This morning, BoomTown was interviewed on the very terrific National Public Radio talk show, “On Point,” along with Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain.

The program, moderated by Tom Ashbrook on Boston’s WBUR station, was titled “From Desktop to the Digital Cloud” and dealt with the increasing move of data of all kinds online and into the so-called “cloud.”

In other words, eventually, a completely virtual life for music, photos, records and more, and the end of packaged software.

Zittrain, who was co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, also wrote the scary-sounding book, “The Future of the Internet–and How to Stop It”–a kind of ladies-lock-up-your-daughters title it’s hard not to love for its chutzpah.

He also penned an op-ed piece for the New York Times recently, with another corker of a title: “Lost in the Cloud.”

Some of the “real dangers” of the move to cloud computing that Zittrain cited in the piece: Losing control of data, losing data itself, privacy issues, federal government overreaching, even more nefarious governments abroad and a damper on innovation.

Zittrain is a smart cookie, to be sure, although I did not really agree with him at all on the show about pretty much any of his concerns.

For some non-cloud-friendly reason, WBUR does not allow me to embed the show here; you can listen to it in its entirety by clicking here.

Also, here is a posted response by Zittrain after the conversation, in which I failed to assuage him. He remains “still worried.”

For all the noisy hubbub over should-we-or-shouldn’t-we-publish confidential documents hacked from password-protected accounts of Twitter employees, as well as a Twitter spouse, it is actually pretty simple.

Stolen equals stolen.

But, because this is a “hot” issue and it concerns an even hotter Web 2.0 company–Holy traffic-gooser, Batman!–the debate will surely go on and on, even as the stolen information inevitably leaks its way out.

Still, let’s not pretend what it is and is not.

It is most definitely not, for example, one of those great dramatic moments in journalism.

Thus, comparing the ruminations over whether to publish egregiously obtained information–however true–to the debate over a major event like the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers is pathetic.

It is, though, a tempest in a Silicon Valley teapot.

In point of fact, my colleague Peter Kafka, who works from New York, wrote me tonight:

“Was at a fancy schmooze tonight packed with digital media bigwigs: Viacom, NBC, News Corp, plus lots of start-up guys. TwitterGate was on *no one’s* lips. I talked to one guy who has a stake in the company and he pretty much shrugged about it–several people had no idea about it at all. Total non-news.”

It is not, however self-righteously (and pompously) put forth, much of a dilemma.

As the very clever John Gruber of Daring Fireball put it: “What you may ask, is the dilemma, since it is clear that any decent human being would simply refuse to have anything to do with something so lurid?”

Indeed, it is unequivocally wrong to publish documents you know or think were stolen or hacked, because it is aiding and abetting that theft.

In this regard, then, there should be no difference between “Web” journalism and the old-fashioned journalism–acting as if the former gets a “process journalism” (what a crock!) pass at standards and ethics that should be eternal and unwavering, no matter the medium.

And it is a little like pitting “gay” marriage against marriage, in order to create a false dichotomy, designed only to obfuscate the issues.

So, it also isn’t kosher to try to take focus of your own wrongdoing by pointing to other practices, which is almost always an obnoxious reach by the willfully immature.

While comparisons to leaked company documents have been made–and BoomTown knows from leaked corporate memos–this is a lazy-man’s argument, since it simply does not track.

The Twitter docs were stolen from personal accounts, an obvious pilfer, which immediately changes the equation completely.

While you certainly can have a lively debate about whether Yahoos should pass along some widely distributed memo that CEO Carol Bartz penned to the company, it is not even close to the same thing.

And, more to the point, if someone sent me emails jacked from Bartz’s own email account, I would not need even a second to know I would never use such information.

As I tweeted earlier today: A credible source a reporter knows giving accurate info is clearly different from a thief rifling through someone’s sock drawer.

That is especially true when you use material from a person you do not know. For the record: When I post a company memo, for example, I know and check out exactly who’s giving it to me and I don’t publish stuff just because it happens to land in my email box.

And, a minor beef, blaming victims for the theft by saying they have weak or inadequate passwords is also pathetic. It’s kind of like blaming people for being robbed because they had crappy locks.

I suppose there is a point in there, but the real finger of blame should always be firmly pointed at the burglar and those who fence his nicked goods.

That brings me to my final point–thinking you can handle dirty material and then act as if your hands are clean.

How hands get dirty is a concept even my children understand.

And if my kids ever said: “Hey, this stolen stuff is going to get out anyway, so let me be the one to ladle it out as I see fit”–I’d ground them for life.

BoomTown is at the lovely Santa Clara Marriott in Silicon Valley at the 2009 Yahoo annual meeting, liveblogging the event, which should be spectacularly dull.

Here is a rundown of what went on.

10:05 am: The meeting kicked off with a little video presentation with various and sundry television talking heads saying “Yahoo” in quick succession.

Actually, this was the year during which all of those hype-magnets repeated “Twitter”–the hottest media trend these days–so many times that it has began to make my ears bleed.

But I like the spirit of trying to make Yahoo (YHOO) seem relevant and innovative again.

Then, CEO Carol Bartz (pictured below) walked onto the small stage in the California Ballroom, declaring: “Well, that made me feel good.”

Exactly when does Carol not feel good?

She explained why: “I am having a ball,” speaking about her rehaul job at Yahoo, and then thanked shareholders after what was “a tough year last year.”

The board was introduced, with most of them being present at the meeting, except for Ron Burkle and Carl Icahn.

10:12 am: General Counsel Mike Callahan comes on with the blah-blah-blah about rules and votes.

I soon started thinking of the lovely breakfast pastries outside that I passed by outside. Drat!

This year, the 12-member board, now including Bartz, was up for reelection.

Last year, as you might remember, many of those board members were under siege by shareholder discontent.

Not in 2009. A major shareholder who was unhappy last year told me there would be no protest vote.

“Carol is doing a good job,” said the investor.

Yahoo was also asking for approval of its accounting firm, Price Waterhouse.

There were several important votes before the shareholders.

One was a standard one regarding executive compensation or a “say on pay” proposal, which was introduced by an outside stockholder.

Yahoo’s board recommended against it.

Another proposal regarded changes to be made to a 1995 stock plan and to a 1996 employee stock purchase plan.

The latter was most important, because it was a request to authorize more shares for future employee options grants. It will mean a large addition to the pool–30 million more shares–if authorized.

The stock will be used to keep valuable Yahoo talent in place. Good idea.

10:23 am: The floor was then opened for comments on the proposal and ballots were collected.

I was not on the edge of my seat.

Like clockwork or an election in the former Soviet Union, the board was elected, the stock plans approved and Price Waterhouse was in.

The “say for pay” proposal? It went down in defeat.

The people have spoken!

10:29 pm: Bartz took back the stage, which immediately livened things up.

She went through the history of her coming to Yahoo, which began with former Yahoo CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang (pictured here) asking if she was interested in the job at a Cisco (CSCO) board meeting.

Both are on its board.

Bartz also briefly recounted her meeting with Yang at his house, although she minimized the insulting aspect of the story.

She has maximized it in other tellings–such as in an onstage interview with me recently at the D: All Things Digital conference.

The basic thrust of the story was that Yahoo was a big mess that needed the Carol treatment.

Bartz, of course, did not stress that as much today. After all, Yang was sitting right in front of her.

Bartz noted that she has been asked about two things since coming on board:

What about a deal with Microsoft? And what the heck is Yahoo anyway?

She had nothing to say about Microsoft (MSFT) and said it would be said publicly only after any such deal was struck.

Actually, she has commented about talks with the software giant publicly many times, but let’s overlook that.

The Bartz went into the definition of Yahoo. It’s simple, she said. The largest global online media company. With technology. That everyone knows. Plus email.

10:34 am: Bartz ran through the new staff she has put in place, such as CMO Elisa Steele and others.

She then moved onto the top-to-bottom reviews she has been doing of Yahoo.

Including what she dubbed “space debris,” which are Yahoo sites that should be shut down, repaired or outsourced.

Bartz’s tone? Calm and comforting and reassuring–less the live wire she usually telegraphs and more the I’m-in-charge-here-so-remain-calm vibe.

She hit all the big targets, for good measure. Front page. Mobile. And, of course, advertising.

“Yahoo has a distinct opportunity in this area,” said Bartz, referring to its online display ad business. “Advertisers come to us.”

She ended by calling Yahoo a “home,” which is one theme the company is considering using as a brand strategy in an massive overhaul it is working on.

10:45 am: The floor was open for questions.

The first was a good one. Essentially, why is Google (GOOG) such a money machine when Yahoo is not? And why are its workers so much more productive in comparison?

“We have a very different model than Google,” said Bartz. “It has a cleaner process.”

As in, it is better at vacuuming up the dough!

Bartz, who has been trying mightily to end the Yahoo/Google comparison (smart move!), did not really give an answer.

“Please, this direct comparison model to Google is not fair and is frankly not relevant,” she said.

Well, it is actually quite a bit fair and a lot relevant, but we shall also overlook that one too (for now).

10:49 am: A fan question about how it was good that Bartz has been taking the focus off of the Microsoft issue too.

He also liked that she said she would take piles of money from the software giant, though, in a search partnership deal.

Then, the questioner dived right into the weeds, with questions about the front page, such as having too much dopey entertainment news on it.

Especially all that Jon & Kate and their gazillion kids crap!

This is a favorite meme for Bartz, who proceeded to quickly one-up the question by strafing a perfect celebrity target.

“If I see another Britney Spears item, I am going to throw up,” she declared in nauseous solidarity.

She then mentioned something called a “fluffometer,” which is apparently taking care of this most pressing issue of our time–the Lindsay Lohan threat.

Will it defluff Yahoo?

Inquiring minds want to know.

10:54 am: The inevitable China question was asked, of course, a query which has always tripped up previous Yahoo management.

“It’s very easy to get crosswise,” said Bartz, trying not to get crosswise.

She mentioned a recent human rights summit Yahoo had hosted. “We have actually done a lot, but it is never enough.”

Well, actually, Yahoo and many others did not do enough previously, but Bartz was pretty much steering clear of the thorny realities of doing business in China.

Then came the “vision” question.

Actually, Bartz said it was not about vision, but about growth. “We don’t have a vision problem, we have an execution problem,” she said.

Another question was asked about Internet censorship in China.

“I’m going to go real simple here: Yahoo was not incorporated to fix China,” she said. “It’s that simple.”

Bartz said the company was not going to take on every government in the world and that its “mistake”–referring to activists jailed due to Yahoo handing over information to the Chinese government–should not hound it forever.

Well, it should, but point taken.

The next question was about Iran and how popular Twitter is. Bartz said Yahoo was also in there.

11:04 am: A questioner asked about Facebook and why the social networking site was so popular, even though Yahoo had better products.

Bartz said Yahoo was working hard on making those products more social.

The next questioner asked about whether another Google partnership deal with Yahoo could be reborn. That deal went down in defeat last year.

“Justice is Justice,” said Bartz, referring to the federal government department’s opposition to the deal.

As in, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with Uncle Sam.

The next questioner asked about why Yahoo always told shareholders at meetings like this that it was doing great every year and then didn’t deliver.

Bear with us, said Bartz.

As to selling off its Alibaba assets in China: Not a good time to sell.

11:09 am: A questioner asked whether Yahoo might buy a newspaper, like the New York Times (NYT).

Yes, that would be a good move–out of the frying pan into the fire!

I was sitting right next to one of its reporters, Miguel Helft. No comment!

Bartz then thanked the Yahoo shareholders for having faith.

As I said, it was Bartz’s first annual meeting. But, for Yahoo investors over the last several years, having a lot of faith–too often tested–kind of comes with the territory.

In what is quite possibly the most spot-on comment about Twitter that BoomTown has heard thus far, Harvard University Professor Jonathan Zittrain said:

“It is easy for Twitter feeds to be echoed everywhere else in the world. The qualities that make Twitter seem inane and half-baked are what make it so powerful.”

Zittrain was being quoted in a New York Times piece today about the use of Twitter by those protesting the election results in Iran, as other means of modern mass communications–such as email, Facebook and texting–got blocked.

In other words, Twitter is so simplistic and silly that it is a perfect digital tool to overthrow a government–which is kind of makes the trendy microblogging service the Forrest Gump of international relations.

Stupid is as stupid does, of course, but what it does illustrate quite smartly is that word of mouth–a concept as old as humanity–remains the most powerful way of distributing information.

While not always reliable, masses of people chattering away has always been the most fluid way in which news has been disseminated and received. Although much of that can be mundane and borderline idiotic, one cannot deny its impact.

What one can deny, though, is the hype that inevitably follows in the wake of every one of these breakthrough technologies like Twitter.

That’s a mistake, because it is how the tools are used by people, more than the tools themselves, that should be the focus.

Still, the media hyping of tech tools as savior is reliably annoying.

Television, of course, changed the presidential elections, as radio had before that.

And, more recently, weren’t mobile phone cameras critical in reporting the bombing in London’s Underground in 2005?

Or wasn’t Facebook key to protests in Burma in 2008?

And, even more profoundly, didn’t the simple fax machine get lauded during the uprising in China’s Tiananmen Square in Beijing as an heroic gadget?

Reported Time magazine in 1989:

“When word of the massacre in Tiananmen Square first reached the University of Michigan, the 250 Chinese students studying there jumped into action: they purchased a fax machine. Daily summaries of Western news accounts and photographs were faxed to universities, government offices, hospitals and businesses in major cities in China to provide an alternative to the government’s distorted press reports. The Chinese students traded fax numbers back home along the computer network that links them around the U.S. The fax brigades at Michigan were duplicated on many other campuses.”

Ironically, hardly anyone today uses a fax machine at all, having moved onto more effective methods of sending out critical news, data, pictures, updates and more.

Like Twitter today, which deserves this moment in the sun, to be sure, as long as it lasts.

Which it won’t, as people move onto the next way to do what they have always done, which is to connect.

As for tomorrow, who knows?

After all, digital life was, is and will always be like a box of chocolates–you never know what you’re gonna get.

Does the tech march ever slow down?

Not this week it doesn’t! And Digital Daily’s live-blogger de tutti live-bloggers John Paczkowski will be there to cover every move.

Today, in case you haven’t heard, is the big annual Apple (AAPL) event: The Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco.

The keynote at the Moscone Center kicks off at 10 AM PDT with Phil Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing, along with other Apple execs. They will be presenting to 1,000 developers, at what is now the only major products event for the iconic and innovative Silicon Valley company.

A passel of press, as well as John, will also be there, along with our Web guru (and closet Apple expert) Adam Tow. They’ll be liveblogging and posting photos to the All Things Digital site throughout the event.

It’ll be a lot of iPhone news, according to reports, with possibly an upgraded device and all sorts of new features and software.

But, unless it is their lucky day, Apple fanboys likely to have to wait a little bit longer for the return of Apple’s leader Steve Jobs, presumably astride a steed bearing a giant tablet iPod Touch.

According to The Wall Street Journal last week–whose report is finally, finally, finally the most solid, thus far–Jobs is set to return soon to the helm of Apple after a six-month sick leave.

And that means reports of Jobs’ imminent demise early this year were, as it turned out, quite premature.

Which makes it laughable that those who trumpeted someone’s allegedly fatal illness without even close to adequate sourcing are now–as the specifics of their clear overreaching have faded–they were sort-of right, since, you know, he was sick.

But let me review what was reported then, using a single source: Jobs was “declining rapidly” and “it may be even worse than we imagined” and, quoting the source directly: “Apple is choosing to remove the hype factor strategically vs. letting the hype destroy Apple when the inevitable news comes later this spring.”

Oops, it is June now and Jobs appears to be on the mend, it did not turn out to be worse, even if he was quite sick, and spring has passed without the “inevitable” happening. Close is only right in horse shoes, especially in this case.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring. I certainly don’t, but neither does anyone else, which is why–unless you’re looking at Jobs’ medical reports or hearing from someone who has seen them–it’s pretty much an impossible story to get right either way.

So, no matter how much they try to defend themselves in a recent piece in the New York Times (which was silly enough in its toothless blogger-bashing)–claiming it is fine and dandy to insinuate that someone is at death’s door without, you know, knowing for sure if it were true–it’s just lame all around.

But, lamer still was the climbing-onto-a-very-high-and-precarious-horse reaction to that dopey Times article, by giving these dog-ate-my-homework reporting lapses the even sillier moniker of “process” journalism.

I confess I am utterly flummoxed by this term, because it seems to boil down to:

We have a firm commitment to report it wrong until we, um, get it right or someone, anyone, please hurry, corrects us–not that we’ll ever admit an error, just like mainstream media!

Actually, it sounds more like processed cheese journalism–completely without nutrition and eventually bad for readers’ health. But eat up and get obese on it, because it’s free and cheap and even tasty at times!

But, I digress.

After all the Apple news is chewed and re-chewed up by one and all, Google (GOOG) will be holding an app event tomorrow, also in San Francisco.

Said a Google email: “At this invitation-only media gathering, we’ll announce product news, share perspectives of new enterprise customers, see demos, and review the Google Apps business. You’ll have the opportunity to speak with a number of senior IT decision makers who have moved their businesses to cloud computing, as well as Google executives, and engineering and product managers. We hope you’ll be able to join.”

Paczkowski will, of course, join and be serving up organic liveblogging fare, full of vitamins and minerals and all the good stuff, both fast and accurate!

Process that.

But, fear not, it will also be, as usual, quite tasty too.

John Battelle (pictured here), the founder, chairman and CEO of Federated Media Publishing, told his staff this morning that he will begin a search for a new top exec to take the company into its next stage of growth.

Battelle, who is apparently not leaving the San Francisco-based company, wrote that the new exec–whose title could be CEO–would report to him.

In a post on the FM site about the move called “The Start of Something, Again,” he wrote:

“It’s time to take it to the next level. FM is no longer a scrappy startup, and while its leadership team is deep and experienced, we’ve come to the conclusion that to take the company to the place we all know it can go, we need an additional leader on board. So today, I’m announcing that I’m officially launching a search for that position. It used to be you did this in private, but we live in the world of social media, and one of FM’s mores is transparency. I want to honor that value today.

So let me be clear: I am in no way leaving the business. This new leader–the title will depend on the person–will be responsible for running the business–taking all reports and managing to our plan–but he or she will be working very closely with me.”

FM, which sells online advertising for a large group of social-media sites and blogs, raised $50 million in funding a year ago from Oak Investment Partners, giving it a valuation of over $200 million.

The start-up had previously raised about $4.5 million from other investors, including the New York Times, the Omidyar Network and Panorama Capital.

FM reportedly did $40 million in revenue last year and has been cash-flow positive for many years, although the recent economic downturn has impacted its bottom line.

Here is a video interview I did last night with Battelle and others at a dinner he and Tim O’Reilly threw in San Francisco for Silicon Valley movers and shakers, related to the upcoming Web 2.0 Summit that they organize.

He did not mention the exec search at FM, though–instead he talked about the next phase of Web 2.0, which he is now calling “Web Squared.”

No kidding.

Here’s the video–which also includes CBS (CBS) Interactive exec Zander Lurie suggesting a more buxom name for D: All Things Digital:

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090515/federated-media-will-search-for-new-leader-says-founder-and-ceo-battelle-plus-a-web-squared-and-double-d-video/feed/ 1 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090505/kara-visits-hollywood-news-blog-thewrapcom-complete-with-cottage-hq-like-atd/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090505/kara-visits-hollywood-news-blog-thewrapcom-complete-with-cottage-hq-like-atd/#comments Tue, 05 May 2009 17:00:02 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=13113

While the current meme is that traditional journalism is getting the stuffing knocked out of it by the digital onslaught, it neglects to notice that a lot of really sharp news reporters are actually getting some real traction by finally starting to be serious about creating online sites designed to compete.

As case in point, BoomTown recently went to visit the offices of TheWrap.com, a Web blog aimed at dominating breaking news about the business of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

Funded by Seattle-based venture firm Maveron, it was founded by former New York Times and Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman.

With a small team of writers, editors and one single business person–and run out of a cottage in back of her house in Santa Monica, Calif.–Waxman is trying to combine the high standards and ethics of journalism, the news-breaking abilities of longtime pros and a low budget.

The business plan is, no surprise: Advertising.

(Hey, just like All Things Digital! Except Waxman is near a pretty beach and our San Francisco-based World HQ–also known as a cottage behind my house–is foggier.)

In any case, innovative efforts like Sharon Waxman’s might become the rule rather than the exception in the future of the news media.

So far, on her own since its launch in late January, TheWrap.com is garnering several hundred thousand daily visitors each month, moving close to the Web sites of trade publications that cover the industry.

Here’s my video interview with Waxman, in which she gives the who, what, where and why:

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090505/kara-visits-hollywood-news-blog-thewrapcom-complete-with-cottage-hq-like-atd/feed/ 3 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090413/stumbleupon-stumbles-out-of-ebays-arms-to-be-reborn-as-a-start-up/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090413/stumbleupon-stumbles-out-of-ebays-arms-to-be-reborn-as-a-start-up/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:20:55 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=12222

The content-discovery service, StumbleUpon, has gotten itself back to start-up status, after being bought by eBay two years ago.

It announced today that it was returning to being an “investor-backed startup” by a roster of well-known Silicon Valley investors, including Ram Shriram of Sherpalo Ventures, Accel Partners and August Capital.

Its founders, Garrett Camp and Geoff Smith are also back, with Camp now in place as CEO.

“We are grateful to eBay for its guidance. However, we realized there were few long-term synergies between the two businesses. It is best for us to part ways and focus on our respective strengths,” said Camp, stating the very obvious.

That’s quite a boomerang since it was acquired by the auction giant in 2007 for $75 million.

Before that event, which was at the height of the Web 2.0 fervor, the Canadian-born social-bookmarking start-up, which launched several years ago, came to the Bay area in 2006 and got some fancy venture investors (Mitch Kapor, Ron Conway, Shriram and others) who ponied up a couple of million dollars. It soon became a traffic-generating hit.

But rumors of the San Francisco-based company being sold by eBay (EBAY) have swirled around it almost since it was bought, although there was no sale.

The same has been true for eBay’s other purchase, of voice-over-IP service Skype. A recent report in the New York Times said its founders were also considering buying Skype back from eBay.

Under eBay, the site has floundered a little bit, but made some changes, such as unveiling a new Web-centric look and feel and a new partnering program last fall that represented a major shift for the online discovery service.

In that change, users no longer had to register for the service or download its toolbar to “stumble” the Web.

Terms of the deal were not released, but we’re digging! Um, stumbling!

More to come, but here’s the full press release from the company, as well as a video I did at the party StumbleUpon threw after getting acquired by eBay, including an interview with then-thrilled Camp:

StumbleUpon Goes Independent; Backed by Founders and New Investors

April 13, 2009 – StumbleUpon, the best way to discover new content on the Internet, today announced that after nearly 2 years as a subsidiary of eBay Inc., it has returned to the ranks of an investor-backed startup. StumbleUpon is now backed by the original company founders, Garrett Camp and Geoff Smith, as well as a number of well-known investors including Ram Shriram of Sherpalo Ventures, Accel Partners, and August Capital. Camp takes on the role of CEO of StumbleUpon.

“We are grateful to eBay for its guidance. However, we realized there were few long-term synergies between the two businesses. It is best for us to part ways and focus on our respective strengths,” said Camp. “This change makes it possible for StumbleUpon to continue to innovate and focus on becoming the Web’s largest recommendation service.”

“StumbleUpon helps users discover the best of the web–it’s a way to find interesting content you wouldn’t think to search for,” said Shriram. “StumbleUpon’s personalized recommendation engine brings serendipity back to websurfing, and lets users sift through socially-endorsed content with a single click.”

StumbleUpon will remain focused on helping people discover interesting content by increasing the accessibility of the StumbleUpon service and the quality of recommendations. In addition, StumbleUpon has plans for several new products and features to be released in the upcoming months.

[ See post to watch video ]

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090413/stumbleupon-stumbles-out-of-ebays-arms-to-be-reborn-as-a-start-up/feed/ 1