A Conflict-of-Interest-Off Between Abrams and Fine

When Abrams Research CEO Dan Abrams appeared yesterday on the mediabistro.com Morning Media Menu podcast, we asked him about the recent column by Businessweek’s Jon Fine which was critical of his company. Abrams thought the timing was “interesting.”
“Jon suddenly takes an interest in criticizing my business four and a half months in, for the same issues that you point out that people mentioned in the beginning, when lo and behold, there’s rumors that I could be creating a content producing site about media, that lo and behold, might compete — might, according to Jon — with mediabistro,” Abrams said in his best attorney voice.
The implication — that Fine’s marriage to our boss, Laurel Touby, may have been behind the column.
Fine responded on his Businessweek blog late yesterday.
“The implication that there’s any personal defensive (or offensive) maneuver intended with that column is flat-out wrong,” Fine wrote. “The potential launch of a media site is not what I found troubling about Abrams Research. It’s the situation with working journalists serving as corporate consultants.”
Fine also talked with Steve Brill, who serves on the Abrams Research advisory board, about the conflict. Brill agreed the Website may need “a new description” of the work the company might do.
Abrams then tweeted his response to Fine’s blog post today:

Burdened with an actual conflict, @jonfine writes about theoretical conflicts based on a line from my website? That is rich.


This is @Jonfine’s response to his overt conflict in writing about my business?…Really? Where is the explanation?

Fine has yet to respond to Abrams’ Twitter response, of the Fine blog post response, of Abrams’ mediabistro podcast response to Fine’s original column…