective and continues to write because its HIS passion.

After all, having most of the Muslim world wanting to kill him didn't stop Rushdie from writing. :-)

my *guess* is he does come back. my guess is i never stop writing. but there are different kinds of writing than blogging. michael might enjoy doing a book where you go invisible for about a year then condense all the promotion into one span. that's my preference, personally. although i don't ever think i'll quit blogging completely. selfishly, i just like my core community of commenters too much. but i also have the luxury of a small mostly troll-free site, because i'm not trying to monetize it.

I'm with you. I yearn for the days of the European salon... small gatherings of artists, poets, performers and 'intellectuals' sharing their latest discoveries and passion.

I still bemoan that working constantly gets in the way of doing what I really want to do--and I'm lucky. I really LOVE my work and the people I work with.

But I'd just write & perform for small audiences if I could afford it. :-)

"while i don't think reporters *should* have to be public people-- and it surprises me anyone finds us that interesting for one-- i accepted long ago that i am"

That makes sense, but most bloggers aren't reporters. A LOT of us are teachers. Actual Celebrities have handlers, agents, and--money--to help deal with the consequences. The rest of us--teachers/coders/designers and the like--aren't remotely equipped for what can so easily and instantly happen when you write online.

If the price of participating in the social media world is a kevlar suit for you and your family members, diversity takes another big hit. The most common phrases I hear about all this imply that if you don't grow a pair, you simply don't *belong* online. I'm not saying that's bad advice, just that it limits the voices we'll hear.

But I'm very glad that you're continuing : )

[Side note: Mike came to a talk I gave on online harassment last summer, and the fact that he was there--and the things he said--make more sense now in light of his recent disclosure. But he wasn't the only one; at least a half dozen web "celebs" and 50 other lesser-known bloggers were there, many with horrific stories you'll likely never read about.

But it was clear there that things HAVE shifted. When I asked for a show of hands on how many felt that comment moderation was acceptable, nearly all hands shot up. Given the nature of this crowed -- the 'net leaders/geeks -- this was a huge surprise for me. Even a year earlier, I'm guessing half the room would have referred to comment moderation as censorship or, at the least, a violation of internet culture.]

The economist Tyler Cowen (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/) has a book out called "What Price Fame?" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067400809X/marginalrevol-20)

I've only skimmed the book, but one point it makes is that vicious gossip works to limit how much celebrities can achieve in life. More so, there seems to be something systematic about it, there is a quality of revenge, the have-nots lashing out at the haves. Bill Gates is therefore wise to limit his charity to malaria, it is difficult for him to establish credibility even there, and if he tried to comment on more than one major issue, he'd be dismissed as a kind of disaster tourist. We are not allowed to take seriously the humanitarian work of Angelina Jolie - she is too beautiful. Shirley McClaine is criticized for what appear to be authentically held spiritual beliefs. Success outside of some narrow field of expertise is sharply limited by an amount of criticism (which sometimes manifests as overt rage) that seems to lack a rational basis. And sometimes mere exercise of one's known expertise brings out that same rage as a response from some quarters.

The web is bringing changes to the way that social status and celebrity are assigned. In some very distorted way, the rage that has been directed at certain prominent bloggers suggests that blogging is producing some near-celebrities.

I think it's important to see Arrington's problems in the larger scope. There is a problem that fame carries such an enclosing price tag. Some of the most talented people in society find their options limited by the backlash they come to expect from their public statements or actions.

Sarah, One could argue that the only journalists who are going to make it through the hard times are the ones who turn themselves into celebrities. You came close to making that argument just a few days ago, when you wrote about Michael Lewis:

http://www.sarahlacy.com/sarahlacy/2009/01/michael-lewis-sounds-like-a-jerk-makes-a-good-point.html

Celebrity is a little bit different than journalism. The main difference is the one you spoke of before:

"One thing I do not borrow from Lewis is his love of putting himself in his books. Ever since Liar's Poker I've found it incredibly self-congratulatory. I know people think I love to promote myself, but note there are about four occurrences of first person in my entire book and each is a passing reference making a bigger point about one of the subjects."