I think I know how this went down:<p>Mark Pincus: Hey Mike, since you know we're in our IPO quiet period, can you write a rebuttal to that NYTimes article for me? I'll give you an interview or let you invest in my next deal.<p>Michael Arrington: Sure thing! You better speak at my next conference!<p>Mark Pincus: Okay, here are some talking points:<p><pre><code> - Blame everything on EA.
- I actually think we offer too many perks, point that out
- I think Roger McNamee is still upset I never let him invest, so he's basically just a sore loser
</code></pre>
Can you be sure to include that in the article?<p>Michael Arrington: This looks great! It will go well with my other piece defending your terrible labor practices!<p>Mark Pincus: You're the best.
Wouldn't it make sense if you're writing an article on Zynga to talk to and use as a point of comparison the other giant player in the video game industry, EA? I don't know, feels pretty reasonable to me. If I'm doing a story on Google Search I'd probably want a quote from someone at Bing...
In domestic abuse cases between wife and husband where the man is abusing the wife. The reason the wife doesn't get help sooner is because she is trained to focus on the good. This process can cause a phenomenon where the man only abuses the wife and does nothing good, yet she will focus on inconsequential things as she lives in complete denial.<p>I see pincus as manufacturing this situation where the employees are the abused yet thankful wife.
Yet another example of the kind of abuse of power that writers for "well respected" publications get away with all the time. That shitty NY Times article would have been ignored/laughed at on its own, but hosted on nytimes.com it becomes credible and generally beyond reproach. A permanent black mark on Zynga's reputation.<p>Now Arrington reveals that it's essentially a hitjob by scorned investors and direct competitors. Big fucking surprise.<p>All hail independent writers. Down with "well respected" media brands.