The media column in the British Independent newspaper this week contains this remarkable passage, near the top:
Robert Thomson, the present editor of The (London) Times, nonetheless seems quite likely to exchange his once great office for a job on The Wall Street Journal. This depends on Rupert Murdoch acquiring the American business title, which seems highly probable. While he has been attempting to persuade the Bancroft family to sell its controlling stake in the WSJ, Mr Murdoch has called on the advice of Mr Thomson, a former Financial Times executive who has worked in America.
Mr Thomson’s denial that he is leaving The Times, and his expressions of devotion for London, are widely discounted as spin. He is more likely to become The Wall Street Journal’s publisher than its editor. Many Murdoch editors have yearned to escape the yoke of editing for the less taxing responsibilities of senior management.
“Widely discounted as spin.” Think about that for a moment.
If Thomson does leave the Times for the Wall Street Journal — this assumes that Murdoch’s News Corp. succeeds in the buyout, which seems likely at this point — his “denial that he is leaving the Times” will prove to have been more than spin. It will have been an outright lie.
The wink-wink nature of the Independent column speaks volumes about people’s assumptions of the motives and ethics of senior people in media companies, or at least in Murdoch’s: They are free to lie with impunity; it’s just business, apparently. (See Sydney Schanberg’s dismantling of Murdoch here.)
Of course, today’s media tend to let politicians lie with impunity. Rare is the case in which someone truly calls a lie what it is. Words like “dissemble” or expressions like “apparently at odds with what others have said” — when a blatant lie has been told — are routinely used to paper over the reality.
It’s especially disgusting when the lies come from journalism organizations, which (call me naive) ought to consider truth to be the top value. I don’t expect Murdoch’s operations, or operators, to adhere to high standards, but when media critics correctly rage at bad ethical behavior from people lower down on organization charts at, say, the BBC, and then give a pass to this kind of thing, the contradiction is blatant — and telling.
on Jul 24th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
re:” Rare is the case in which someone truly calls a lie what it is. Words like “dissemble” or expressions like “apparently at odds with what others have said” — when a blatant lie has been told — are routinely used to paper over the reality.”
Dan, I’m wondering if they do that (well, NOT to that… not call a lie a lie) for fear of legal repercussions.
Delia
P.S. Jon Stewart has it easier… he can always say it was a joke, a parody etc. But if the same things would be printed in a “serious newspaper” for instance… wouldn’t lawsuits be flying? D.
on Jul 25th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I doubt there’s any legal difference between “lie” and “dissemble” — they mean the same thing.
on Jul 25th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
They don’t really mean the same thing, do they? I seems to me that “to dissemble” means to *conceal* the truth (not to straight out lie)… But anyways, if the two words meant the same thing, it appears that your criticism wouldn’t make sense: if “dissemble” meant the same thing as “lie,” using “dissemble” instead of “lie” wouldn’t be papering over anything… (it would be telling it like it is… ) D.
on Jul 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Actually, you’re right. They don’t mean the same thing –my mistake. I should have used “mendacity” here, a word that is frequently used in this context and which does, in the dictionary definition, refer to lying.
The papering over I was thinking of refers to the failure to use the plain word “lie” when that’s what’s going on. It’s a simple word whose meaning can’t be confused.
on Jul 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Whoa.
I thi. After one’s sex life, the last thing I expect people to answer truthfully is about their employment plans. Who did it hurt when Hillary Clinton said in 2006 that she intended to fill out her second Senate term? White lies, my friend.
The sort of lying we see from public officials about the jobs they are doing is a different manner, as the costs can be measured in terms of dollars, reputations, lives.
on Jul 25th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Jon, it’s different to leave wiggle room — e.g. “intend” — versus a flat “I’m not leaving” statement. Of course nobody believes anything anymore, and for good reason.
on Jul 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Dan,
I’m wondering what you think of this:
http://valleywag.com/tech/mythbusting/craig-newmark-filthy-rich-on-ebays-millions-283002.php
to lie or… to dissemble?:)
Delia
P.S. of course, there is the question of accuracy but it sound plenty plausible to me (it certainly makes a whole lot more sense than Craig’s story)
P.P.S. I’ll be away tomorrow but I’ll check you blog when I get back… D.
on Jul 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Let’s see…
Valleywag quotes Fortune, and assumes Fortune’s source is”likely one close to craigslist” (likely? good grief). Then it quotes unnamed sources who contradict Fortune.
That’s proof of what, exactly? (All through the posting you’ll find weasel language reflecting the fact that the reporter believes some things to be the case but offers no real evidence.)
I enjoy reading Valleywag, but don’t tend to take it terribly seriously. That piece — 98 percent innuendo — is a good example of why.
Standard disclosure: Craig is a friend and supporter of our work here.
on Jul 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Dan,
There is definitely no proof… but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It may just mean that proof cannot be had — that Owen just couldn’t get it on the record… and that’s nothing unusual given the circumstances… As I said, it certainly makes a whole lot more sense than Craig’s story and Craig is certainly not offering any proof…
As to Owen’s article, he is plainly saying he’s got sources close to the craigslist-ebay transaction that told him off the record that Craig’s story is untrue and gave him plenty of detail as to what really happened. On the plausibility scale, it beats Craig’s story hands down…
As to the Fortune writer (he otherwise respects highly), he is giving, again, a very plausible explanation for why in spite of his ability as a journalist, the guy ended up just repeating craigslist’s line… (not at all unusual if you are familiar with craigslist media stories).
Delia
P.S. I don’t quite know what to make of your disclosure but I’ve already told you that… (It’s unclear to me if you are telling me…hey! I may not be very objective on this issue but I’m certainly doing my best or… you are telling me the opposite: I just can’t talk freely on this subject so what I’m telling you is not really what I think… )
P.P.S. In any case, if the story is true… would that mean Craig lied or… just dissembled? (this is the relevance to your entry) D.
on Jul 27th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Your standard is perverse.
The reporter has launched a blizzard of innuendo, with not a shred of proof other than what you call plausible because, apparently, you want to believe it. And then the reporter, and you, say that the subject of the story has to prove it untrue. That’s beyond outrageous. And terrible journalism.
on Jul 28th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Dan,
I’m not sure what you mean by my standard being perverse: given that neither story comes with proof attached, the only reasonable standard I can think of is that of plausibility.
I’m not sure what you mean by “innuendo”? Owen is pretty clear in where he got the information (no name, of course, but that’s understandable) and gives a straight forward detailed explanation of the events and motivations behind them.
Neither I or Owen are saying Craig has to prove anything. I don’t know what Owen is thinking in this regard (he is not telling us in his article) but as far as I’m concerned Craig can’t expect people to just believe him when his story doesn’t make much sense… Not everybody is that gullible…
Delia
P.S. As to my wanting to believe Owen’s story is true, I’m simply looking for the truth. And Craig’s story doesn’t seem to be it… it makes very little sense to me… That doesn’t make Owen’s story true, of course, it’s just a whole lot more plausible — if I had to bet on which story is true (which is the situation we are put in if proof can’t be had for either one), I’d choose Owen’s story without a question… D.
on Jul 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Oh, please.
It’s up to you whether you want to believe the original Fortune story. But to call Craig a liar based on the sheer innuendo in the Valleywag piece simply reflects your own dislike of his operation (which you disclose only tangentially via the hyperlink to your site that criticizes craigslist).
What you call “Craig’s story,” based on the Valleywag piece, is nothing of the kind. It’s an inference drawn from a Fortune story that Valleywag (and you) take to mean that the information came from Craig or someone close to him. (There are other possibilities for sources, which neither you nor Valleywag cares to acknowledge; and it’s even possible that the Fortune reporter — someone I also respect a great deal — got it wrong, because even good reporters sometimes get things wrong.)
So with that setup, Valleywag’s anonymous sources, challenging the Fortune story, are therefore challenging an unnamed source of possibly true information, whom you and Valleywag assume to be Craig.
Having created a dispute in which no principals to the matter are actually quoted, you channel Valleywag and ask “which story” is true.
You can do better than this.
on Jul 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Dan,
As I said… I’m simply looking for the truth… If you don’t believe me, you don’t believe me…: the best I can do is to look at the information available, say how things look like to me and *why* and ask others to do the same…
As far as I can tell, this approach doesn’t require any kind of disclosure… you only have something to disclose if you are not plainly looking for the truth — if you have a stake in the outcome (like you appear to do given Craig’s support for your work; I think it’s good that you disclose this, I just don’t know what to make of it).
As to my blog, it only exists because the MSM has done a terrible job at covering this subject… (it has done little more than repeat craigslist’s line) and the blogosphere’s hasn’t done much better either… So, as I told Jay, before even starting this blog (and it’s still the case), I think there are a lot of good questions about craigslist that are just not being asked or are merely alluded to. I even said that if he did an article on craigslist, I may even forget about this specialty blog… and that’s still how I feel about it… and it doesn’t *have to* be Jay… if ANYBODY would really look into things when it comes to craigslist’s claims… I could find a host of better things to do with my time…
Delia
P.S. When I said “Craig’s story” I really *meant* Craig’s story”: what he PERSONALLY said about the ebay transaction (and there is a record of what he said: check out Craig’s blog at the time the ebay sale hit the news). Fortune (and pretty much everybody else) has just repeated what Craig said without a question. Owen hasn’t done this… and I can only praise him for it… Would I have preferred that Owen would have been able to get his sources to go on the record about it? Absolutely…. but that didn’t happen… and it’s not at all unusual…
P.P.S. I’m not calling Craig anything, I’m just saying that to *me*, Owen’s story, makes a whole lot more sense than Craig’s story (and i *do* mean Craig’s story, what he has *actually* said) and as a consequence I find it much more plausible…
on Jul 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Come off it, Delia — you are indeed calling Craig something, and you’re basing it on unsourced quasi-journalism. Stop pretending otherwise.
BTW, Craig’s blog on the day of the announcement says nothing, one way or the other, about whether he got money in the deal. The point of the Valleywag piece is to claim that the Fortune assertion to that effect (itself based on unknown sources) is wrong.
What a farce.
on Jul 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Dan,
Sorry about the delay (just got back home): I’m not pretending anything… you seem to be hung up on something that just isn’t there: I was the first to say there was no proof (either way…) — that means that based on the information available nobody can really *know* if Craig lied…
Even IF Owen’s story is true, it appear that *on the issue of having gotten money out of the deal* Craig didn’t lie — he just dissembled…:) (that’s why I thought this was relevant to this entry of your blog): as you said, he didn’t say he didn’t get money out of the deal… but if you look at the questions he was asked on the ebay and craigslist forum (http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040813) it appears that by declining to answer questions that clearly went in that direction, he concealed the truth. Craigslisters also trusted him that he would have simply told them if he got money out of the deal… (how were they supposed to even know what to ask?)
“The point of the Valleywag piece is to claim that the Fortune assertion to that effect (itself based on unknown sources) is wrong”
Not at all… that is a minor point that doesn’t even goes to the core of the article… Owen just gave an example of an otherwise credible publication that got the story very wrong and why…
Again, I’m going to give you the benefit of a doubt… I mean, you are a smart guy… I find it hard to believe that you don’t know what was the main point of the story and what was just incidental… (I could easily wonder if you are purposefully trying to distract from the real issue).
Delia
P.S. I think Craig may well be taking you and plenty of other otherwise smart people for a ride…
do I *know* that for a fact? absolutely NOT — I don’t think anybody CAN *know* at the moment… but it certainly seems to be most probable…
P.P.S. But what do *I* care, right? Maybe I shouldn’t… — I don’t really *know* any of you guys… D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 7:00 am
You can have the last word. I’m exhausted trying to explain why embracing innuendo is contrary to fairness, which itself is a prerequisite for honorable journalism.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 7:17 am
I don’t need the last word… I just hope you mean what you are saying and you are just stuck in a wrong first impression the article gave you (as I fully explained earlier, there is no “innuendo”) — it would be really disappointing if you were doing this to serve your own interests that you so vaguely “disclose.” D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I probably shouldn’t do this, but the Valleywag story looks garbled. This phrase in particular doesn’t make sense: “But he held common shares, while Newmark and Buckmaster held preferred stock. That allowed Newmark and Buckmaster to try to squeeze Knowlton out of the company by issuing new shares to dilute his ownership stake. ”
If they could dilute Knowlton, why could they dilute eBay? And “preferred” stock is usually NONVOTING (look it up)
The whole thing would make much more sense if what Knowlton had was in fact a lot of stock options.
Then it would be true that Craig got some money out of the deal, from the options purchase by Knowlton/Ebay. But ValleyWag’s point that this was in effect Craig selling to Ebay would not be accurate.
This is not exactly the best example I’d use of A-listers tolerating lies among “their own”. But I can’t say more on that topic :-(.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Owen’s story may not be perfect (or even true — even if it made perfect sense, how can we really know it was true if he couldn’t get someone’s name who would be willing to confirm this?), but as a general idea it’s a hell of a lot more plausible than Craig’s… Craig’s story sounds idiotic to me and doesn’t seem to make sense on *any* level: the fact that he can get people like Dan to just believe it… well… it would be funny it it wasn’t sad…:) D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Oops, I meant “why couldN’T they dilute eBay?”
I’m a bit unclear as to the specific accusation at issue. That Craig Newmark has an “aww-shucks” PR persona, but he’s really a sharp businessman? There’s plenty of those types around – indeed, the demagogic nature of some services breeds them.
The specific charge from Valleywag seems to be that he sold an equity stake to eBay and blamed an employee. That doesn’t really seem to be supported. That he didn’t forthrightly own up to eventually profiting from the employee’s sale, that might be true, but it strikes me as not really worth getting worked up about (I’m much more unhappy about all the ongoing financial conflicts of interest among A-listers).
Maybe we should take this elsewhere, but what do you think about Craig’s story is idiotic? (as opposed to being a little shaded, not the same thing).
If I’m correct about the “stock OPTIONS” conjecture – and it’s just a conjecture – the real sin would be trying to cost a long-time employee many millions of dollars. A very nasty thing to do, but also very difficult to prove without the type of evidence which tends to only come out in a lawsuit.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Don’t get lost in the details, Seth. General idea: Craig wasn’t straightforward and at least dissembled if not straight out lied. Even if Owen would have never written about the ebay transaction, anybody who’s read Craig’s story and hasn’t had this going through their mind as the most probable explanation… it’s got me chucking… big time… D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
as to why it sound idiotic to me… read Craig’s story… and don’t miss things like the “symbolic ownership” that had no dollar value… (keep in mind that craigslist was profitable at the time) D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
oops… missed an “l” –>”chuckling” (not chucking) D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Hmm …
cnewmark.com/2004/08/ebay_and_craigs.html
‘I figured it didn’t matter, since everyone agreed that the equity had only symbolic value, not dollar value.”
Well, maybe …
“Well, the guy later left the company, and decided to sell his equity, which i learned he had every legal right to do.”
Claiming not to know this does strain my credibility. Especially if the equity was given in 1999, as the bubble was realy getting going.
I suspect there’s a missing element where Craig *thought* the guy wouldn’t be able to pull off a sale given the amounts involved, but the guy actually managed it. Maybe Craig believed nobody would pay millions for stock which didn’t pay a dividend in a company that wasn’t going to go public.
Reading between the lines, that’s probably what’s meant by the remark in the _Fortune_ article that
“When Knowlton decided to sell, most of the bidders, including Yahoo, Google, and a number of venture-capital firms, wanted control. Only eBay was willing to settle for a noncontrolling stake.”
I translate that as “The others didn’t want to buy what Knowlton had to sell, since he only had 25% and they were only interested in buying a total of > 50% – but eBay was willing to do it”
“As for the money eBay shelled out, that went to Knowlton, not Craigslist.” This might be technically true but not the full picture, in that as part of the stock transfer Knowlton might have had to give some money to Craigslist. But that’s not eBay’s problem. The money passing to the preferred stock holders might even be a requirement somehow.
But Dan’s already articulated his standard about “wiggle room”, so I suppose Craig can get a pass there. I suppose he (Craig) could have meant something like “I *thought* that Knowlton would never be able to manage to sell given all the restrictions in his contract, but I was wrong” (which is worth a chuckle, but actually then is true!)
By the way Dan, isn’t it unfair to pillory a guy based on second-hand paraphrases? How do you know that his actual statements don’t contain the all-important wiggle, and is that really what it’s all about?
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
[trying to get through the anti-spam system]
Hmm …
cnewmark.com/2004/08/ebay_and_craigs.html
‘I figured it didn’t matter, since everyone agreed that the equity had only symbolic value, not dollar value.”
Well, maybe …
“Well, the guy later left the company, and decided to sell his equity, which i learned he had every legal right to do.”
Claiming not to know this does strain my credibility. Especially if the equity was given in 1999, as the bubble was realy getting going.
I suspect there’s a missing element where Craig *thought* the guy wouldn’t be able to pull off a sale given the amounts involved, but the guy actually managed it. Maybe Craig believed nobody would pay millions for stock which didn’t pay a dividend in a company that wasn’t going to go public.
Reading between the lines, that’s probably what’s meant by the remark in the _Fortune_ article that
“When Knowlton decided to sell, most of the bidders, including Yahoo, Google, and a number of venture-capital firms, wanted control. Only eBay was willing to settle for a noncontrolling stake.”
I translate that as “The others didn’t want to buy what Knowlton had to sell, since he only had 25% and they were only interested in buying a total of > 50% – but eBay was willing to do it”
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“As for the money eBay shelled out, that went to Knowlton, not Craigslist.” This might be technically true but not the full picture, in that as part of the stock transfer Knowlton might have had to give some money to Craigslist. But that’s not eBay’s problem. The money passing to the preferred stock holders might even be a requirement somehow.
But Dan’s already articulated his standard about “wiggle room”, so I suppose Craig can get a pass there. I suppose he (Craig) could have meant something like “I *thought* that Knowlton would never be able to manage to sell given all the restrictions in his contract, but I was wrong” (which is worth a chuckle, but actually then is true!)
By the way Dan, isn’t it unfair to pillory a guy based on second-hand paraphrases? How do you know that his actual statements don’t contain the all-important wiggle, and is that really what it’s all about?
[
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Seth,
Again, don’t focus so much on the trees that you miss the forest. And I wouldn’t go off into speculation: just look at what Craig said –> if this makes sense to you without taking a ridiculous large leap of faith… I think you are very gullible… (Owen’s story is not even needed for this test)
Delia
P.S. as to what Dan said re:”wiggle room”, if I understood it right that meant avoidance (not dissembling and definitely not straight out lying…) D.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Well, I usually assume there’s meaning in people’s statements, and try to figure out what it is (sometimes I’m wrong in figuring it out, or even in the assumption). So am I trying to make sense of it, rather than assuming it’s just senseless.
I believe it’s true that Craig did not want the 25% sale to eBay. He doesn’t need the money.
I also believe that Knowlton figured out to do something that Craig thought he wouldn’t be able to do.
This doesn’t make Knowlton a villian to me, instead it seems he was clever. All in all, I’d guess Craig was out-maneuvered. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to draw from this in terms of lying, other than Craig is in fact a sharp businessman who projects an awww-shucks persona as I said above.
No, Dan said “it’s different to leave wiggle room — e.g. “intend” — versus a flat “I’m not leaving” statement”
That strikes me as more technicality in this context. I mean, the guy is obviously thinking “If the deal goes through, I’ll leave, but we don’t know if the deal will go through, so I’m not going to annoy my current employer right now”. But it would take an extraordinarily fearless and candid person to say that on the record.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Seth,
It seems to me that you *assumed* from the outset that Craig’s story was true. I don’t do that… I just read the thing… and if it’s way out there…(like in this case) … I usually have a good laugh and move on. You also use “believe” a lot — which suggests you are taking a leap of faith. And you contradict yourself:”All in all, I’d guess Craig was out-maneuvered” “I’m not sure what I’m supposed to draw from this (…), other than Craig is in fact a sharp businessman.” But don’t worry about it! (you are certainly not the only one)
Delia
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
No, I didn’t assume it was true. But between the two hypotheses that
1) Craig sold shares to eBay then cooked up a story to blame it all on an employee
versus
2) The employee sold the shares as part of complicated business deal, not to Craig’s liking (though Craig may have eventually gotten some money once removed)
Then I find #2 much more plausible over #1. Note neither covers him with glory.
I don’t consider “sharp businessman” to mean “never loses”, more like “tries to wheel and deal, make sure to count your spoons”.
I hope you’d grant I outlined a plausible scenario where his statements could both be less than totally transparent and yet not complete fiction.
on Jul 29th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“1) Craig sold shares to eBay then cooked up a story to blame it all on an employee
versus” –> I have no idea where you got this “hypothesis” (it’s not Craig’s story OR Owen’s story); I maintain that Craig’s story doesn’t make sense *on it’s own* (no competing scenario needed)
Delia
P.S. you are probably just tired, Seth… let’s give it a rest… D.
on Jul 30th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Dan,
just to clarify this: what did you mean by “wiggle room?” and did you mean that was acceptable to you? (that’s Seth’s interpretation but it’s unclear to me)
going back to Jon’s post (where it came into the discussion)
“Who did it hurt when Hillary Clinton said in 2006 that she intended to fill out her second Senate term? White lies, my friend.”
and your response: “it’s different to leave wiggle room — e.g. “intend” — versus a flat “I’m not leaving” statement.”
it seems to me that Jon was correct, if Hillary Clinton said she intended something when that was not the case, she lied… an I’m-not-leaving statement would have been just a more emphatic lie…
Delia
on Dec 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
[…] thought back in July, expressed in this posting, was what corruption the Independent story took for granted — and how especially ugly that is […]