Fou Me Twice, Shame On Me

Over the years, I’ve blocked my share of followers on social media, but it’s mainly been on Twitter, where toxic exchanges aren’t exactly uncommon. But never on LinkedIn, until this week when I blocked a connection on LinkedIn, because of the toxic nature of his posts. It got me thinking about the nature of decorum on various platforms and apps and what our relative tolerance for abusive people is on them.

Oddly, I never blocked this same follower on Twitter, even though he spewed equally hateful attacks on that platform. Probably, it's because we’ve come to expect that sort of thing on Twitter. It’s, you know, de rigueur there.

But LinkedIn is supposed to be a place for dignified professional networking, sharing ideas and elevating content.

As a journalist, I’m used to taking hits from thin-skinned sources who don’t understand what we do, what news values are, and why we cover things the way we do. Or just have their own personal axe to grind.

I prefer they make those comments directly on our coverage so we can respond to them contextually and contemporaneously, but that’s not the way our multivariate world of media exchange works.

So it got me thinking about what and where else people are bashing my coverage. I’m dark on Facebook, and have been for many years now. These days, I only dip my toes into Twitter on an occasional basis, and usually when it involves something tweeted by a high profile industry exec. Or Elon Musk.

I don’t personally publish much content on any social platform – including LinkedIn – because I believe I already have the best and most contextually targeted publishing platform in the world on MediaPost.

I use Instagram mostly for friends and family.

I publish a personal blog on Substack for anyone interested in my alternative musings.

And I’m on various listservs, but usually just lurk to see what interesting things other informed people have to say. Occasionally, I see some of the same douchebags on them too.

I suppose I should be dabbling in more social media, if only to experience it so I can report on it better, but there are so many variations, and I find most of them to be time-sucks and rabbit holes.

So anyone who wants to kvetch about anything we publish – or about me personally – feel free to do it publicly on our pages at MediaPost (that’s what we’re here for). Or just reach out to me directly at

13 comments about "Fou Me Twice, Shame On Me".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics, June 7, 2022 at 3:43 p.m.

    thanks Joe for all the PR this has driven; far more than all the articles I wrote for media post before. 

  2. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics, June 7, 2022 at 6:08 p.m.

    hey Joe, why don't you tell people you delete comments  (I have records of the comments I wrote here, which you deleted)

  3. Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., June 7, 2022 at 6:24 p.m.

    @Augustine Fou: MediaPost has always reserved the right to moderate subscriber comments, and our policy for doing so includes hate speech, personal attacks, or inane, irrelevant or incomprehensible comments.

  4. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics replied, June 7, 2022 at 6:26 p.m.

    I realize, but none of my previous 3 comments which you deleted had "hate speech, personal attacks, or inane, irrelevant or incomprehensible comments."  I have screne shots, in case any one else wants to see. 

  5. Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., June 7, 2022 at 6:29 p.m.

    @Augustine Fou: Enjoy sharing your screenshots with whomever wants to see them.

  6. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics replied, June 7, 2022 at 6:35 p.m.

    confirmed. I've got the receipts. And things are properly highlighted. 

  7. John MacLane from Private, June 7, 2022 at 6:55 p.m.

    As an outside observer with no idea who either of you people are, this is pretty wild to see. But I do have to say, using your own news site to make what's effectively the equivalent of a Twitter call-out post? That's pretty sus, as the kids say. But the comments from the other involved party seem equally childish, so...I don't know, maybe both of you should take a step back from your computers and enjoy a nice relaxing stroll?

  8. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics replied, June 7, 2022 at 6:58 p.m.

    good suggestion John, thank you

  9. Rafael Cosentino from Tap Native, June 7, 2022 at 7:26 p.m.

    Joe - Media Post is bigger than publishing this and putting someone's name up in headlines like that in a very negative way. You should delete this....its not right. If you really have somethign to say at least anonmize it and leave his name out but to put his name up there like that in a one-sided story, not right and wreaks of vengance. Very unbecoming.  Just delete it and be the bigger man. 

  10. Joshua Castell from My own Holdings, June 7, 2022 at 11:47 p.m.

    All Mr. Fou is doing is accurately exposing the extreme lack of ethics and substance that Mr. Mandese, his publication, various other snake oil salesman, and the industry-at-large have. Fou has provided documentation and evidence out the wazoo and its really not up for debate. Mr. Mandese and those like him are devoid of any real value or credibility. Hacks being exposed as hacks and then said hacks trying every underhanded trick in their pathetic books to subvert and suppress said exposure. Keep going Fao! 

  11. Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., June 8, 2022 at 6:44 a.m.

    @Joshua Castell: Honest question -- If you really feel this way, why do you subscribe to MediaPost and why do you read my columns?

  12. Augustine Fou from FouAnalytics replied, June 8, 2022 at 6:56 a.m.

    there are specific contributors who write articles for mediapost that are responsible and credible; those articles are worth reading. 

    your posts and those of your staff writers that are re-writes of ad tech press releases are NOT worth reading and those are the types of articles we are calling out. I am calling you out as editor-in-chief for not doing basic fact-checking on those posts. 

    you keep telling people don't read mediapost if they disagree with it, instead of doing your damn job as editor and raising the standards, like doing some fact checking. If you even gut-checked the $120 billion of fraud, you'd realize it made no sense in the context of $189 billion in ad spending. You should have asked more questions before just publishing. The ANA is not a credible research organization, particularly on the topic of ad fraud.

  13. Kenneth Fadner from MediaPost, June 8, 2022 at 8:29 a.m.

    As Publisher of MediaPost, I am closing this article to further comments. Enough has been said. I stand behind Joe Mandese's original news reporting on this subject and his right to express his personal opinion in this commentary about the problems with social media flame throwing generally and Mr. Fou's commenting in particular ... at MediaPost and elsewhere.

    Mr. Fou, we do have policies about personal attacks, hate speech and/or inane, irrelevant or incomprehensible comments. We have and will apply these to your comments and those of others. If you or any other member violate these policies consistently, we will cancel those memberships.

Next story loading loading..