November 28, 2005

Tim Blair quits Pajamas Media!

You knew someone would be the first to jump ship. Did you think it would be Tim?

TO BE CLEAR: Blair has withdrawn from the Editorial Board. His blog is still listed as one of the member blogs. I don't know what the contractual details are here, but based on the offer I saw, the member bloggers had to commit themselves for 18 months.

27 comments:

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Palladian said...

Hey, I did think it would be Tim! Wow! Aside from the fact that he is rather far away and busy (his proffered reason for quitting), I always though him too much of a wildcard to get embroiled in something he couldn't criticize. Good for him.

I sort of hoped it would be Reynolds, if only because I respect him and find his participation in something so antithetical to his blogging values to be a bit puzzling.

Matt Barr said...

Pedantry alert: Of course we knew someone would be the first! Someone almost always is! (Ba dum BUM)

DEC said...

Actually I expected Larry Kudlow to leave first.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

HYup, he withdrew from the Editorial Board, saying:
PM needs people who can devote themselves full-time to rescuing the project after a launch that was, to say the least, problematic. It would be wrong for me to continue any involvement without being able to help to that extent. Hopefully PM will turn things around; I’d love to see it succeed.

I notice that it doesn't say "leaving PJM", just "leaving the Editorial Board." Must have been a slip that the headline on this post suggests the latter.

Ann Althouse said...

Fair enough.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Thank you.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

By the way, are comments off on the "whore" post? It 404's when I try to look at the comments.

jim said...

Can Tim leave the Organization, or are those who "joined" PJM/OSM/PJM all trussed up and tied down by contracts and fine print? Are the bloggers who signed on the dotted line even free to discuss Company insider reality, or do non-disclosure clauses prevent tattle and tell?

Tim is brilliant for not wanting to take any editorial credit for the enterprise/venture/next big thing/crap-out. My guess is that he figured this out five minutes into the launch that lurched and crashed, though no doubt his best wishes for the other 69 bloggers are sincere.

(Just saw Ann's clarification and similar question about contractual obligations. If this comment is a waste of space, please delete!)

Palladian said...

Oh, that's too bad.

erp said...

Ann, you're the lawyer and you know what they signed, but doesn't the obvious fact that the entity is no longer the one they signed on to make their contract null and void?

Ann Althouse said...

Charlie: Try it now. Blogger has had a glitch the last few days, but I've been able to get rid of it by republishing.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Got it, thanks.

Ann Althouse said...

Erp: I didn't see the text of the contract, and you're asking whether whether Pajamas could be accused of already breaching the contract, such that Tim isn't bound anymore. But I don't know what Pajamas promised to do. From the emailed offer I read, it didn't seem as though Pajamas was promising to do ANYTHING except pay money. That was one of my criticisms of the deal. I didn't think they were committing to anything, and I said it was a bad idea to bind yourself to a company that you had never seen in action, especially for such a long period of time.

How did I know if they'd be any good? The main argument people kept making on the other side is: if you don't sign on and it turns out to be good, you'll have missed the boat. I said (back in my original Pajamas v. BlogAds post), I want to know what the boat is. You don't just jump on anything. Oh, then there was the argument that it would be good because the people involved were so good....

erp said...

Ann, My point was just that given the debacle of the past week, it's unlikely any blogger who wanted out would be threatened with legal action. The last thing they need is more bad press.

Ann Althouse said...

Erp: Parties to a contract can always make a new contract if they can agree. Also, one party can just stop performing, and there might not be any legal action.

vbspurs said...

I sort of hoped it would be Reynolds, if only because I respect him and find his participation in something so antithetical to his blogging values to be a bit puzzling.

I'm not sure about the anti-ethical biz, but I thought it would be Glenn too.

He's never gunshy when it comes to speaking his mind, and changing course, if things don't function properly.

Cheers,
Victoria

Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Palladian said...

Antithetical not anti-ethical!

vbspurs said...

Antithetical not anti-ethical!

Ack! As Marty Feldman said in Young Dr. Frankenstein:

Curse my eyes! ...too late.

Cheers,
Victoria

Too Many Jims said...

I think the entire "contract" discussion misses the point a bit. If there is a legal (as contrasted with a personal or professional embarassment) issue going on, I suspect that it has to do with the fiduciary responsibilities that board members owe to stakeholders. In this case I gather that that is some VC. If that is right, I suspect that Reynolds and Kudlow need to see the ship righted (assuming it is off course) before they can jump off. Of course, if it gets righted, they won't need to jump.

jim said...

Jim the First here to Jim the Second:

How would "editorial" board members like Tim Blair have fiduciary responsibilities to stakeholders? Somehow I doubt they have real votes in how the Organization is run and money is spent- seems Roger and partner/s (Reynolds may be included) would keep that privilege to themselves. Where is the money, anyway? Are they holding back on spending it until they're thoroughly discredited? The ship is not so much off course *because it's not moving* than it is sinking. Perhaps next year Robert Ballard will do a TV special on the marvelously preserved vessel at the bottom of the sea that was the PJM Pinafore.

Too Many Jims said...

Jim the second to jim the first:

I did not mean to suggest that this "editorial board" has fiduciary duties similar to, say, a board of directors. I do, however, suspect that some members of the board may owe a duty to some. Specifically, I suspect that there is no way that anyone would have invested the amount of money in the project as has been reported if Kudlow and/or Reynolds were not involved. Accordingly, those two (at least) may owe some duty beyond there roles as members of the "editorial board".

jim said...

Jim 2, do we even know what the structure of the PJM entity is and what roles and responsibilities specific people are assigned? I think it would help if PJM's "Honesty and Transparency" creed extended to divulging members' and partners' interests and obligations to a potential readership that's dumbfounded as to what PJM is and why it isn't living up to a fraction of its billing. By and large, the Organization is an assemblage of some smart-enough bloggers, thinkers, lawyers, businessmen and IT types (the really savvy ones declined in a number of cases, I should add), so could it be that a principal or two are logjamming efforts and refusing to commit more funds? Or, perhaps the whole scheme and structure are just hopelessly misconceived.

Were I a blogger, I wouldn't link to PJM/OSM/PJM without knowing who materially benefits from my links and by how much. Would I be helping a blogger I like or adding a few more dollars to Roger's coffers which wouldn't thrill me? I'd certainly be leery of a kind of syndicate mentality of its blogrolled writers who might be tempted to keep the preponderance of links within the family. What about how the right to cite and use material on its site looks legally restricted to the nth degree (ah, unless you contact and get prior permission from PJM's Sales Office!)? Why would any non-PJM blogger want to share info, news and concepts with PJM, if the "free" flow of speech is somewhat one way, emphasis on free and unrestricted?

Through the looking glass portal, we have to Wonder at Rogerland.

Pooh said...

Ann, re: the blogger issue, make sure you republish the entire blog after you change your template. Blogger does weird things to posts published under a previous template if you don't.

EB said...

Jim 2, do we even know what the structure of the PJM entity is and what roles and responsibilities specific people are assigned? I think it would help if PJM's "Honesty and Transparency" creed extended to divulging members' and partners' interests and obligations to a potential readership that's dumbfounded as to what PJM is and why it isn't living up to a fraction of its billing

I've been wondering about this very thing. It all seems so mysterious.b

William said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.