Free Sarah Lacy!
by Kara Swisher
Posted on March 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM PT
I could not agree more with both Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Valleywag’s Owen Thomas, an unlikely and motley trio we three, when I say: Leave Sarah Lacy alone.
OK, the interview she did with Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at SXSW on Sunday was a little silly at times and she probably annoyed people when she flacked her new book. (Full disclosure: I have written two books, so I can relate to the unfortunate impulse to do so.)
But to make such a big hairy deal in blogs and on Twitters seems a bit of overkill, doesn’t it?
Even including a wee bit too much girly hair-twirling by Lacy into the equation (which looked like simple nervousness to me), I just don’t get the uproar.
If Britney Spears had mounted a mighty steed and ridden naked down Hollywood Boulevard, trampling cute little bunnies as she went–it could happen!–it would not engender the level of vituperative online bloviating that the encounter of Lacy and Zuckerberg did.
Were there no other pointless blogging debates to be had yesterday? Aren’t there indignant Digg-for-sale stories to chew over? Wasn’t there a good open-source kerfuffle to get into angry exchanges about? Didn’t Robert Scoble do something that we can endlessly argue between and amongst ourselves?
I guess not and that’s too bad.
Arrington got it exactly right (except in singling out only journalists for the Lacy-bashing, since it was, well, everyone piling on), when he wrote:
“Perhaps they just got caught up in the fun of a witch burning. But whatever drove them to write those articles, it certainly wasn’t journalism. Nor was it professional. And, worst of all, it wasn’t accurate.”
And Thomas made the most salient point of who should have been the focus of the interview, when he wrote:
“I agree with the popular take on Sarah Lacy’s Zuckerberg interview at SXSW to this degree: The audience was revolting. Lacy threw an unbecomingly petulant tantrum onstage. But the Twitter reaction was equally self-indulgent. The debates over her performance obscured the man who should have been under the microscope: Mark Zuckerberg.”
Well, exactly.
I am, in fact, probably going to be interviewing Zuckerberg onstage at our upcoming D: All Things Digital conference in late May. I hope it goes well, but you never know.
But here’s an offer: If everyone promises to stop needlessly pummeling Lacy for her SXSW interview, I’ll consider twirling Zuckerberg’s hair during my interview with him.
Twitter that.
Also, here’s the video of the Lacy-Zuckerberg interview, so you can make your own judgment:
Comments
If you will ask similar questions like Sarah did then I believe you will get flamed as well. Sarah was more interested talking about herself then then really focusing on Facebook and the concerns the Users of Facebook have with Facebook. She was too cool and not serious enough. She should read some books of Oriana Fallaci to learn how to interview seriously and how to interview successful people. Sarah Lacey was not prepared and not organized. It is only fair that she got flamed.
Posted by Zeno Davatz at March 11th, 2008 at 1:52 amAfter watching the entire interview, I find myself wondering if any of the authors of the many articles I read about it yesterday have done the same.
Was it a great interview? No, but it was a lot better than many of the recent political “debates” I have suffered through in recent months.
It was certainly not the disaster I read about on various “respected” tech news sites. The authors of those stores might want to do some actual research before hitting the keyboard the next time.
At this point, my respect for Sarah is far greater than that I have for most of those that reported on the keynote.
Posted by dev null at March 11th, 2008 at 6:46 amZeno:
The interview might not have been well done. So what? But this overreaction is worse,
It was in no way fair to get that flamed over such an issue. I would call it sexist if the reaction wasn’t so essentially inane.
Posted by Kara Swisher at March 11th, 2008 at 8:18 amDev:
Obviously, I agree. Plus if people did not like it, they should have just left or tuned out. They just wanted to go on and on. Sort of like my kids when they don’t get to watch Scooby Doo. Except my kids behave a lot better.
Posted by Kara Swisher at March 11th, 2008 at 8:21 amIf the interview went badly, (and come on, it really wasn’t that bad) Zuckerberg is partly to blame. An interview like that is a performance, with responsibilities by both parties. Mr. Mark let Sarah down methinks, and seemed to relish slowly feeding her to the wolves.
Now, can we PLEASE move on to what Scoble is doing?
Posted by Bruce Evans at March 11th, 2008 at 9:33 amKara,
The mistake Lacy made during this interview was focusing solely on the business story, while talking to a crowd of developers who were waiting for something targeted directly at them.
The business questions she asked were spot on.
As for her flirting and the flacking? The flacking was cool. The flirting? I dunno.
ReidWegs
Posted by Reid Wegley at March 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pmBruce:
Scoble! More Scoble!
Posted by Kara Swisher at March 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pmHi Kara:
I’ll buy that t-shirt. As a former journalist (and now PR consultant) I’ve been on both sides during bad interviews. They happen. They’re uncomfortable (even painful). And when you’re stuck in the middle of one it can feel like you’re in an airplane heading for a mountain side.
I agree that Sarah was nervous and as a result she lost it (always a bad move to turn on your audience). It will blow over. It always does.
Posted by George Snell at March 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm