A friend sent me this link this week. It details an email conversation between Gizmodo and Jason Scott about Gizmodo’s recent 1979 feature. Here’s how Gizmodos intern Don Nguyen started the conversation:
We are currently working on features about technology thirty years ago, and one of the issues we want to look in to is the state of pornography on BBS ‘networks’ in 1979 and the very early 1980s. I came across your great documentary about BBS, and was wondering if there is any information you could provide us with that would help for the article.
That’s not a great way to ask for help — Nguyen didn’t even ask any real questions of Scott. Scott replied:
I am happy to be thought of as a go-to guy for BBS history, but I can’t see how the article won’t be written in an exploitative way that will demean users of BBSes for a quick chuckle. I think I’ll pass. Keep me in mind for more uplifting aspects of that rich history.
Apparently the Gizmodo intern didn’t know what to do with that, so he got the site’s “Features Editor” Wilson Rothman involved. Here’s what he wrote:
I’d like to compliment you on that succinct and insultingly reductive reply to my assistant’s genuine request for the information and expertise in your possession.Let me know if you’d like to try again. Maybe you’d like to write the piece yourself? You’d be joining the ranks of guest bloggers ranging from astronauts to chefs, from Bill Nye the Science Guy to Adam Savage from MythBusters. Do you think all of them felt exploited when they willingly contributed their wisdom to Gizmodo?Seriously, we’d love your input on this, if you want to share. And if you want to broaden it beyond the thrilling subject of sex, I’m all ears.
After another refusal, Rothman seemed even more indignant:
Suit yourself. It’s too bad, because we really like working with people who are experts in their field, who are promoting their own projects. We reach 10 million people worldwide every month, and we’re happy to direct that attention to works we deem worthy. Your documentary seems like something people would actually want to know about — shame you’re not interested in promoting it.I’m really just sad that you came into this dialog with such a sour attitude towards us. I certainly don’t deserve it. Can I ask, for academic reasons, what causes you to be so negative? Maybe it’s a misunderstanding that we can clear up?
This gives a good look into the jackassery allowed behind the scenes at Gizmodo. If an editor at a newspaper was that berating to a would-be source, they would face consequences. I’m a fan of Gizmodo, and will continue to read it after this, but the condescending attitude to thier sources is disappointing. Rothman had no reason to be a jerk, and their intern should be sent back to summer camp if he can’t handle a simple rejection.
I can’t blame Scott at all for wanting to avoid the story — which would have indeed painted BBSes in a bad light. Scott was trying to protect the image of BBSes — something that Gizmodo apparently wasn’t interested in. Stories about porn generate more hits than stories not about porn, I’d bet.
I’m not saying real journalism doesn’t happen at blogs. It can and it does. This however, is not one of those instances. Nguyen isn’t a journalist. Not even close. And Rothman is just a plain, old-fashioned jackass who apparently got his feeling hurt. Shame on you, Gizmodo.
