Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Matt Mullenweg accused Inc Magazine of distorting an interview with him, publishing demonstrably false facts and quoting people who were not credible. Mullenweg published convincing examples of how Inc magazine misrepresented his quotes and misrepresented facts, citing the choice of unflattering photos as evidence of a conscious effort to paint their interview about him negatively.
Mullenweg explains why he agreed to the interview:
“When Inc Magazine reached out to have David H. Freedman (website powered by WordPress) write an article I was excited because even though Inc wasn’t a magazine I’d read much since I was a teenager, David seemed like a real journalist who usually writes for better publications like the Atlantic. I opened up to David with many vulnerable stories and allowed a photo shoot in my home in Houston.”
The article begins with an unflattering portrait of Mullenweg as a control freak who is fussy about the type of toilet paper and soap offered in the Automattic offices. Mullenweg writes that he shared with the writer an anecdote from when he visited Google’s headquarters in 2004 and was surprised by what he considered “cheap toilet” paper. Years later, when he had his own offices, he decided to spend extra on good soap and toilet paper to take advantage of his employees’ experience at work. In other words, the choice to do so came from altruism and concern for others, not a desire to control every detail.
But that’s not how Inc. magazine portrayed it.
They write:
“Bending to open a storage cabinet built into the bathroom wall, he points to a neat stack of rolled-up toilet paper rolls. “The best toilet paper you can buy,” he assures me. “How much extra is really nice toilet paper? A dollar or two?” Nice soap bottles next to the sink are also top-notch, he adds.
I ask him who at Automattic, the estimated $710 million company of which Mullenweg is CEO, is responsible for quality control of toilet paper and soap?
“Me,” he says beaming.
Of course, Mullenweg’s control over Automattic extends far beyond the bathroom walls.”
Sad pictures in photos
The article’s author described Mullenweg as a young-looking 40-year-old with an “almost constant smile,” which contradicted the photos Inc chose to publish, none of which showed him smiling. Of the two interview photos they decided to release, one captured Mullenweg blinking, resulting in an absurd image of him typing with his eyes closed.
There are two other photos from nine and twelve years ago that show him smiling. Mullenweg’s smile is not affectation; it is an authentic expression. Videos of him participating in interviews or speaking in public consistently show him smiling. Mullenweg is correct in pointing out that Inc magazine deliberately chose not to publish a picture of him smiling, which is his signature expression, as stated in the article itself.
Poorly researched article
Mullenweg’s criticism of the article focuses on a number of false statements that point to poor research, including consistently misrepresenting the company’s earnings with its valuation.
One of the false facts falsely claims that Mullenweg coded WordPress in three “obsessive days” when the actual time period was four months. This may 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 criticism is completely convincing and shows that he agreed to the interview with openness and the expectation of balanced reporting. His dismay at the results is evident in his blog post about it.
Nevertheless, he continues to support journalism and lay the blame on the editor of the article.
He writes:
“I know many entrepreneurs follow me and I don’t want your conclusion to be “don’t talk to the press” or “don’t contact the mainstream media.”
…this is a good example of how a decent journalist can’t overcome a sloppy editor and quality control. I probably wouldn’t be excited to work with Inc Magazine again while Mike Hofman is editor-in-chief, he’s clearly overseeing a declining brand. But I will continue to engage with other media, blog, tweet and tell my story directly.
When an editor wants to make you look good, he can! If they decide they want to drag you out, they can too. Everything about my interactions with David and Inca made it seem like this was going to 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 interviewees and confirmed that they were competent and reputable writers. From Mullenweg’s point of view, the Inc article was poorly researched and heavily biased against him, which he called a hit article.
Read Mullenweg’s account of the interview:
Featured Image Shutterstock/tomertu
