On some level of journalism, I guess anything could happen.

At least that’s according to a recent article by Business Insider’s Henry Blodget about an alleged “mole” at Twitter who was allegedly spying for Google, specifically about an exec the microblogging service was trying to poach from the Silicon Valley search giant.

In a decidedly splashy, hello-traffic, ALL-CAPs headline–THE SEARCH FOR THE “TWITTER MOLE”: All Eyes On John Doerr“–Blodget pointed his J’accuse finger at the legendary venture capitalist as the culprit.

Based on…

Well, based on nothing, it appears, except rank speculation and what appears to be no attempt to get Doerr to comment.

And, while it’s not my cup of tea, whatev, I suppose.

Except when I read down to the bottom and landed on this gem:

We have talked to several sources familiar with aspects of the situation. Thus far, we have not been able to confirm either assertion.

First, no one has even confirmed that Google was tipped off in advance of Twitter’s poaching effort, much less by a Twitter mole.

This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

And later still:

So we haven’t been able to confirm the “high-level mole at Twitter” story. And we think there’s a good explanation for why there might not be a mole at all.

Secondly, we have talked to no one who has any evidence other than the logic above that, even if there is a Google mole at Twitter, the mole is John Doerr. One insider we spoke to, in fact, dismissed the idea out of hand.

Say what?

It’s kind of like thinking that a sparkly Civil War-era vampire falling in love with a moody chick in the Pacific Northwest and flying through the pines all day and mooning over their cruel fate was real.

Okay, that was a Hollywood movie called “Twilight,” but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen!

Thus, Doerr–a tough customer to be sure, capable of all kinds of sharp-elbowed behavior–is guilty until proven innocent?

Or just not guilty at all, but let’s just say he might be anyway, without a shred of evidence, because it could have happened!

(Courtroom confession: It was All Things Digital‘s Liz Gannes, who did it on the blog with scoop on the Twitter talent raid effort of Sundar Pichai!)

Speaking of evidence, less than a week later, Javert–oops, I mean, Blodget–was back in another kangaroo court performance with another terrifically loud headline:

“The Guy Who Says He Owns 50% Of Facebook Just Filed A Boatload Of New Evidence–And It’s Breathtaking.”

Breathtaking, I guess, if you are in that fantasy teenaged girl mode, but deeply suspect if you are anyone with a modicum of journalistic responsibility.

It is perfectly fine for Blodget to dredge up the copious emails from a man named Paul Ceglia–who alleges he possesses a contract that he struck with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg at the time of its creation–and analyze them.

And it is certainly notable that a credible law firm, DLA Piper, has taken on the case for Ceglia and it does seems unlikely that it would have done so without doing some level of due diligence.

In fact, in an interview with Am Law Daily, DLA partner Robert Brownlie, international co-chair of the firm’s securities litigation, said: “At first I shrugged it off as incredible. I would not have gotten involved and DLA would not have gotten involved if we had any doubts about the facts or evidence in the case.”

That was, of course, countered by Facebook’s lawyer Orin Snyder at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who said in a statement that the Ceglia allegations were part of “a fraudulent lawsuit brought by a convicted felon.”

By the way, in fancy-lawyer parlance, that translates to a liar-liar-pants-on-fire defense.

So, microwave the popcorn and get ready for the drama, because no question, it is clearly going to be juicy all around with a whole lot of social networking poking!

In fact, such a case is tailor-made for Blodget, who has always been a very gifted writer with a nose for sharp-edged analysis.

It’s too bad, then, that he did not hone his knife to such an edge when it comes to Ceglia, giving him much too much credibility based on what could be fake emails, especially since they come from a man with a history of fraud.

History, in fact, that Ceglia is depending on in this case, since Zuckerberg most definitely has one in regards to partnerships gone bad.

Thus, Zuckerberg has been sneaky before, ergo he’s sneaky here.

That’s no surprise as a legal tactic, of course, and I threw in the “ergo,” since I too want to play Perry Mason in a blog.

But. More to the point, while Facebook was certainly hard-nosed in dealing with both protracted and high-profile legal challenges from the Winklevoss twins and also Eduardo Severin, I don’t think I have ever seen the company explicitly say evidence was completely fabricated, as it is alleging Ceglia’s emails are.

As I said, I have no idea if they are or they’re not, but I do know this: While those emails are certainly bombshell in nature, they are designed to be so precisely because it is a lawsuit in which the principal is trying to shame Facebook into settling.

None of that seems to concern Blodget, who concludes at the end of the post:

“In short, to us at least, the emails don’t read ‘fake.’”

In short, to me at least, that’s for fake-email experts and the courts to decide.

The real fact of the matter is, who knows? I certainly don’t, although I do know it’s terrifically easy to file a lawsuit and claim just about anything you like.

And the same seems to be true–more and more these days and not for the good–for blogs too.

As for me, I need to get back to my goal of proving that sparkly vampires do exist.

Here are the three data points that the search giant showed off during its earnings call this afternoon. All of them “begin with the letter B,” as product SVP Google Jonathan Rosenberg noted, and all of them come with caveats:

• $2.5 billion: Non-text display ad revenue run rate. That number includes ads from its DoubleClick unit as well as YouTube.
• 2 billion: YouTube monetized views per week.
• $1 billion: Mobile annualized revenue run rate.

All of those seem big–and they are! But they’re also deliberately fuzzy enough that it’s hard to tell exactly what they mean.

For instance: As Henry Blodget notes, those display-ad dollars are gross revenue, which means that Google only keeps a portion of them. And while that two billion YouTube views number is up from a billion a year ago, it’s proportionally the same: A year ago YouTube said it was monetizing a billion views a week while serving up a billion views a day; now the video site says two billion views a week and two billion a day.

Meanwhile Google officials, who routinely announce that YouTube is close to profitability, refused to tell analysts whether YouTube is actually profitable.

No matter! The point of b-as-in-big numbers was to impress Wall Street with Google’s ability to create new revenue streams beyond its core search ads. And the data, along with the company’s impressive Q3 performance, seems to have worked: Shares are up nine percent in after-hours trading.

——————

EARLIER

There’s the beat Wall Street was looking for. Google reports earnings of $7.67 a share and net revenues of $5.48 billion. The consensus was for $6.67 and $5.25 billion. GAAP EPS was $6.72.

Google (GOOG) has been plowing money into capital expenditures and people–it now has 23,300 employees, up from 21,800  months ago, a 6.8 percent increase–but it has been able to keep operating income quite healthy, anyway. Adjusted operating income was $2.93 billion, well above the $2.77 billion consensus.

GOOG is up considerably, now seven percent, in after-hours trading. Robot cars for all!

You can listen to (and watch) Google’s 4:30 pm ET earnings call by clicking on this YouTube link. I’ll add updates from the earnings call occasionally starting here:

As in recent quarters, CEO Eric Schmidt is sitting this one out.

CFO Patrick Pichette starts off. Aha! Teases that “we may have” Schmidt available for the first 30 minutes of Q&A before he gets on a GooglePlane.

300 of those new 1,500 employees came from acquisitions.

Discussion of “long-term” growth–”the next 5 to 10 years.” “Simply put, we’re on this growth agenda at full throttle…investing heavily in people and in product.”

There’s a “war for talent” in our industry, which is “out of synch” with the broader economy. Currently exploring how to attract and retain people. Winners and losers determined by this battle.

Re: Product investment, which you’ll hear about from product SVP Jonathan Rosenberg. He’s going to tell you about some numbers, but don’t expect to hear an update on these–they’re merely “proof points” about Google’s success.

Here’s Rosenberg, teasing new previously unreleased numbers.

Here they come. Starting with search and Google Instant:

Impact has been “very minimal” on revenue and “quite expensive” from a resource perspective.

But! “We launched it because we could.”

As search gets better, ads have to keep pace. Great momentum with AdWords.

New ad formats appear on more than 10 percent of query. Some formats show clickthrough rates as much as 10 percent on some, up 30 percent in others.

Big numbers, “which all begin with the letter B.”

$2.5 billion: Non-text display ad revenue run rate. That includes DoubleClick, YouTube.

2 billion: YouTube monetized views per week

$1 billion: Mobile annualized run rate

Mobile search queries up 5 times in the last few years.

Back to Pichette, to tamp down numbers.

In some cases, there is overlap with numbers. For instance, with AdMob, numbers counted in both display and mobile.

Time for Q&A, Schmidt is now on the line.

Schmidt says query growth is pushing click growth, and so are new ad formats. Ads are more compelling, etc.

Pichette notes that AdX numbers are included in the $2.5B display total.

Q: Please talk about YouTube. Of the two billion monetized views, what percent is that of total views? And are you profitable yet?

Pichette: Re: Profitability, “We have not made any comments on it.” [Except of course when they do, over and over.]

Rosenberg: Note that we’ve said we do two billion views per day–that will give you context.

Sorry, missed a Q.

Schmidt says growth of Android is “well past what I had ever hoped for.”

90,000 apps on Android “and growing very fast.”

Question about “proprietary benefits” of Android.

Schmidt: Android is the “largest single platform play” in mobile today.

We’re growing it by giving software away. How does that help us? Well, for starters, people who use Android search two times more than anyone else. Obvious benefit for us there, and search is more lucrative for us there as well, and that makes Android “hugely profitable.”

And we can add other value-added services to Android, but that’s not the focus right now.

Questions on cost: Cost per employee has declined. Can you continue that? And on mobile, will you stay with the “indirect monetization” Android strategy?

Pichette: Wouldn’t read anything into the cost-per-employee numbers. But we’re continuing to be frugal and generous.

Ad boss Nikesh Arora: We’re excited about the revenue model we have. We have no reason to change the model we have with Android.

Schmidt: And display will become a very big component of mobile.

Q: On display, can you break out YouTube and AdX numbers? And what do you think of competitive Android marketplaces?

Pichette: No breakout of numbers. [Duh.]

Schmidt: Goal of the app store is to make money for developers. Not a revenue goal for Google. More stores are a “win for everybody.”

Question about CPC on mobile devices. Rosenberg: They’re lower than desktop, because there aren’t many practical ways to consumate transaction. But on the iPad, activity looks a little bit more like it does on a PC, because there’s more room to enter credit card numbers, etc.

Q: Please discuss cannibalization between smartphone and PC–are iPad and tablet searches incremental or cannibalization? And can you give us color on international 26 percent growth?

Rosenberg: We don’t see cannibalization. We see mobile as complimentary to desktop. Different use patterns–mobile search is on weekends, during lunchtime, etc.

Arora: Generally, trend positive across the board. U.K. a bit weaker, but some of that is FX. Southern Europe way better than Northern. Asian markets robust.

Q: Competitors make $300 profit per handset sold over the lifetime of a device.You’re approaching this with a different model, but do you think that’s an upper limit on that number?

Schmidt: Our model is that handset makers and manufacturers make a lot of money from the phone, and we make money from advertising. So can’t compare the two, and premature for us to guess what we can do. “It should be highly lucrative” and a “very very strong revenue stream compared to a PC.”

Q: On social search. How do you “capture the signal” without access to the data feeds, as you have with Twitter.

Schmidt: “There are some ways we can do that” now, and we’re working on new ways.

Sorry, stepped out. Back now.

Q: TAC rate seems to be lowest since IPO. Sustainable? Growth has been driven by volume, not price. Sustainable, and/or will pricing increase going forward?

Pichette: MySpace deal is now over. That saved us a bunch of money. And mix of our partners will effect our TAC. That’s about it.

Rosenberg: Can’t answer volume/price question without “being forward-looking.” [Heh]

Q: Microsoft/Facebook deal was exclusive. But do you think you’ll see exclusive data deals? And what about Groupon, etc.? Can you compete there?

A: Value of exclusive data is “swamped” by “vastness” of the Web. So no concern there.

Schmidt: Always a concern that large chunks of data are not accessible to search engines….long pause… up to the content owner to decide how much to expose. We believe the world is better off if more information is searchable. “We fundamentally believe that.”

Rosenberg: Daily deals are very exciting. “A lot of small companies doing a fabulous job there.” We participate a little bit via sitelinks. But no question “that’s a very exciting and hot space.”

Q: When will Google Instant be on the BlackBerry or iPhone? What’s Android activation rate? And why not let advertisers bid directly on mobile inventory?

Rosenberg: Instant availability on other platforms “relatively soon”–probably this fall.

Not updating Android activation numbers.

Q: Given that non-core search is more material, do you think you’ll keep allocating resources with your 70-10-10 model? And when do you anticipate mobile overtaking desktop?

Schmidt: On mobile vs. display: Even if we knew I don’t think we’d talk about it.

On core vs. emergent: We talk about this all the time. Depends. Android is very small, and growing fast, so they get all the resources they need. We end up still at 70-10-10, but that’s not really a formula for us.

Pichette: What really matters the most to us is as Eric says, “When you see a hockey stick, pour gasoline on that fire.”

Q: Big-picture data question: What does Google think about leveraging user data to better target ads (see Facebook, Yahoo, etc.)–particularly with search data and display?

Schmidt: “We have a pretty strong opinion that we’re not going to do very much of it.” We’re intensely serious about privacy.

So “we’re not going to do the kinds of things that we could do with it… without your explicit permission. And in many cases we probably won’t do it forever.”

A question on display, which I’ve missed but will have to return to.

Pichette wraps things up. Today’s data points “are not about giving you information” for coming quarters, but to give you confidence that we’re building long-term businesses.

Call ends.

Mark Mahaney’s cheat sheet will help you decipher the numbers:

Oh dear, here it comes round again, like a bout of the flu–the indefatigable narrative about how Microsoft is headed downhill at an alarming speed, how CEO Steve Ballmer is about to get the boot and how it is all really, really true since the echo chamber of tech keeps repeating it.

Over the past two weeks, for example, I have gotten numerous “tips” that all these things are about to happen. Except when I go to check them out by doing some actual reporting, they turn out to be more chatter than reality, more barstool musing than concrete, and without much in the way of those pesky facts.

Today, we get yet another from the Olympic champion of traffic-goosing headlines on blogs, Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider, in what is quite a humdinger of a title: “The Odds Are Increasing That Microsoft’s Business Will Collapse.”

Holy Guacamole! Really?

You mean the Microsoft that still–despite all the Google Apps machinations–has a hammerlock on the enterprise software market? The company with a badillion dollars in cash in the bank? The one that can lose more than $700 million in its Online Services division and not blink an eye?

Actually, the headline is the most exciting part of the whole article that follows, which hedges mightily as it also dredges up old news about Microsoft’s business challenges.

The short version: The Internet is everything that’s not good for Microsoft; Apple (AAPL) is rocking the mobile market; Google (GOOG) is disrupting all over the place; and, natch, the oncoming cloud-computing incursion is worse than the Smoke Monster from “Lost” for Microsoft’s cash-generating Windows and Office businesses.

All true in a very broad-brush way. But, of course, Blodget pulls a complete on-one-hand-on-the-other at the end, although he cannot resist a final over-the-top statement:

Right now, the investors are concluding that Microsoft will gradually become the equivalent of a technology utility–a boring but necessary provider of the software that runs the world’s business community. A smaller, more optimistic crowd is still arguing that, one day, Microsoft will be able to turn its fortunes around, and fight its way back into an industry leadership position.

What almost no one is talking about is a third possibility, one that becomes more likely by the day: The possibility that, a couple of years down the road, Microsoft’s business may just completely collapse.

Here’s the simple and less flashy situation:

Microsoft, as all tech companies do, needs to change, and a lot faster than it has so far; the company has been trying mightily to do so in search and recently, in mobile, where it is woefully far behind; its leadership under Ballmer, who took over from co-founder Bill Gates, has been meh enough to keep its stock moribund.

But, by no means recently–even if there is a better CEO for Microsoft out there than Ballmer–have I found the company execs ignorant about the tougher issues or unwilling to consider changes needed.

In fact, in its high-flying days, Microsoft did have a tin ear to criticism. No longer, and I would call its execs appropriately concerned about fixing its issues, although their efforts do suffer from the company’s massive size and inertia in making the right moves.

Thus, they certainly might not be successful at innovating, although these are the very kinds of problems Apple CEO Steve Jobs solved when he returned to a rotten company in what, in its current glory days, seems eons ago.

And Microsoft has been getting the same questions that are beginning to be asked about Google.

But can you imagine anyone not mocking a likely headline-to-come about the search giant: “Search: If That’s All There Is, My Friend, Then Let’s Keep Surfing (to Oblivion!)”?

That’s why–at this point–I can see no need for panic to set in about Microsoft. Next year, perhaps. Five years, with no change and not listening to the obvious, definitely.

As for today, even though we are all terminal, the sky looks like it will remain intact at Microsoft for a little bit longer.

Operating income could be a problem, though: Factoring out foreign exchange swings and a one-time charge, Amazon delivered pro forma operating income of $240 million, and Wall Street was looking for something like $260 million.

As Henry Blodget points out, Amazon’s North America media sales (books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) have flat-lined in the last year. This is what that looks like in graph form (click to enlarge):

Now listening to the stultifying earnings call, which does not feature Jeff Bezos. Assuming there’ll be questions about the Zappos deal; I also assume that Amazon (AMZN) won’t have much to say about it beyond the announcement it put out yesterday. But I’ll add in any highlights below.

Q. Mary Meeker wants to know if Amazon is seeing a slowdown in media sales due to the transition to digital. She’s also interested in the possibility that mobile could be a big deal.

A. Media is slow, but it doesn’t seem to be related to digital. Still very early, and Amazon is seeing good unit growth there (Kindle, MP3 store, movie service). Not much to say about mobile.

Q. Any plans to take Kindle overseas?

A. Nonanswer.

He’s right. But Stelter’s piece doesn’t mention one of the publishers that has been increasingly vocal about aggregators–his bosses at the New York Times.

Over the past few months, the paper has reached out several times to aggregators for a variety of offenses, and asked them to cut it out. To date, the Times hasn’t done anything more threatening than mailing a formal letter. But some other publishers, who see the Times as a leading voice for “old media” institutions on the Web, are hoping they might.

• In November, Times officials angrily complained to executives at the Huffington Post after that site republished a complicated graphic the paper had created for its coverage of the 2008 elections. HuffPo CEO Betsy Morgan says the issue was resolved, and that she considers the paper an “important partner.”

• The paper has also complained to Silicon Alley Insider editor Henry Blodget this year after he excerpted one of its stories at length. Blodget refers to the incident in a post he wrote today about the site’s excerpting policy: “We have been publishing for 20 months now–more than 25,000 posts–and we have been asked to shorten excerpts only twice. (We did so immediately.)” (Disclosure: I am a former employee of the site’s parent company, Silicon Alley Media, and own a small number of shares in the company.)

• In February, the Times complained to Michael Wolff’s Newser aggregator about the site’s use of a Times photo and its continued use of the paper’s iconic “T” to identify Times stories it summarizes. Wolff says he’ll stop using the logo if the paper insists.

Does any of this represent a concerted effort by the Times to dissuade sites from linking to and excerpting its copy? I asked spokeswoman Catherine Mathis this last week, and she demurred: “We are not taking a different stance toward aggregators,” she said, via email.

That hasn’t stopped other Web publishers from wishing the paper would do so. They’re hoping that the Times, which publishes the world’s best-read online newspaper, will somehow lead a charge to make it harder for aggregators to use their work.

Keep dreaming. Even if the Times wanted to do bottle up its content, it couldn’t–like it or not, information really does want to be free on the Web, no matter how much it costs to create it. And I get the impression that the paper’s executives, who are frequently lampooned as clueless dinosaurs who “don’t get” the complexities of the Web, understand that.

You can, however, effectively control how quickly the bulk of your proprietary stuff gets released to the public, if you really want to. That’s what The Wall Street Journal (owned by Dow Jones, the News Corp. property that also owns this site) has effectively done so far with its free/pay hybrid model. And the Times may one day try a version of that–again–itself.

Last week, an obviously jet lagged (and badly dressed, as some troglodyte commenters on Yahoo pointed out, but it was snowing!) BoomTown visited Henry Blodget at Yahoo’s Tech Ticker studio in Times Square in Manhattan to talk about a range of digital topics.

The video interviews included: How well Apple (AAPL) will do without Steve Jobs on deck; whether blogging reporting and professionalism standards need to rise; when Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL will stop dancing around various deals; and finally, how the recession is impacting Silicon Valley.

The short answers: Fine; yes; the anticipation is killing us; and badly, but tech will get through it with some pluck and baling wire!

But if you want a longer explanation, watch the videos.

Apple and Steve Jobs:

Blogging Standards:

A Deal for MicroHooGoogOl?:

The Recession’s Impact in Silicon Valley:

Back story: Hirschorn, a former Viacom executive (and general NYC media star–New York Magazine, Inside.com, etc.) published a widely noticed column this month that took a gander at the New York Times’s troubled finances and concluded that it was “plausible” that the paper could go out of business in May.

This week, the Times responded with a lengthy letter tut-tutting Hirschorn for breaches of protocol–”It’s not unusual that a journalist calls the subject of a piece before actually publishing the article or column. In fact, in some areas of journalism that’s standard practice.”–and arguing that he’d overstated his case.

Today, Hirschorn responds with a mea-sorta-culpa of his own, which you can see at the The Atlantic’s site (which is really good these days). Part of the problem, he says: The Times didn’t release some details about its financials until his article had gone to press.

Verdict: Both sides are correct! The New York Times (NYT) will not fold in May, when its $400 million credit revolver closes up. And the New York Times is in serious financial trouble. More details on the latter from my former employer, Henry Blodget, who did a nice job of explaining the Times’s credit crunch yesterday.

The big picture: This debate–will the New York Times exist by the end of 2009?–would have been inconceivable a year ago. That fact that it’s happening now underscores just how quickly the industry’s fortunes have declined.

Over at Mini-Microsoft, the Redmond insiders who frequent the site’s comments are incredulous over the layoff rumors, insisting that they are baseless. Costs will be cut, they say, but they will be cut through attrition and reduction in open headcount. “For the last time folks–THERE ARE NO LAYOFFS HAPPENINGS IN JANUARY,” writes one Mini-Microsoft commenter. “Beyond Jan…well we dont have a crystal ball–but if the economy doesn’t improve and the company misses targets–it would get uglier for everyone–from no raises/no bonuses to (maybe) cutbacks/layoffs… but then, those are the rules of the game in corporate America.”

BoomTown extends apologies to the late Francis P. Church, who penned the original “Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus” editorial in the New York Sun on Sept. 21, 1897.

But with just a little rejiggering, his eloquent words work perfectly as a translation for Apple’s press release about its withdrawal from San Francisco’s Macworld and no keynote speech from Apple CEO Steve Jobs yesterday, which doubtlessly shook the Apple (AAPL) faithful to the core.

Oddly enough, it matches up surprisingly–and a little disturbingly–well.

Thus, here’s a little holiday inspiration to help those poor souls make it through these darkest of days:

Dear Editor:

I am 28 years old. Some of my little fanboys say there is no Steve Jobs at Macworld. My imaginary friend at AppleInsider says, ‘If you see it on BoomTown, it’s so.’ Please tell me the truth, is there a Steve Jobs?

–O’Hanlon, a geek in Virginia”

Apple wrote: CUPERTINO, California—December 16, 2008—Apple today announced that this year is the last year the company will exhibit at Macworld Expo. Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year’s Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple’s last keynote at the show. The keynote address will be held at Moscone West on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Macworld will be held at San Francisco’s Moscone Center January 5-9, 2009.

Translation: Virginia geek, your little friends are wrong (and they also have no life, which is self-evident). They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia geek, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. Not as elegantly tiny as the iPod Nano, but little nonetheless. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Apple wrote: Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers. The increasing popularity of Apple’s Retail Stores, which more than 3.5 million people visit every week, and the Apple.com website enable Apple to directly reach more than a hundred million customers around the world in innovative new ways.

Translation: Yes, Virginia geek, there is a Steve Jobs. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion and the fabled touchscreen tablet Mac exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Steve Jobs! It would be as dreary as if there were no amazingly great iPhones. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance, no Pull My Finger app to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Apple wrote: Apple has been steadily scaling back on trade shows in recent years, including NAB, Macworld New York, Macworld Tokyo and Apple Expo in Paris.

Translation: Not believe in Steve Jobs! You might as well not believe in those admittedly freaky iPod shadow dancers. You might get your other pretend friend at MacRumors to hire men to watch in all the Chinese manufacturing factories on Christmas eve to catch Steve Jobs, but even if you did not see Steve Jobs ordering up new Mini desktop computers, what would that prove? Nobody sees Steve Jobs, but that is no sign that there is no Steve Jobs. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see the iPod dancers dancing bizarrely on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

Apple wrote: Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.

Translation: You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, and the fact that the Mac guy vs. PC guy ads are pure genius can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia geek, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

Apple wrote: Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.

Translation: No Steve Jobs! Thank God! he lives and lives forever, despite Henry Blodget-fueled health rumors to the contrary. A thousand years from now, Virginia geek, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of Mac fanboyhood.

Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget sounds an important horn again, namely, outlining in graphically ugly detail why graphical advertising-based online businesses are in big trouble.

In his post, Blodget shows some convincing graphs about past performance trends, including the years after the first bubble burst, from 2000 to 2002, which could augur what is to come for the display business.

That means uh-oh for companies like Yahoo (YHOO), CNET (CNET) and all the many start-ups like Facebook that are focused on display ads as their main revenue source.

Search advertising, he notes, seems to be in better shape to face off the stiff winds to come, although most of that money goes to the dominant Google (GOOG) in this arena.

Money quote:

How do we know online display ad spending will fall? Because by Q2 of this year it had already slowed sharply–to mid-single-digit growth–and that was before things even began to get bad.

According to IAB, the growth of non-search online ad spending (display, classifieds, lead-gen) was 14% in Q1 and 5% in Q2. 5%! That’s before the horrific fall-off in consumer spending in September. We’ll be lucky if non-search spending is up year-over-year in Q3. By Q4, it will almost certainly be negative.

Blodget is predicting a 10 percent decline next year and more in 2010, which is–considering that the entire economy is in trouble this time–probably conservative to me.

As to all those start-ups who have been telling me Advertising, of course as their business plan, it might be time to get another plan for what is to come.

Appalling. At $11.51, Yahoo’s (YHOO) stock price at this very moment, the company is trading at well below replacement value. “Spend $15 billion, and you could not build a new Yahoo today–not one with this global reach and brand,” Henry Blodget notes over at Silicon Alley Insider. “Wringing compelling upside out of the stock at $12 is not rocket science. At this price, it’s not even basic arithmetic. So we say again: Yahoo at $12 is ridiculous.”

Ridiculous, indeed. Perhaps the government will come along and offer Yahoo a nice $31-per-share bailout–you know, just to bolster investor confidence.

Today, BoomTown will be spending the whole day–complete with lunch!–at Yahoo’s Sunnyvale, Calif., HQ to visit various and sundry execs in charge of a wide range of products.

Why? Well, as interested as I am in all of Yahoo’s always messy corporate and stock machinations, it’s just as important to get a handle on exactly what actual products and services the company is working on to get out of its quandary.

That’s important because Yahoo’s prospects have gotten so bogged down of late that even the possibility of an overpriced deal to buy Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL, including its access business, whacked its stock yesterday.

Yahoo (YHOO) shares dropped to $12.65 yesterday, down 84 cent or 6.2 percent, partly due to the weaker market, but also because of the rumor that Yahoo was possibly going to pay too much for AOL.

That too much would be $8 to $10 billion.

The report by Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget, which included an odd Yahoo-labeled 18-wheeler semi-truck sighted near AOL, turned out to be not so solid and was later refuted by Blodget himself.

Nonetheless, it was a point well taken from the bad reaction that few think a merger is a good idea at anything other than low, low prices.

Why? Well, for one, the uncertain immediate future for the graphical ad business–big earners at AOL and Yahoo–going forward.

Other key issues: AOL’s growing weakness. Its revenue (half of which comes from the ISP business, by the way) and also its operating income are down.

Even the less stellar performance of Yahoo of late looks good in comparison.

Of course, the pair are still talking in that lugubrious way, as has been reported previously here.

And, if forced to bet, I would suspect there will be a deal done eventually.

But, as they say, god–or the devil, as the case may be–is in the details.

Until then, as I hope to see today at Yahoo, both it and AOL have got to get busy making their standalone businesses shine a lot better than they do now.

As has been copiously reported here and all over, Yahoo and AOL have been engaged in never-ending talks about a possible deal to merge their flagging Internet businesses.

Now, sources tell me, the circle of executives at both companies interfacing with each other has been widened, for purposes of due diligence.

That chit-chatting includes Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, who has been in New York several times recently [UPDATE: But not yesterday, in a story I had previously linked to here]–where AOL parent, Time Warner, is located–to meet once with its CEO, Jeff Bewkes, and see if they can actually complete the merger.

Now, all this frantic activity does not mean a deal will necessarily be struck. In fact, in typical Yahoo style, it is going very slowly and that is never a good thing in dealmaking.

But it is this kind of ramped-up blabbery that has many at both companies predicting–hoping, really–that a deal will go through, sooner or later, as soon as Time Warner and Yahoo can agree on a price.

Or, more precisely, a percentage, since Yahoo’s stock price has been falling like a particularly sharp knife of late.

Sources said Yahoo does not want Time Warner (TWX) to have any more than 25 percent of the new company in a trade for AOL’s assets–although that figure would be slightly more if the media giant throws in some of that “Harry Potter”-generated cash into the deal kitty.

Yahoo (YHOO) management, sources said, also think its assets are of significantly better quality than AOL’s, and it still has that powerful–although declining–share in the lucrative search market.

Thus, it does not want to pay the $8 to $10 billion price Time Warner wants, and it should not either. (Here is a good analysis on the price issue by Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget.)

But Yahoo shares closed yesterday at a troubling $14.58, down 73 cents, or almost five percent.

That means its market valuation also declined by many billion dollars very quickly. It is now at $20.2 billion.

These profound stock drops, said several sources, could spur Yahoo to act before it gets even worse, which is why talks have been more frequent in recent weeks.

While not the best state of mind, panic is always a good motivator, and both companies are surely desperate to turbocharge themselves in the face of tough competition and avoidable management mishaps in recent years.

The hope? That together the pair can do better than they have separately–by combining their advertising, content and communications assets, which are among the largest in the world.

In addition, the “new” Yahoo would be able to make massive cost cuts, including layoffs, under the cover of integration and starting off with a clean slate.

So who would emerge more powerful in a new set-up–AOL or Yahoo?

Here’s a short cheat list:

Content:

AOL and Yahoo have a similar range of content assets, with big sites in all the classic categories, like news, financial, sports and lifestyles. Yahoo’s content head is Scott Moore, while AOL’s is Bill Wilson (both pictured here, left to right).

As I wrote yesterday, I expect that the more dominant Yahoo will rule, slashing and burning most of the AOL-branded properties, keeping only interesting newer brands like sports blog FanHouse, celeb blog TMZ and the Engadget, Tuaw and JoyStiq tech blogs.

And while former Microsoftie Moore is the likely head of this behemoth, don’t count on the very adept Wilson, who is known as a skilled corporate player at AOL, to stick around without a big role in this arena.

Communications:

Again, advantage Yahoo, which has bigger calendaring, email and instant messaging assets, an area once overwhelmingly dominated by AOL. That was then, of course.

Still, AOL’s communications tools are used by a huge audience worldwide and the pair together would be a powerhouse. So much so, in fact, that this might be the one major regulatory hurdle any deal would face.

Advertising:

Again, Yahoo would probably dominate, having just hired well-known former Microsoft exec Joanne Bradford to head up U.S. advertising sales. AOL’s top ad exec is Lynda Clarizio, a former lawyer who is considered dogged but much less experienced than Bradford. (Both are pictured here, right to left.)

And, Yahoo does have its search ad business, however weakening, and a stronger graphical ad business, even if the sector will be most under siege in the current down economy.

Plus, AOL’s Advertising.com, while a major ad network, is more of a business subject to bruising competition and squeezed margins.

Community:

Tapan Bhat (pictured here) now rules community at Yahoo, as well as its homepage, having just inherited it from the departing Brad Garlinghouse.

But AOL has a savvy and voluble exec in Joanna Shields, who came recently via its Bebo social-networking acquisition. While AOL woefully overpaid for Bebo and got played into thinking that other bidders were more interested than they actually were, it was Shields (pictured here) who essentially did that playing.

Sign her up for a top exec role in the combined company pronto!

In all seriousness, there is room for both in the newco, as both AOL and Yahoo seriously bite in the social-networking space. They will surely need a lot more than Bhat and Shields if they want to become true players in Web 2.0′s hottest and probably most important trend.

Engineering:

Yahoo. I do not need to explain this, do I?

Okay: AOL has always been incompetent in the technical arena, since its beginning days, compared with Silicon Valley companies like Yahoo.

All yours, Ash Patel!

Management:

Now, it is here that it gets interesting.

Most feel the push by Yang to do an AOL deal–and make no mistake, it is being pushed by him most of all–is due to increased pressure from his board, as well as major investors, who have had just about enough of his leadership.

“There is no way Jerry stays on as CEO in a newco,” said one source about Yang (pictured here). “He’ll be kicked upstairs as chairman, and I will think [President Sue] Decker will also have to go eventually, since there will be a lot of resistance if she is named CEO.”

But, said other sources, these major management changes will not happen immediately, if at all, as it is too distracting in the wake of a deal and ruins the positive “story” that both companies will surely want to spin.

And spin they will! (Go, Tricia! Go, Jill!)

And while he has a reputation for sharkish political skills, especially compared to Yahoo’s very diplomatic U.S. head, Hilary Schneider, expect AOL President Ron Grant to be an important part of the transition, since he is good–almost too good–at cutting costs.

Most expect his boss, AOL CEO Randy Falco, not to be part of the new company, thereby separating him and Grant, who are nicknamed “Smithers and Burns” at AOL, after “The Simpsons” creepy duo.

Most likely, there will be a search for a top-level CEO to take over the combined company–someone of the stature of New Corp.’s No. 2 Peter Chernin or eBay’s former leader Meg Whitman (except now, she is apparently Sen. John McCain’s pick for Treasury Secretary, if the Republican Presidential candidate were to win the election).

“If this has any chance of working out, the board has to push restart on the leadership,” said one person close to the situation, who notes that this deal is Yang’s last chance to truly impact the future of the company he co-founded and preserve its legacy. “Everyone gets that, even Jerry.”

But I think the idea that Yang would leave if there were to be a merger of Yahoo with AOL is wishful thinking on the part of his critics.

He appears tome to be very committed to seeing his vision of turning around Yahoo through.

And those who have counted him out always seem to be the ones who have been typically wrong, such as Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and shareholder activist Carl Icahn.

Because, for all the turmoil at Yahoo, it’s Yang still calling the shots.

Although we did not raid the offices of Silicon Alley Insider and “steal” Peter Kafka, as the fanciful SAI kingpin Henry Blodget alleges–had it been a raid, BoomTown would have properly hog-tied Blodget so he could not make such spurious allegations!–it is true that SAI’s current managing editor (pictured here) will be coming to work for us at AllThingD.com soon.

Indeed, Walt Mossberg and I, as well as the rest of the ATD team, are thrilled that Peter is coming onboard at the end of October. He will write a daily still-unnamed new media blog from New York City.

Walt and I have long wanted to bring in someone located on the East Coast and away from the echo chamber that Silicon Valley can be, because we both feel the ongoing digital revolution is taking place over a number of key industries all over this country and the world.

Peter was our first choice and has been on my must-read list since I began this blog. He is sharp, witty, confident and has the kind of reporting and writing chops that we think are key to giving readers high-quality, standards-based content they can trust.

With extensive connections across the media, advertising, entertainment and tech sectors, Peter will be doing original reporting, getting scoops, doing interviews, making videos and providing much needed and clear-headed analysis that he is so well known for.

Peter has worked at SAI since mid-2007. The first hire at the start-up tech business analysis site, he has focused on enterprise and beat reporting, as well as breaking news.

Previously, he spent 10 years as a reporter and editor at Forbes and Forbes.com covering media and technology. There he launched two tech columns, coordinated the video staff and represented Forbes on industry panels and in TV appearances for CNN, BBC and CNBC.

Peter was also a staff reporter with City Business in Minneapolis and a staff writer for the Minnesota Real Estate Journal in Bloomington from 1993 to 1997. Earlier, he was a stringer with the Milwaukee Journal and the Milwaukee Sentinel in Madison, Wis.

He holds a bachelor of arts from the University of Wisconsin and resides in Brooklyn, NY.

More importantly, Peter is a newly-minted father, which should give him more practice in prolonged sleep deprivation needed for his blogging.

He will begin at ATD on Oct. 27.

Along with Walt and me, Peter joins senior news editor John Paczkowski, author of the rocking Digital Daily column, who formerly wrote the award-winning blog, “Good Morning Silicon Valley” at the San Jose Mercury News, and Wall Street Journal reporter Katherine Boehret, who writes the most excellent weekly Mossberg Solution column.

We hope you are as thrilled as we are that Peter is coming soon to the ATD site.

(And if you want a little taste of Peter’s work, here’s a post he did yesterday on an appearance by Time Warner’s Jeff Bewkes at the Goldman Sachs media conference and another on Rupert Murdoch of News Corp. [News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site].)

I also wrote about this issue–Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang’s chances in his proxy fight with activist investor Carl Icahn–in a post called, “Who Has Stolen the Old Jerry Yang? (But No Need to Return Him!)”

With the sale of paidContent to the Guardian Media Group and the talks TechCrunch has been in with AOL, there certainly is a lot of hubbub around tech blogging sites of late.

One of the more interesting sites that has gone up over the last year is Silicon Alley Insider, which is headlined by former Internet analyst Henry Blodget (yes, that Henry Blodget).

But featuring Blodget’s speedy analysis of big trends, and news about Web and media players, with a sprinkling of reporting from its small team of writers, it’s been a sharp entrant into the sector.

Perhaps most compelling is that the site is backed by Web 1.0 entrepreneur Kevin Ryan, former CEO of DoubleClick (GOOG), who has nested SAI inside a network of new Web efforts at AlleyCorp.

Ryan founded what is essentially a Web 2.0 version of an incubator with former DoubleClick CTO Dwight Merriman.

While one can debate DoubleClick’s ads-in-your-digital-face strategy over its growth (it is now a division of Google), there is no question Ryan’s aggressive early efforts set the stage for the commercialization of the Web that continues today.

Now Ryan is trying to do the same for Web content on SAI. It just got a new small slug of funding; Blodget is also adding two new business sites to the mix.

What AlleyCorp all means is a bit eclectic. Ryan’s network of affiliated sites includes the content delivery network Panther Express, the 10gen apps development platform, a shopping engine called ShopWiki, the Music Nation independent music community and an online invitation-only, high-fashion sample sale site called Gilt Groupe.

Although SAI has a high profile, Gilt is perhaps the most intriguing of AlleyCorp’s sites since it is essentially an American copy of a highly successful European version.

Using the Web’s speed and the allure of an exclusive, limited sale of designer clothes, along with an Amazon-like shipping system, is perhaps the perfect mix of offline and online. It also has to potential to move into other e-commerce categories.

Here’s my video interview with Ryan about all this and more:

From Henry Blodget’s blog to Steve Ballmer’s brain…

But it’s not a bad theory, especially given the eerie quiet after the spate of very public Hamlet act by the Microsoft CEO yesterday. After telling The Wall Street Journal, “With the right circumstances it’ll happen. Without the right circumstances it won’t happen” today, this is how the New York Post characterized it:

“The frequently shouting, often sweaty Ballmer gave no indication as to the direction he was leaning, saying only that there were three paths the company could pursue: a friendly deal, an unfriendly deal or walking away.”

Well, that clears it up! (Not even one little bit.)

Actually, BoomTown posted earlier this week about informal talks already taking place:

According to sources close to both companies, there are informal discussions now taking place between Yahoo and Microsoft–via bankers, board members, shareholders and others close to both companies–to try to prevent a hostile takeover scenario or the sudden withdrawal of Microsoft’s offer.

So given Ballmer’s range of options this week seem wide enough to drive a semi through, perhaps that’s precisely what Yahoo is finally doing today, as its board meets, sources tell me, to discuss options.

Having successfully gotten the price talk up around the mid-$30s, after it was heading downward only last week and ladling on more Google (GOOG) scariness aimed at Microsoft yesterday–Fabulous online ad outsourcing deal coming! We swear! Google has magic powers to put a spell on you! Boooooo!–the bluffing by Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang would make the famous poker player Jerry Yang proud. (Both pictured here.)

So now, we wait and watch to see who wins this seemingly endless game of Silicon Valley Hold ‘Em.

So what prompted TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington to pen a pugnacious piece on how blogs should not be raising so much venture capital and instead roll themselves into a “Dream Team,” with the unusual title of “More Bloggers Raising Money. Here Comes Politics. And Here Comes My Rant” yesterday?

Well, besides garnering Arrington a big dollop of traffic and attention, which is perhaps one of the blog entrepreneur’s most impressive talents, could it have something to do with the fact that he’s been busy recently talking to several well-known tech blogs about joining a roll-up organized by TechCrunch itself?

Or that he has told several people I spoke to that TechCrunch was considering doing this by raising as much as $15 million, giving it a $35 million valuation?

Reached by email last night, the voluble Arrington declined to comment.

Thus, a BoomTown translation of his TechCrunch piece is Job No. 1!

Arrington wrote: More blogs are raising venture capital, we’re hearing from people they’ve pitched. Newcomer Silicon Alley Insider is looking for a $3 million to $5 million round, if reports are correct. And paidContent is pitching for a second round in that same range (paidContent raised a round of “less than $1 million” in 2006). We’re also hearing that paidContent is trying to sell the company for $15 million or more, and just bail out with some spending money.

Translation: If that scalawag Henry Blodget thinks he can steal even an iota of my thunder, he better get ready to rumble. And while it is entirely incorrect that paidContent is selling itself or raising that much money, I love the smell of napalm in the morning and FUD in the blogosphere!

[BoomTown actually contacted paidContent's founder, Rafat Ali, who strongly reiterated that the site might raise a very small amount of money, nowhere close to $3 million to $5 million, and was not trying to sell the company at all.]

Arrington wrote: These rumored deals come as funding for bloggers is heating up in general. Just a month ago VentureBeat reported a $320,000 raise. In 2007 we saw Sugar Inc. ($10 million), GigaOm ($1 million), Xconomy, Blogher ($3.5 million) and The Huffington Post ($10 million) raise venture capital. That’s at least $25 million in 2007 invested in blogs and blog networks.

As far as we know, no significant investments were made in blogs in 2005. Weblogs, Inc. raised around $300,000 in 2004, but before they got around to spending it they had sold themselves to AOL (TWX) for an estimated $25 million. The investors, including Mark Cuban, received 15x on their initial investment.

Translation: And if that elfin Jason Calacanis can score, where’s MY payoff!?! I mean, I am the Jason Calacanis of Web 2.0, aren’t I!? The Mac Daddy of the widget economy! The Sultan of Zing! And did Calacanis ever have the chutzpah to pose for a picture lighting cigars with a handful of crisp, flaming Benjamins! I think not!

Arrington wrote: But apart from that first 2004 investment in Weblogs, Inc., there haven’t been any sales or liquidity events to suggest these investments will be a success. And back then blogging was a cakewalk. Most bloggers linked to each other constantly in a state of brotherly or sisterly love. No one was making any money or getting much attention, so for the most part people got along (with notable exceptions like engadget/gizmodo, who play to win).

Translation: The rain may never fall till after sundown./By eight, the morning fog must disappear./In short, there’s simply not/A more congenial spot/For happily-ever-aftering than here/In Camelot.

Arrington wrote: Those salad days are long gone. Writers suddenly want to be paid market wages, far above the $5 per post that they received two years ago. No, we’re talking a big salary, with benefits, and stock options. There went half your margins at least.

Translation: Wages?! Big salary!? Benefits!? Stock options!!!??? Half your margins!!? Who do these people think they are? The Web 2.0 shooting stars I write about incessantly in TechCrunch?

Arrington wrote: And writing good content is only half the battle. You have to figure out the complex, dynamic web of politics between bloggers and mainstream media before you post to know where to get support. And you’ll need support in the form of links from other prominent bloggers. An early push can take a post and make it a headline on TechMeme, which leads to page views and notice by sponsors. But since blogging is almost by definition a conversation between bloggers, fights tend to break out over emotional issues. Cliques develop. Can you count on them to support you down the road?

Translation: TechCrunch is from Mars, Valleywag is from Venus.

Arrington wrote: Personally, I’ve found that if a fight is necessary, fight clean and fight hard. Make it as bloody as possible and end it fast, with no loose ends dangling about. Leave no lingering emotional stone unturned. When everyone gets up and dusts themselves off, the issue should have been resolved one way or the other, and both sides should be happy to shake hands and tango another day, even if the handshaking is done privately. Those that aren’t capable of doing that tend to push themselves to the outskirts of the blogosphere, where their main job is to lob in attacks at random intervals, pursuing long-forgotten insults.

Translation: Bloody tango? Ouch. Ew. Yuk. And handshakes after that seems unhygienic. But let’s solider on. Aha! Another Broadway musical clue! The Jets are gonna have their day/Tonight/The Jets are gonna have their way/Tonight/The Puerto Ricans grumble/”Fair fight”/But if they start a rumble/We’ll rumble ‘em right.

Arrington wrote: So today, at best, I’d describe the blogosphere as a frontier town with no lawman (I mean, O’Reilly has a badge on, but no gun and no jail). You can do just about anything you want, but the politically savvy folks tend to arm themselves to the teeth and gang together to protect their property. Everyone else is in the middle of chaos, either fighting blindly for attention or politely asking (by linking early and linking often) if they can join the big Gang.

Translation: Wait, now the metaphor has shifted to the Old West? OK, we can keep up: Anything you can do, I can do better./I can do anything better than you./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Arrington wrote: And now that the big guys in the Gang are being injected with capital, hiring tens of employees and expanding their businesses, they suddenly have a lot more to lose. Linking is never done just because. Rather, links are your political capital that must be expended appropriately. Don’t link at the right time and in two weeks when you’re pushing your own headline, you’ll wish you had. When you stop seeing other blogs as people you admire and want to discuss things with, and start to see them as your competitor, your brain shifts and you stop linking the way you had previously.

Translation: Hey, how did we get to Washington, D.C. and the inside of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s cerebral cortex in the midst of yet another compromised political calculation? It’s like we’re on “Fantastic Voyage”!

Arrington: Luckily, the newbie bloggers are there to fill in the links when they’re needed. That’s why, if you are a mid-level blogger, you are likely courted by the bigger blogs looking to get your support. If you know what’s going on and are willing to play the game, you can see your blog rise very, very quickly. Choose the wrong blog, though, and you may find yourself alone and lonely in your forgotten blog.

As an aside, when I see a young but promising blogger, I’ll start linking to him or her constantly to build them up (others, like Winer, Scoble, Jarvis and Rubel did that for me). The goal is to help move them up to a position of influence as quickly as possible. The more non-crazy influencers in the game, the easier it is to ignore the noise generators and the better the overall conversation becomes. Over the last year, for example, Silicon Alley Insider, CenterNetworks, LouisGray and Mathew Ingram I’ve been pushing hard. These guys rarely agree with me, but when they talk I listen because they’ve put some thought into what they are saying and how they are saying it. Those guys haven’t hit the big politics yet, and tend to link out a lot to everyone. They are a very important part of the ecosystem–pushing their link votes toward stories they find interesting and helping those other bloggers get headlines and maintain their place in the Gang.

Translation: Next stop, the stylings of Mr. Michael Corleone! There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Arrington wrote: So what’s the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best–Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long-term business.

If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3 to 4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.

Translation: Finally, the point! Which is: Assimilate or Die!

Arrington wrote: At some point it’s going to become painfully obvious that the only way to get to a massive valuation is for the top talent to band together in a company where they each have an equity stake and therefore a reason to work all night on that next great story. They’ll each have their own space to stretch their legs and let their personality run around a little. Someone needs to pony up a big round of financing around an existing blog, or perhaps a new entity, and then start rolling them up into a big fat CNET-crushing $200 million/year in revenue business.

Translation: This is my sneaky but clever way of floating a trial balloon of an effort I am already trying to organize. The existing blog? Mine! The new entity? Run by me! The $200 million a year? Mine, again! Now, enough about me–what do you think of me?

Arrington wrote: It can happen. In fact it’s almost certainly going to happen. But if you bloggers go out there and raise $3 million to $5 million on say a $10 million valuation, you’ve just priced yourself out of the roll-up. That option will be closed to you, and you’ll be stuck out in the cold, taking life-support payments from Federated Media or another ad network, and having a generally awful time running your business.

Translation: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

Arrington wrote: What I’d like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Men’s Basketball Dream Team. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.

Translation: After we are done bloody-tangoing with Neil Ashe at CNET (CNET), Owen Thomas and his evil overlord Nick Denton better sleep with one eye open.

Arrington wrote: Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.

So think twice before taking that venture money, guys. You may be shutting more doors of opportunity than you realize.

Translation: By saying we have held back from raising any outside capital at all, what I really mean to say is that I am going to do it.

Resistance is futile.

Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget and I talk about what it will take to get Dell (DELL) moving–innovation–in this video on Yahoo’s Tech Ticker.

Here’s the video:

Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget and I talk about the current situation on Yahoo’s Tech Ticker video.

(Kudos to Yahoo for letting me be tough on the company’s strategy and executives on its own Web site.)

Here’s the video:

Our diagnosis: Not crazy, but iconoclastic.

Here’s the video:

But not today.

That has not stopped the speculation from flying all over the place–mostly due, I think, to the fact that no one can exactly figure out what either party is going to do to get its game on again in the Web space.

Thus, a merger! Of course!

Of course not, of course.

But that did not stop the latest rumor–floated by that professional rumor-floater Henry Blodget on his Silicon Alley Insider blog last week just as we entered into the news doldrums of Thanksgiving–from raising the shares of Yahoo for a bit.

Blodget posited in his post on the recent–and, let me say, borderline kooky–rumblings from a spate of Microsoft execs, led by borderline-kooky-rumbler-in-chief Steve Ballmer, about various Web companies.

(Often, for wont of an Internet strategy of its own, Microsoft higher-ups can often be found pooh-poohing others’ efforts or important online trends Microsoft missed completely.)

You will recall, of course, it was Ballmer who insulted Facebook (see my post here) just weeks before handing over a huge sack of investment dough to the hot social network.

Of course, Microsoft execs, like Ballmer as well as ad head Kevin Johnson, have also been saying their goal was to be in the top two spots in the online ad space for a while now.

Johnson, for example, recently said that the company wanted to triple its search share to 30% and jack up its small 6% online ad share to 40%.

It’s nice to have dreams!

And since No. 1 is currently occupied by the heretofore unassailable Google, it’s an open secret that Microsoft covets the market share of No. 2 Yahoo.

It’s also no secret that Yahoo and Microsoft have been talking for a long time now about a variety of ways they could partner, especially since Yahoo was once Microsoft’s principal ad partner, to take on the Google juggernaut.

A few years ago, for example, former Yahoo CEO Terry Semel journeyed to see Ballmer at Microsoft’s HQ in Redmond, Wash., to talk about ways to join forces, given Yahoo’s eroding second spot and Microsoft’s distant No. 3 position.

Ballmer reportedly saw this play by Semel as a weakness on Yahoo’s part instead of an opportunity and it never happened. But it’s clear that the only way for Microsoft to get to No. 2 is to buy its way there.

Hence Yahoo.

“Buying Yahoo would give Microsoft 30% search share instantly. It would also boost Microsoft’s ad share close to that 40% goal,” wrote Blodget.

Smartly, Blodget floats the rumor and then slaps it down, noting correctly that “a Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo would be disastrous for Yahoo.”

He’s right about that, of course, because it would only suck Yahoo into a nightmare of merger distraction the already distracted company does not need, rather than giving it more heft to battle Google in the ad space.

In addition, for all its troubles (and we have noted those here many times), Yahoo’s current CEO Jerry Yang has a real chance, if he employs a little more boldness, to revive the company and whip it into better shape than it has been in of late.

And, if that does not work, Yang still can sell it off later.

Blodget does note that if Microsoft made a lightning-fast, cash-rich Rupert-Murdoch-takes-Dow-Jones (owner of this site!) offer on Yahoo, it could all be done quickly.

But not, as I said, today.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.