Leo Laporte Rakes In $1.5 Million A Year Podcasting; Can’t Buy Relevance

Vinny, I don’t think Leo Laporte is looking for anyone to feel sorry for him, nor does he need anyone to feel sorry for him. So he makes money doing what he does. Wow, really? How could you expect him to produce as much content as he does without making money? He’s got to pay for it all somehow. And he makes a profit at it? Oh, the scandal! How dare he make a living at it, as well. C’mon, this is ridiculous.
He kicked people out of his forums for talking smack, which he has every right to do. Just because you were included in that doesn’t mean you need to throw a tantrum, too. And he makes a valid point – if you don’t like what he has to say, then don’t listen.

Do you even read what you comment on before you comment on it? Here’s what I said:

I’ll never fault a guy for making money. Leo Laporte has every right to make 20 million dollars a year for doing his podcasts if that’s what the market bears. I’m happy for him. He parlayed a successful mainstream media gig into a side business that’s extremely profitable and you can’t take that away from him.

See? I don’t care that he’s not making money. My objection isn’t to him making money; I think I pretty clearly said that had you bothered to actually read it. I reckon you got as far as the title and stopped.

I also explained, again, my pov at the end:

I mean, am I wrong here? If you want us to feel sorry for you for letting us download your show for free, and you aren’t making a penny that’s fine. If you want us to feel sorry for you and you conveniently forget to mention that you’re turning a $1.1 million profit, then you’re a lying sack of shit and you don’t deserve the kudos being given to you.

He’s been saying for years that he did the podcast for free. Obviously that’s not true.

That’s my gripe.

Had you read this post at all, you’d know it.

Your “Oh, the scandal” quote is completely ridiculous because that isn’t even close to the issue.

The only ridiculous thing is that you commented on something you didn’t bother to read and comprehend first. I think it was pretty clear.

@Vinny – I did read and comprehend your article, as a matter of fact. And to me, it sounds like you’re just griping because he kicked you out of his forums, a point I notice you’ve not attacked me for making.
That said, you’d have to realize that the guy makes money doing what he’s doing. To think that he gets nothing out of it is a little naive. So what if he says he did it for free – what difference does it make? Does it make his content any different? No. And, honestly, who cares? It’s none of any of our business how much he does or doesn’t make.
I believe his “I do this for free” comment was more meant to say that we’re not paying him to do the podcast, so he doesn’t have to put up with shit from people who sling it in the forums. True, many people donate(d) money to his network, but it was on a voluntary basis and no one’s ever HAD to pay in order to get the content. My assertion may be wrong, but given that neither one of us has ever discussed it with the man personally, there’s an equal chance that your interpretation is just as wrong.
Your title also makes the assertion that Laporte “can’t buy relevance”. That’s not attack on his “lie”, it (along with most of the language in your article, such as calling him a “lying sack of shit”) is a personal attack on the man himself. If you don’t like him, ok, that’s fine. But if you’re going to call someone out for being a liar, then stick to that point instead of trying to vilify him for something that has no bearing on you in the least.
I’m not saying that Leo Laporte is perfect, or that he’s not arrogant or

@Melissa – I’m not saying that Leo Laporte is perfect, or that he’s not arrogant or prone to tantrums. But so what? Apparently it’s not that big a deal, since he’s doing perfectly fine for himself, doing just that.

I did read and comprehend your article, as a matter of fact. And to me, it sounds like you’re just griping because he kicked you out of his forums, a point I notice you’ve not attacked me for making.

It’s not true, and it’s not relevant, that’s why. It wasn’t a point worth addressing.

That said, you’d have to realize that the guy makes money doing what he’s doing. To think that he gets nothing out of it is a little naive. So what if he says he did it for free – what difference does it make? Does it make his content any different? No. And, honestly, who cares? It’s none of any of our business how much he does or doesn’t make.
I believe his “I do this for free” comment was more meant to say that we’re not paying him to do the podcast, so he doesn’t have to put up with shit from people who sling it in the forums. True, many people donate(d) money to his network, but it was on a voluntary basis and no one’s ever HAD to pay in order to get the content. My assertion may be wrong, but given that neither one of us has ever discussed it with the man personally, there’s an equal chance that your interpretation is just as wrong.

Actually, you’re wrong. He specifically said he “does it for free,” not “I give these away for free.” That’s what set me off. “I do these for free” says “I don’t get paid to do this,” a clear and obvious lie. Your assertion is wrong because you’re assuming an extra level of explanation he never gave. Take the man on his word. He lied.

Your title also makes the assertion that Laporte “can’t buy relevance”. That’s not attack on his “lie”, it (along with most of the language in your article, such as calling him a “lying sack of shit”) is a personal attack on the man himself. If you don’t like him, ok, that’s fine. But if you’re going to call someone out for being a liar, then stick to that point instead of trying to vilify him for something that has no bearing on you in the least.

Actually, you’re wrong on that too because he had quite a few personal attacks for me when he kicked me out of his forum, and all because I didn’t like his remarks about “doing it for free.” You would know that had you been a part of it, so kindly don’t tell me I have no right to attack someone personally after they do it to me, okay? I mean this with all sincerity: You don’t know what you’re talking about, so stop assigning motives or telling me how to act.

I get it. You really like Leo. You don’t know the whole story, so stop trying to deduce conclusions that actually were made in the real world. There’s nothing for you to figure out here. This wasn’t a theoretical or philosophical debate with Leo, and it wasn’t something that was open to interpretation.

The timeline of what happened, again:

A groundswell of donators to the network got tired of the lack of attention and lack of interest paid in the shows while he built Skypezilla or whatever the hell he calls it.

He comes on and tells everyone, in no uncertain terms, to go elsewhere because he does the shows for free (not that he gives them away for free). In a similar thread, he smacks donators, of which I was one long after I had stop listening to his podcasts. Many donators took offense to that.

I took offense, pointing out I didn’t listen any more and I still donated because of the forums. I was summarily dismissed in tantrum number one along with quite a few other users, all of which complained similarly that he was starting to phone it in with the podcasts.

He then allowed us back in, and his sycophants went after us again, completely unprovoked..

I defended myself.

Leo defended them and again said he did the shows for free.

I asked Leo how he could say that when the average Twit episode has almost 15 minutes worth of ads.

He banned me, and other posters who agreed with me.

A week later, he shut down the forum entirely.

Now stop drawing conclusions. What happened is very black and white and everyone that showed up in the ROTTF forums agrees with ME and the others who were banned. In fact, they invited me back.

Now could you stop questioning my motives, my integrity, or my “interpretation” of the story? There was no room for interpretation in what was said. If you had read it or was there, you’d know that.

But you didn’t because you weren’t.

Please don’t assume to know my feelings about individuals, when you don’t know me. I think Leo’s ok. I’m not one of the legions who find no fault with him, but I’m also not someone who feels the need to crucify him. Again, what difference does it make if he lied? You’re pissed at him for making personal attacks on you, yet you lash out and make personal attacks on him. Hello, pot – meet the kettle. All of your arguments talk about what HE did to YOU, making it a personal thing. And, if you’re going to post this on your blog and make it open to discussion, there are going to be interpretations. And if you’re going to cry “Me, me, me” then it’s going to be interpreted as such.

Please don’t assume to know my feelings about individuals, when you don’t know me. I think Leo’s ok. I’m not one of the legions who find no fault with him, but I’m also not someone who feels the need to crucify him.

He hasn’t attacked you, of course. Might make you feel differently if he did and a bunch of his mindless drones piled on.

Again, what difference does it make if he lied? You’re pissed at him for making personal attacks on you, yet you lash out and make personal attacks on him. Hello, pot – meet the kettle. All of your arguments talk about what HE did to YOU, making it a personal thing.

Either you’re intentionally being obtuse or you’re stone-cold stupid. I haven’t decided which. It is a personal thing, you moron.

And, if you’re going to post this on your blog and make it open to discussion, there are going to be interpretations. And if you’re going to cry “Me, me, me” then it’s going to be interpreted as such.

Stop trying to be smart. You’re failing. There’s no interpretation to be made. Events happened. Things were said. You’re trying to add another layer to something that doesn’t have one.

As for making it a “discussion,” who the hell asked you to comment? You came in with a chip on your shoulder and criticized me for saying something I didn’t say, then re-read the article when I called you out on it. You had no intention of “discussing,” and every intention of ripping into me, which you attempted to do in your first post. I’ve explained my position enough times now, and I’m not going to keep arguing with internet idiots.

You weren’t there. You don’t know what happened.

Shut up and move on.

Melissa: Lying to his donors seems bad enough. It is scary that a media figure who is relied on by many for their tech news lying doesn’t seem to bother you. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the media.

I don’t think Vince is crying about what Leo did to him. Vince is a big boy and I don’t think being banned from a forum is all that traumatic for him. I think what he is speaking to is the way Leo doesn’t connect his success to his fans. He doesn’t seem to connect that it is his listeners who the advertisers are paying him for. Leo was happy to beg the community for help and money when he was trying to get going and then once he started making serious money he did a 180 and jettisoned the community who helped him get where he is.

This is exactly the same thing the private equity people do with companies. They buy them, dump a bunch of debt on them, leverage them to borrow more money so they can pay themselves off and then get rid of the company (often leaving it is tatters). This focus on money and personal gain without a care about those whose backs you are standing on or the ultimately product you are producing is a cancer in modern society and I think is sad that Leo is now par of the metastasis.

@David Stewart – The reason why I’m not bothered by it is because I never once believed that Leo did what he does for free. And I never cared how much money he was making at it, either. And yes, I was a Twit donator.
I completely understand the argument of being offended/upset/pissed by the fact that Leo isn’t connecting his success to the donations of those that helped him get where he is. That argument makes sense to me. But what Vinny presented was a tirade trying to crucify for Laporte for a lie, in a series of personal attacks on him. And in defense of that tirade, all Vinny did was point out the faults of the person (me) questioning him, and point out how Leo ad offended him. That kind of defense doesn’t make a solid case, nor does it make his original argument make any more sense. If it had been phrased in the framework of “Leo needs to give credit where credit’s due” rather than “Leo’s a lying sack of shit” and a naive belief that Leo’s not making money, then maybe it would have more sense. I was just taking Vinny’s words at their apparent face value.
Oh, and telling someone to “Shut up and move on” is a REALLY classy way to disagree with someone. If you won’t want comments, don’t allow them on your blog.

But what Vinny presented was a tirade trying to crucify for Laporte for a lie, in a series of personal attacks on him. And in defense of that tirade, all Vinny did was point out the faults of the person (me) questioning him, and point out how Leo ad offended him.

Your reading ability sucks. So… For the last time in small words you can understand:

I take offense to Leo saying he “does these podcasts for free” when he’s making over a million dollars a year on them. I take even more offense by him saying that now because he ripped ME personally a new asshole for suggesting he doesn’t do anything for free and hasn’t in a long time.

You’re obviously too stupid to understand that, so that’s why I told you to move on. And by the way, if you want to talk about class, you showed up here, didn’t read what I wrote, shit on me, called me post ridiculous, argued a strawman till it had nothing left but a flannel shirt, then you ignore every single word of explanation I’ve given you and instead resort back to the “it’s a personal attack” defense (in spite of the fact that I’ve pointed out numerous times that he did it first) and you expect me to demonstrate class to you?

Good luck with that.

I never “shit” on you as you put it. I attacked the point you were making, but never once did I resort to insulting you personally, a tactic that you’re apparently all too familiar with. I never called you stupid – in fact, I’ve always thought you were a pretty intelligent person, which is why I read your blog from time to time. I now see that was misguided. Saying that it’s okay to personally attack someone just because “they started it!” is immature and further proof that this whole thing is because Leo hurt your feelings. It’s a sad state of affairs that you needed someone else’s comments to make your point clear, a point that, once it was put in the terms that you supposedly intended, actually did make a valid argument. While I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that what David said you were trying to say is actually the truth, I stand by my assertion that the way you put it completely missed that point. See, I can make a point without attacking someone. You should try it.

Originally Posted By Melissa@David Stewart – The reason why I’m not bothered by it is because I never once believed that Leo did what he does for free. And I never cared how much money he was making at it, either.

You act as if Vinny or I did believe Leo was doing it for free. That’s not the case. I believe Vinny was one of the first to recognize Leo had to be becoming profitable. It is not an issue of anyone here being under some delusion and being pissed to find what was actually happening. A lot of those who kept up with things knew Leo had to be making money, but he would deny this if asked. That’s the problem. That’s not the only think Leo would lie about either, which again is the issue. Leo was fundamentally dishonest in many situations. That’s a major problem for someone in his position, or at least it should be.

Yet again, David hits a home run. I’m glad I’m not alone in seeing this crap.

Thank you.

I’ve never really cared for Leo other than when I used to watch the Screen Savers and even then I mostly watched because I liked Kate Botello.

What shows I do listen to on the TWIT Network I listen to for the co-hosts. Windows Weekly, Net@Night, TWIT.

Still, even those got tiring and I’ve dropped all but TWIT. Paul Thurrott gets too much windows 7 and Net@Night would be better if hey just dropped Leo and had Sarah Lane and Amber MacArthur.

Mostly I like TWIT because I love pretty much everything Dvorak does. When Dvorak’s not on generally someone else reasonably interesting will be.

My big problem with Leo, as others have suggested is that he’s stuck on himself and hearing himself talk. He interrupts people constantly and talks over everyone else. His audio track is always louder thane everyone else.