Matt Mullenweg accused Inc Magazine of distorting an interview with him, publishing verifiably fake facts and quoting people who lacked credibility. Mullenweg posted compelling examples of how the Inc magazine misrepresented his quotes and presented false fact, citing the selection of unflattering photos as evidence of a conscious effort to negatively slant their interview of him.
Mullenweg explains why he agreed to the interview:
“When Inc Magazine reached out to have David H. Freedman (website powered by WordPress) write a feature piece I was excited because though Inc wasn’t a magazine I have read much since I was a teenager, David seemed like a legit journalist who usually writes for better publications like The Atlantic. I opened up to David with a number of vulnerable stories, and allowed the photo shoot in my home in Houston.”
The article begins with an unflattering portrait of Mullenweg as a control freak that is fussy about the kind of toilet paper and soap is provided at Automattic’s offices. Mullenweg writes that he had shared an anecdote with the writer of the time he visited Google’s headquarters in 2004 and was surprised by what he felt was “cheap toilet” paper. Years later when he had his own offices he made the decision to spend extra on good soap and toilet paper to benefit his employee’s experience at work. In other words, the choice to do that came from altruism and a concern for others, not a desire to control every detail.
But that’s not how Inc magazine portrayed it.
They write:
“Stooping to fling open a storage cabinet built into the bathroom wall, he points to a neat stack of wrapped toilet paper rolls. “The best toilet paper you can buy,” he assures me. “How much extra does really nice toilet paper cost? A buck or two?” The handsome bottles of soap by the sinks are premium, too, he adds.
I ask him who at Automattic, the estimated $710-million company of which Mullenweg is CEO, is responsible for toilet paper and soap quality control?
“Me,” he says, beaming.
Of course, Mullenweg’s control of Automattic extends well beyond the bathroom walls.”
Grim Images In Photographs
The author of the article described Mullenweg as a young looking forty year old with a “near-constant grin” which contradicted the photographs Inc chose to publish, neither of which showed him smiling. Of the two photographs from the interview they chose to publish, one captures Mullenweg mid-blink, resulting in an absurd image of him typing with his eyes closed.
There are two other photographs from the past nine and twelve years ago which do show him smiling. Mullenweg’s smile is not an affectation; it’s an authentic expression. Videos of him participating in interviews or speaking publicly consistently show him smiling. Mullenweg is correct to point out that Inc magazine made a deliberate choice to not publish an image of him smiling, which is his characteristic expression, as noted in the article itself.
Poorly Researched Article
Mullenweg’s critique of the article zeroes in on a series of false statements that are indicative of poor research, including a consistent misrepresentation of a company’s earnings with its valuation.
One of the false facts wrongfully asserts that Mullenweg coded WordPress in three “obsessive days” when the actual time period was four months. This might seem minor but it’s not because it’s evidence of what Mullenweg points out is poor research that could have been easily verified on Wikipedia.
His critique is thoroughly convincing and shows how he agreed to the interview with openness and the expectation of balanced reporting. His dismay at the results is palpably communicated in his blog post about it.
Nevertheless he goes on to say that he supports journalism and puts the blame on the editor of the article.
He writes:
“I know a lot of entrepreneurs follow me and I don’t want your takeaway to be “don’t talk to journalists” or “don’t engage with mainstream media.”
…this is a good example of where a decent journalist can’t overcome a crappy editor and quality control. I probably wouldn’t be excited to work with Inc Magazine again while Mike Hofman is in charge as editor-in-chief, he’s clearly overseeing a declining brand. But I will continue to engage with other media, and blog, and tweet, and tell my story directly.
When an editor wants to make you look good, they can! If they decide they want to drag you, they can too. Everything in my interactions with David and Inc made it seem this would be a positive piece, so be careful.
We’ll see if Inc Magazine has any journalistic integrity by their updates to the article.”
Rightfully Disappointed
Mullenweg researched the interviewer and verified that they were a competent and respectable writer. From Mullenweg’s point of view the Inc magazine article was poorly researched and heavily slanted against him, what he termed a hit piece.
Read Mullenweg’s account of the interview:
Featured Image by Shutterstock/tomertu
