I’ve just updated my eariler post with news that Michael Arrington of TechCrunch has received a threatening letter from the lawyer of the target of Arrington’s misguided and, apparently, misinformed hatchet job this morning. I’m a fan of TechCrunch, and I’m not a fan of lawyers who send threatening letters to bloggers. But in this case, I think Mike was wrong and he should apologize. I also think that all the bloggers who will, like I do whenever I hear about lawyers and bloggers, feel the knee-jerk need to attack the lawyer and his client should take a deep breath and get the facts.

As for me, I’m going to a hockey game right now — and am retiring from this topic forever.

One of my favorite websites that you’ve probably never heard of is Common-Place, The Interactive Journal of Early American Life. Here’s how they describe themselves: “A common place for exploring and exchanging ideas about early American history and culture. A bit friendlier than a scholarly journal, a bit more scholarly than a popular magazine, Common-place speaks–and listens–to scholars, museum curators, teachers, hobbyists, and just about anyone interested American history before 1900.”

The the current “issue” of Common-Place should be of interest to media types, especially those interested in design and “visual media.” From several angles, it examines the reality that ours is not the only era in American history to “experience an explosion of media.”

Quote:

“Nineteenth-century Americans experienced a media explosion of their own, one characterized above all by a stunning profusion of graphic imagery. From formal prints to magazine illustrations, from trade cards to campaign posters, nineteenth-century Americans found themselves in a new sea of visual experience and, as the thirteen authors in this special issue demonstrate, developed an extraordinary range of strategies for adapting to these powerful new forms of visual expression. “

Technorati Tags: design, american history, media

This is an insta-review based on three minutes of clicking around a website containing news and information on a topic I follow.

Except for my dislike of little video people walking around and talking on a website, I’m happy to point to a redesigned MinOnline.com. I can’t recall what the “old” MinOnline.com looked like, but I definitely think this better. Also, I like any source of news and information about magazines that has lots of RSS feeds.

Negatives: If you don’t have a paid subscription to what’s being fed, I don’t think you’ll find the feed handy as the click through will take you to a message telling you something you already know: that you don’t have a paid subscription to see that article. Which brings me to my second instasuggestion: The site has content that is “free” and other content that is “subscriber only.” Unfortunately, they don’t let you know if the link you’re clicking on is paid or free until you reach the page. They need to add a subscriber-only icon (see “Times-Select” or “ESPN Insider”) on the front end of links to content that requires a paid subscription.

Sign me up for the Jeff Jarvis amen corner on his assessment of the whole “Imus” thing. I’ve been wondering when Jeff would post on this topic as he was one of Howard Stern’s most articulate defenders from the regulators who were constantly beating down his doors when his show was on “terrestrial” radio. While arguing that Imus should have been fired years ago — because he is boring — Jarvis is alarmed about the piranha pool that forms whenever someone has a “macaca moment,” named for the video clip that eventually sunk George Allen’s hopes of being reelected U.S. Senator, and possibly President one day. Jeff says good riddance to Allen, Lott and Imus — because he’s not a fan of theirs — however, he shares my concern: Is this what we really want?

Quote:

“Just because someone offends someone, that is not cause to fire them make them resign from a show or a campaign. It means you can disagree with them. In fact, today, you have more means to state that disagreement and be heard than ever before. But we can’t fire everyone somene wants fired; we’ll be left with no more stars and no more politicians. And as tempting as that may sounds, it’s no way to run the world. The reason to fire Don Imus in my book is because he was boring. If you think he’s a racist for what he says today, then he said things in the past that should have told you the same thing. A channel has every right to hire and fire whom it pleases. It should do that for good reason — and racism and stupidity are good reasons — but not because someone somewhere played the offended card and called for a scalp.

I confess: On this blog, I’ve been guilty of calling for people’s scalps. Or, I’m at least guilty of fanning the fires, at times, when other people are picking up rocks for a stoning they’re planning.

In the future, I’ll try my best to keep from being such a fish in a piranha pond.

And in the future, when I see mobs forming after macaca moments, I’ll tag those posts “piranha pool.”

Technorati Tags: piranhapoolpool, piranha pool

(Update: [5:45 p.m.] This has a strange week for me. I spent the first part of it jumping to the defense of bloggers getting threatening letters from laywers and then, today, I find myself identifying with someone who felt the need to get his lawyer to respond instantly to what was so obviously a misinformed and misguided post by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. All of this said, I’m now officially resigning from anything to do with this matter.)

Yesterday, PaidContent.org reported that Nashville-based Rivals.com was close to being acquired by Yahoo!

Today, TechCrunch reports (or speculates, it’s hard to decipher this one as Mike is editorializing with this post) that previous acquisition plans failed when due-dillegence revealed that the company’s CEO has been fined for SEC violations a decade ago.

While the company that runs Rivals.com is located in Nashville, I don’t believe I know personally any of the people who run it. If, I do, I apologize for not knowing it off the top of my head. I think I know an investor, however, I haven’t been able to confirm my fuzzy recollection on that. But I do know this: Rivals.com is an incredibly robust online media property that attracts millions of 18-34 year old males — and has lots of traffic everyday. There is real value there that can be audited and verified and valued by the investment bankers and lawyers who surround all such transactions.

But, apparently I’m missing something. Apparently, someone is orchestrating what looks from the bleacher seats to be the equivalent of the politics of personal destruction on this deal. In his TechCrunch post, Michael Arrington writes, “No word on whether Terry’s history has been disclosed to Yahoo as part of the current negotiations, and how it might affect the deal. My guess is that it could have an impact.” Does Arrington have information beyond what has obviously been public-information for nearly a decade? Or is someone trying to use Arrington to “go personal” against someone outside the Web 2.0 fraternity that is going to be acquired by Yahoo? Is there a fear that if Yahoo! spends $100 million on Rivals.com, that it means they won’t acquire a TechCrunch-sphere startup?

I don’t think it’s the CEO that is attracting Yahoo to this deal. “I think” any concerns with a highly disclosed, decade-old fine will not be the make-or-break on this deal, rather it will be based on the potential for future value — a future in which the person TechCrunch is painting a scarlet letter on will likely be long-gone from.

No word on whether TechCrunch is pissed off that PaidContent.org got this story first. No word yet on whether TechCrunch talked with anyone at Yahoo before suggesting they haven’t done any Google Yahoo searches on the CEO’s name. No word on whether Michael Arrington has ties with anyone who is a competitor of Rivals.com.

Update: Thanks to the “tipster” who reminded me that a new executive at TechCrunch would be the logical “source” mentioned in the TechCrunch story regarding anything that Fox Interactive Media’s mergers and acquisitions people would have done two years ago. Now I can at least connect the dots on the who…just not on the why.

• The World Of Wikis | Read/Write Web
  Who is using them and for what purpose.
  (tags: wiki wikis)