FANBOY.

Heh, it's hardly a secret.

Am I the only one that heard Beavis and Butthead laughing in my head while reading this?

"Hehehehe... that was cool."

"Hey Butthead, check it out!" *click*

You only get to say "get a sense of humor" when what was done was actually, you know, funny.

As opposed to merely asinine.

regardless of whether CES is actually worthwhile anymore, or whether or not some people actually find it funny, it hurts the movement to recognize bloggers as legitimate news outlets, and hurts the process of getting them as much access and consideration as the traditional media. i'd think it a bit asshole-ish if they had pulled this stunt after bloggers in general gained a bit more recognition, but i could just brush it off as only hurting Gizmodo, as it only should. but right now it's just too stupid a move.

Am I the only person of the opinion that bloggers need to prove their worth and not just be recognized because they blog? I should add that I have no idea about CES or Gizmodo or pretty much anything involved specifically in this article, but I'm addressing the issue of bloggers in general. Don't get me wrong, I don't put journalists on the same pedestal that I would a Professor Emeritus, but they have to some extent earned the right to access to "events" more so than the random asshole on the internet. Why does a 18 year old blogger who couldn't reason herself out of a paper bag who has gathered an army of similarly disabled reasoners deserve the same type of access that a seasoned professional journalist would? I'm all for blogging, yada yada, but as far as access is concerned the line has to be drawn somewhere at the very least for practical reasons if not intellectual ones.

And I thought it was pretty damn funny if only due to the irony of technophiles not being able to figure out why the hell their TV doesn't work....

i didn't find it funny because that stuff happens all the time anyway, and it's irritating when it happens by accident... so i imagine this was just even more irritating.

i do sort of want one of those doohickeys tho. heh.

I think it really comes down to numbers, not quality. There are some complete hacks working in the traditional press that get press passes without even asking, and there are great writers working in online media that have to beg and plead for a pass. Seasoned doesn't come into it. What should be important is how many people read what you write, that's the bottom line for the people trying to push their product. However, in spite of numbers, people in online media have a much harder time getting in to events, or - as I know from a previous writing gig - getting advance access to things for review. I used to write for a DVD review site that regularly pulled in tens of thousands of hits for a review of a big release, with some getting 100,000+ readers. That's better 'circulation' than many magazines in the British press, but we still came at the bottom of the pile for review copies, if numbers were limited they wouldn't dream of giving u a copy to review ahead of any monthly.
In my experience, most people that write online do it for free, or for perks, with a lucky few making a living out of it. Giving someone a press pass so they can inform thousands of people about your product is the least you can do, but many are still reluctant to because of the 'amateur' nature of online media. This prank does not help change that attitude, it reinforces the idea that bloggers are not professional.

Is online media looked down upon by the corporate hierarchy as amateurish? I would certainly agree with that assertion. But by it's nature, the blog is a amateur's game. There is no code of ethical standard for blogging, no one goes to school to learn how to be a blogger. Hell, you don't need any shreds of experience. All you need is a computer and an opinion, that opinion being well-informed or not. Professionals can be bloggers, but bloggers cannot simply be professionals simply because they blog.

So what are we talking about here? Blogs or professional online media outlets? Because technically, Gizmodo cannot be simply defined as a blog, or tech-blog. Regardless of the stunt pulled at CES, Gizmodo is a professional media outlet, presented in a blog format. The Gizmodo staffers make their living through that site, and the site is obviously profitable or else Gawker Media would have probably put it to rest.

Was this prank immature? Of course. Was it funny? Certainly not side-splitting-ly, I thought it was worth a chuckle, but apparently I'm in the minority. Did it really have any effect on anything? Hell fucking no, save Gizmodo's pocketbook. The geeks don't care. It appears the only people who are really mad are the corporate execs. Everybody else seems irritated, but only by this idea that somehow this is going to set the world of 'blogs' back 10 years. But if we view all online media simply in a bubble named 'blog', it's never going to be respected as a legitimate professional outlet anyways.

Some perspective and context is in order. This was a tech-related prank, pulled on some tech-clueless people, that has had no impact outside the tech-world, and I for one would argue little impact inside it. So, the concern here is about the ethical actions of bloggers? How come I have heard no controversy about Markos Zuniga urging his readers on DailyKos to vote for Romney to swing the GOP nomination off? It may certainly be legal, but how ethical is that? And as much as I would like to see the Republicans sabotaged, where is the debate here? Where is the controversy?

Pranks can and often do go to far. There is a fine line. But Gizmodo turned off some TVs. Sometimes a harmless prank just is a harmless prank.

I saw this story initially on G4's Attack of the Show. I thought this was a hilarious and harmless prank. Not to mention the traffic on Gizmodo's website has to have skyrocketed since the whole ordeal. They're getting more free publicity than one would ever expect from a little prank like this!