I can’t believe we agree on a social networking valuation!

As to the finer points: Wrong is wrong, no matter how many 50 percent hedges you make.

Thus spake the irksome reporter.

Ok, fine. You reported and got the story wrong.

My bad. The fact of the matter is I think you have long been a great reporter, which is why it perplexes me why you think posting a rumor of such a weak story is okay.

Just because you write for a blog does not mean you have to abandon all your standards and practices.

I like the ability to speculate and give opinion too. A lot.

But that does not include putting up badly sourced rumors in such a manner. You did hype it, to my mind, and that is a disservice to those, like myself, who think you talented.

I did not mean to accuse you of making up stuff. I meant to accuse you of posting a half-baked rumor.

I suppose we can debate whether the rules should be different or not. But they simply should not be, as noisy as some can be about it.

Signed,

Self-righteously in favor of accuracy

Why do you presume to know how much reporting I did or did not do?

I won’t get into my methods or sourcing here, but suffice it to say that I made many phone calls. My primary source was credible, but not impeccable, which is why I labeled it as rumor. I am not using it as an excuse. That is what it is.

You seem to be implying that I made up the rumor to run a better headline. That’s not true. I received some information, followed it up as best I could, got some corroborating indications that there is some truth there, and told my readers what I could. It was still a rumor but an interesting one.

Would I have run the story at Time Inc. or the WSJ? Definitely not. But I write for a blog now, and the rules are slightly different.

Whether the rules should be different or not is a discussion we can have, but don’t accuse me of making stuff up or having a hidden agenda when I explicitly stated the post was highly speculative up top and in the headline. I am not sure how much clearer I could have been about that.

i thought you meant the # was out of whack, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

re: whether it’s fact, rumor, gossip or opinion… i don’t profess to grok the finer points of journalism here, but maybe erick should have noted it as more of an opinion piece. not sure i understand how you folks make the distinction between a) a multi-sourced news story, b) a single-sourced rumor, or c) a writer’s conjecture or opinion.

all of them are interesting imho, but i get that each is a different animal.

I did say in the post that people interested in investing often are interested in acquiring. It is reasonable and helpful for bloggers to speculate on the many players who might be interested in Bebo.

I also have always touted Bebo as a really innovative and terrific social networking. And if we are using Facebook economics (which I know you love–me, not so much!), Bebo is surely worth that $1 billion.

But Erick flatly stated (hiding behind calling it a rumor and estimating that rumor at 50 percent) that either Google or New Corp. were ready to buy Bebo (which one? both? good god, what a hedge).

But, AFTER I ACTUALLY DID REPORTING, I found out that neither is poised to pull any trigger or is about to buy it at this moment in time.

Who know if someday they will, but there is no offer at this moment, which is what Erick was saying without saying.

Personally, I think that kind of stuff is a disservice to readers, but that’s just me.

I know as a longtime and very sharp reporter that you know precisely what I am talking about here.

There is no basis in fact for that rumor and it is not true. By just hiding behind the excuse that you are just posting a rumor and buyer beware is a cop out.

Should I write about all the errant and incorrect speculation I hear all day long and then just say, “Well, it’s a rumor, so it MIGHT be true”? Of course not.

That’s worse still when you could have done actual reporting and found out it was not.

Sure, Google and News Corp. are good candidates for buying Bebo. You could have done a very good analysis of who should buy the company, and that would have been very interesting and doubtlessly intelligent, without foisting an attention-getting rumor banner, simply designed to grab traffic.

My headline, btw,was not referring to Bebo’s worth–it was referring to your incorrect rumor about a sale to Google or News Corp., which was wrong and I was correcting.

I do think Bebo is a great property and have said so in many previous posts without feeling the need to add speculation I did not even bother to check out.

Maybe, Bebo will sell and maybe it will not. The list of acquirers could include Google and News Corp. It could include a lot of companies. If it does sell eventually, it does not mean you are right in the present moment, which is what we are talking about.

And your putting on the 50 percent gauge on the rumor was an attempt at anti-hype? That’s rich. Anti-hype is actually a little different and pretty basic: Not printing things that are not true.

Lastly, when you say one of us will be right, you are fogging up the real issue. Your report is not correct right now, as you have written it. Sorry to be a stickler on these things, but I really think you do know exactly what I am talking about.

And for what it is worth, I wish Techcrunch would leave the rumor mongering to Vallywag where it belongs. I mean, common people, Denton’s gotta eat, too.

you say Allen & Co is raising a round, that the valuation might be a bil, and that other folks are sniffing around.

why doesn’t it seem reasonable that a motivated acquirer with cash would pay a premium on that supposed valuation to buy the company?

or are you saying just that the rumor wasn’t well-founded?

seems like the math would add up to me, and that Google certainly has the cash & interest to pull the trigger.

The post is what it is: a rumor.

At least I make that clear in my headline. Your headline implies that Bebo is not worth $1 billion. Yet in point 6, you say it “might be.” So which one is it?

And if Bebo is “well worth investing in,” it is also clearly well worth buying.

That is what my post is about: a potential sale. It is not about Bebo’s funding attempts. Although, it sounds like that is something maybe you wanted to write about. Go ahead.

Finally, the point of that 50 percent figure was to signal to readers our confidence in the truth of the rumor. It was an attempt at anti-hype. But I do feel the chances are greater than not, otherwise I would not have posted. So I have updated the chance of the rumor being true to 51 percent. Who knows? Maybe it will get to 100 percent.

We’ll see. One of us is right.