Google Blogoscoped

Wednesday, June 8, 2005

59 Bloggers vs Blogumentary

“I hate to deal with negative energy in the world, but sometimes it rears its ugly head and throws up on you, completely unsolicited.”
– Chuck Olsen

“I ask you dear readers, what’s in this word “blogumentary?” It summons vengeance mightier than a mob on the heels of a child-killer. It cascades wrath over the blogosphere like blood roaring over Victoria Falls. Strike it from your vocabulary and teach your children well, for it commands the dogs of Hell upon the earth.

What man can survive this blistering, unrelenting torment from such demons?

Alas, I could not. For I am but one man without the protection of angels who could grapple with this Chuck Olsen. I prayed for battalions of angel-warriors, but they did not come. I even called upon the name of St. Lawyer, and did beseech him to hear my cry and smite these puss-seeking, word-owners.”
– John Hart,

Via Andy Baio, the conflict between 59 Bloggers and Blogumentary continues: 59 Bloggers retreats their documentary. In a nut-shell, here’s what happened:

  1. Blogumentary came first, being the title of a blog documentary by Chuck Olsen.
  2. Then came John Hart’s 59 Bloggers, being the title of another blog documentary, but the word “Blogumentary” was used here as well – several times on the front-page, or in navigation entries (“Bloggers in the Blogumentary”, “Blogumentary Sponsors”).
  3. Chuck Olsen very kindly asked John Hart to note that the upper-case “Blogumentary” as used by John could cause confusion, implying John may want to remove it. John Hart not so kindly wrote back and told Chuck to stop bothering him with the “bullshit nonsense.”
  4. Chuck went ahead and published this conversation on his blog. Chuck was happy several bloggers helped to defend him.
  5. Apparently, John now threatens Chuck with legal action. Chuck is crying out for “blogosphere help” in his blogs.
  6. Chuck gets the blogosphere help he was asking for, and he also says thanks to everyone for their support and action. One blogger by the name of Nathan Peters Dave Weinberger now doesn’t want to be interviewed anymore by John Hart. Nathan Peters writes to other bloggers suggesting they do the same. [Thanks Michael Meiser for the correction.]
  7. Somewhere now, John removes all instances of “blogumentary” from his site. Somewhen now, Chuck wants to settle the whole thing but asks for an apology as well.
  8. Now John’s getting into trouble: not only is his inbox filled with all kind of accusations – John’s sponsors feel the blogosphere heat and draw back their funding, leaving him without a movie.
  9. John blogs about this in a lengthy post, saying Chuck is a arrogant, an oppressor, whiney, a pest... and the devil himself. He also accuses Chuck of saying he published private emails. He says Chuck’s “gang” is a violent mob, and a danger to society and the internet.
  10. Chuck reacts by saying he never published any emails with a “privacy statement” on them, and also didn’t ask anyone in the blogosphere to attack John. He says John is lying and uses him, Chuck, as a scapegoat.

So, who’s right and who’s wrong, and who’s responsible the whole thing escalated? Truth be told, both parties are somewhat responsible. Maybe Chuck was a little over-protective, and him revealing the email conversation on the blog and thanking people for their actions makes him indirectly responsible (not in any legal way, of course) for how the story unfolded. But it would never have happened if not for John’s original incredibly rude reply on Chuck’s polite email. (You might also say it wouldn’t have happened if John’s sponsors would have stuck to his movie even during hard times.) And one thing is proven again: you don’t get very far when you bully the blogosphere or try to threaten with law-suits.


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!