Updated below: In what has to be the most fisk-worthy Web 2.0 story ever written, BW does a cover story about Digg’s founder and other young entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. The problem is not the subject, Digg, and the founder/team, who deserve credit for what they have created, but BW’s treatment of the whole story. It is riddled with so many inanities, without any sense or logic, or journalistic norms, it sounds like a parody of a parody.
Their idea of getting street cred among the tech-savvy/early-adopter/blogger crowd is this, and it sounds like a desperate ploy to stay relevant, even when they don’t have to. It does away with all the hard work writers like Heather Green and Stephen Baker have done there…seriously you two, what were you doing when this story was being written?
I don’t have the stomach to listen to the cover story podcast, which, by the way, is a nice BW feature where they have interviews with the writers about the cover story and the backstory, so to speak. I’ll try tomorrow, in a more relaxed weekend frame of mind..maybe that’ll help.
Updated: Judging from the comments below, I think there’s some confusion. I don’t have any problems with the style, nor do I care. It is about the hype and the treatment that the story is being given. Factual errors, false deductive reasoning, and the general lack of awareness of the dynamics of Internet M&A.
Secondly, the writer Jessie Hempel writes and asks in the comments below: what would we have done? The honest answer: we wouldn’t have done it. Simple as that. It is about having a bullshit detector. Some people have it, some people don’t.