Hey You! Thanks for visiting MegMeyer.Com! Cleaver You! You now have one-stop shopping for Executive Business Coaching and Small Business Support Services! If you're really smart you'll sign up to get access to a bunch of small business resources and discounts on help for your business and career. (Don't worry - you'll only see this a few times, then it'll be gone... like the dinosaurs...)

As a writer in my own right, I know there are a few basic tenets of journalism that good non-fiction writers adhere to. The main one is making sure your facts are accurate.

Enter the bloggosphere. Many writers on the net pass their posts off as fact-checked news stories when they are little more than whiny rants that appear to be from a snot-nosed-kid. Many pose as journalists and would be the first to cry “freedom of speech” if their work was slammed.

As with all freedoms and inalienable rights - there comes responsibility.

Like checking your facts.

The Charge: Internet Marketing Ruining Twitter. The Accused: John Reese

Two writers authored posts cited legendary Internet Marketer John Reese, as an e-book salesman, today, and passed their dribble off as legitimate stories. Granted, they were probably looking for a fight, as that drums up publicity - the kind of underhanded marketing tactics that they claim John Reese allegedly instructs his followers to use.

Poster A* basically reposted an email from John Reese - suggesting that his followers join Twitter, follow him, and learn how to use this tool to grow a network & keep their network informed - slapped a few sentences in front of it and called it an article. In the journalism world that’s called plagiarism at best, and could be sued for liable or slander at worst.

Poster B* merely piggybacked on the breadcrumbs left by Poster A, and added in his whiny personal beef about a gadget by John Reese that he didn’t like. And blasted it through Twitter. *scratches head* Slamming an Internet Marketer for - marketing - from a garishly ad-filled site using the same tactics he’s accusing the Internet Marketing community of using?

Is he kidding? Saddly, I don’t think so.

The Rebuttal: Internet Marketing Guru John Reese Sets Record Straight (with facts!)

In his latest post - Wake Up Call: Web 2.0 Wouldn’t Exist Without Internet Marketers - John Reese brings the facts out and battles point by point.

You can read his full rebuttal by following the link above The points below are my own thoughts.

“E-Book Salesman” - John Reese doesn’t sell ebooks - but many businesses and organizations do sell and give away ebooks to prospects and customers. Who doesn’t like free information? I give away freebies all the time - and I’m not one of the “big names” in the game - though I have written articles about Internet Marketing.

“Blogrush” - John Reese’s supposed “failure” - Does being served over “540 million times” make it a failure? Or that it brought traffic to blogs that learned how to use it right, including my own? Or that it didn’t make money for the inventer, who could afford to lose $400k? (Businesses spend money all the time on developments that don’t bring in money. Is Google a failure because employees are encouraged to use 20% of their time to work on whatever they want? I hardly think so.)

“Twitter” - Twitter is totally opt-in. You can’t get random twits, tweets, or whatever you call ‘em from people you don’t subscribe to - only twits targeted to you. If someone was scamming the system - how many followers would they keep? And everyone, including Poster B uses twitter to let their network know what they’re up to. This includes articles, whiny drivel, projects, businesses, cool discoveries. Twitter is - as far as I can tell - entirely about “Hey, check this out!”

New rule for so-called journalists: If you’re going to use an inflamatory post to try to get traffic and links - check your facts - otherwise - and especially when they guy has money to spend on a better legal team than yours - you could wind up in court.

*Names and links to Posters A & B not included here, due to me just not wanting to give them the linkage that they sought with their posts. They are linked through the John Reese post, however.