Mark Zuckerberg Is Not An Insufferable Little Jerk, He Just Plays One On TVMark Zuckerberg Is Not An Insufferable Little Jerk, He Just Plays One On TV

Since his ascent to the top of the under-30 Web-entreprenuer ranks, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has become well-known for two things: invariably wearing open-toed Adidas sandals and saying, in front of audiences of analysts, investors, and the press, almost nothing of interest.The first sends the message, "I founded Facebook, I'm a billionaire, I can wear what I want." The second sends the message, "I have almost nothing of interest to say."

Last night's interview with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" broke with the first precedent: the producers noted Zuckerberg's casual footwear, but he's upgraded to a cool pair of leather slip-ons. On the second score, however, Zuckerberg played true to form.

Of Facebook's profits, or lack thereof, he said, "As a private company we have the advantage of not really having to reveal our financial results." Of the Beacon ad fiasco (for which the Harvard-dropout founder was forced to make a reluctant apology), he said it's "actually a good thing" that somehow makes Facebook "less commercial."

"We have to make money," Zuckerberg stated, as if the $15 billion-or-so valuation now granted Facebook (which Stahl noted some analysts consider wildly exaggerated) means that the universe now owes him and his 400 similarly youthful employees a suitably inflated income.

Michael Learmonth, on Silicon Alley Insider, called Zuckerberg's performance "squirmy" (and noted that it drew the lowest "60 Minutes" audience of the year). I didn't find it that way at all: Zuckerberg didn't squirm, he just sat there dismissing Stahl's questions with the smugness that, because he's paper-rich, passes for brilliance.

You are free to dismiss this as the envious carpings of a Boomer watching Facebook's meteoric, and somewhat inexplicable, rise. But I have yet to hear Zuckerberg say anything insightful or "visionary" (a term that Stahl inevitably invoked) that would indicate that he's anything other than what he seems: a reasonably good coder who struck it rich by having a simple idea at the right time. He's like Shawn Fanning, minus the lawsuits. (Quick: Name Fanning's latest venture.)

I'll be shocked if he comes up with anything like Big Idea No. 2.