Monday, January 29, 2007

it's always nice when the person comes across...

Jeff, you are finally relaxing! I liked this entry a lot… (it’s really *you* — the person — talking). I must confess that although I liked your topics from the beginning, I initially found your writing style to be a bit of the “talking head” kind — the kind you were supposed to rebel against… D.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

is all blogging journalism?

Dan, it seems to me that most people don’t think of blogging as journalism… it’s more of an extroverted diary, a chance to put thoughts down and get the ideas out there (if anybody else is interested or… even if they aren’t…). Yes it would be good if they were all nice and fair but plenty just aren’t and I don’t know that I can fault them for it… (they are just “volunteers” showing up at work and doing what they can… subject to their many limitations including blatant bias) D.

should it be?

that wasn’t obvious to me… (the *getting paid* part… is that what you meant? that since he was getting *paid* to do it…)

well, then, I think he will hear more on this… (from his employer!)

still, is that something agreed on? journalists blogging are held to “the rules of journalism”? I’m thinking that even if they are trained to be fair etc. (well, should be) they may not necessarily want to practice that on their own time… you’d certainly not expect that if they were writing a diary, for instance… (they are people after all… may need to relax once in a while…)

and are they necessarily *paid* for blogging when it occurs in the context of their employment? (because if they are NOT, you’d think they would just stop doing it and go get some coffee instead if it turns out to be just too much of a headache…) D.

(may just need to kick back and relax ...)

Paul: I think regarding the *whole* of blogging as journalism (even if you just look at it as what would be ideal) is missing a very important aspect — just kicking back and relaxing!

Dan: yes, those are GREAT qualities that would serve anybody well in *serious* circumstances… (I’m just not sure that blogging, when done by journalists in their own time, should always be regarded as… one of *those* situations…) D.

Serious stuff takes time...


I think it really depends on the kind of story: I’d like to think that Time is in a different category than People and Entertainment Weekly, but I could be wrong…


P.S. I *do* wish people writing about craigslist, for instance, would really take their time: do the research and do it well, consult with others and all that good stuff… (you’d think they would be much less likely to fall in all the traps…) D.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Will PR firms turn down questionable clients?

Dan, I don’t see it happening at any significant scale (which means the questionable client can always find someone else) any more than I see it happening for lawyers (plenty of criminal lawyers don’t want to know it if their clients are guilty…) D.(

Sunday, January 21, 2007

(anybody neutral on) Net Neutrality?


I get the impression that Net Neutrality is much more complex than it is presented: pretty much all players seem to have a steak (may just be a theoretical one) in the issue: each side seems to be pushing their own agenda without being concerned with presenting a balanced view.


Thursday, January 18, 2007

you can't make them read...

Hi Pramit!

re: “One good story does not build stickiness. For repeat visits, you need consistency. For consistency, writers must post good stories over a long period for the Google effect, Pagerank and others to push the product along. That takes time and money.”

Well…the idea is not to fire people if they don’t get enough clicks right away (it does appear to take some time to get an accurate read of what a particular writer has to offer the clients you are serving). It’s just that somebody that has been writing for a good while and has gotten no clicks or very few would probably find a better match elsewhere or… doing something else… wouldn’t you say?

I mean… there is no way to force people to read the “good stuff” (according to you) if they would rather do something else… It could be argued that you might be able to change their mind in time (good luck if you are willing to put in the finances and take the risk! it is just not required if you are in it for the money…– which was the situation I was looking at).


remuneration as a function of number or reads


I see them as two different markets that *sometimes* coincide: entertainment and knowledge (I mean, if you could consistently hit *both*, that would be great… but it would be extremely difficult if not impossible).


P.S. As for remunerating as a function of number of reads… — It all depends on what you are after… If you *just* want to make money (not concerned with sending out messages that may not be popular, for instance, or presenting outstanding journalistic work that most of your readers may not necessarily appreciate) and your profits are a direct result of the number of reads, going this route seems to optimize your operation… (It’s like hiring people on spec — they get paid according to how well it does in the market; they can do wonderful work but if it doesn’t sell… too bad…) D.

is Jay ok?

JJ: Jay's ok, right? (he usually doesn't leave this "unattended" for this long...) D.
UPDATE: just disgusted...

less sensitive topics...

...would probably be a good start


Well... I thought you intended to have a *debate*! (between people having opposite views)-- may have just been the byproduct of your post, I don't know...
I think this aspect was a success -- in a limited way, of course -- but given the difficulty of the topic... let's say I think it wasn't a bad start!

I think it could be much better if the topic is much less sensitive (at least until the people with opposite view points get familiar with each other and respect and some sort of understanding develops -- I thought I saw a movement, albeit a tinny one, in this direction).

re: "the right wing blogosphere boycotts actual discussion of the post, even though it's about them. Big surprise!"

you are right! -- it *isn't* a surprise... I'm just looking at it differently: it's a *very* touchy subject and will probably continue to be for a good long while... (so maybe giving it a rest would not be a bad idea...)

re: When that happens the dead enders go and beat on Bush's critics and "the media" to make their anxieties go away.

again, I'd suggest giving it a rest... dropping the topic for a good long while (it may need to be a *very* long while...)


Will Jay have planned debates as part of his blog?


I really don't think it's that bad... I mean, this would be one very difficult topic in ANY circumstance! (getting people with vastly different starting points etc. to just *talk to each other* is an accomplishment in itself!)


P.S. If you'd like to do this again some other time, I'd try a less difficult topic (maybe ask them for one). D.(
UPDATE: doesn't look like it...

Saturday, January 13, 2007

back at PressThink...

... Jay is making yo momma jokes

re: "Shorter Jason: so's your mother!" *lol*
Jay: there is a lot of life in this place!(can't stay away for too long...) D.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

"It's just a comedy show"...


yeah, right...

"re: “It’s just a comedy show”


You *gotta* tell us the truth, now! WHY do you like that show? I asked a male classmate once what was the fascination with Howard Stern. He told me it was what men *thought* but didn’t dare say… (I thought that was funnier than Howard’s stuff…)



(I swallowed my pride and knocked on Jeff's door... <-- temptation, temptation, temptation)

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

learning from those who earnestly disagree...


re: “We all learn more from people who disagree with us than from people who agree.”

absolutely! especially when the agreement is just to be agreeable (and that happens plenty of times); those who agree but elaborate potentially enhance our understanding of the situation but those who *earnestly* disagree and tell us exactly *why*… I think they are doing us a big favor!

bunch of exchanges with Seth


Unless you have a complete understanding of the situation from all possible angles (extremely rare), you can always learn more… and I think it’s important to stay open. I don’t see it as having to do with “punditry” — just honest desire to take as many things as possible into consideration.


P.S. I agree that those who disagree just to disagree (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “merely disagree”) are just as useless as those who agree just to be agreeable (maybe even more…) D.

Seth: well… in order to *learn* something… it HAS to be new stuff! (if it’s just a repeat… it seems to me that it would fall either under “disagree to disagree” or “agree to be agreeable” — which, as I said, are both *useless*…) So… yeah! D.

Seth: I’m usually pretty tolerant with the *form* in which people express their ideas (provided there is some factual basis for the opinion); yeah, I do think controlling the flow of comments (especially in extreme cases) would improve quality. D

(Dan didn't seem to be home...)

Sunday, January 7, 2007

Whatever could have set Jay off like that?

UPDATE: just to make sure everybody understood: no, I did NOT mean I was going to really *bother* anybody (or go step on anybody's toes) -- just kidding:) D.

Perhaps a *longer* break would be an even *better* thing…?

note to self: go bother Dan Gillmor next time! (Nawh, he seem like a much much mellower guy -- probably very difficult to bother... short of stepping on his toes -- inadvertently , of course;)

As to Jeff Jarvis, I should probably boycott his BuzzMachine until he gets rid of those ads! (I’ve seen something else aside from that Treo ad – no ads should *ever* be there! period… hmmm… wondering if he is trying to raise money so he could fly first class?... oh, those poor knees of his -- all that abuse… I’d wear knee pads if I was him :).


Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Best set-up blog: Pressthink!

I can link to the exact comment, always works and I don't feel compelled to duplicate on my own blog.

clarification: No, I'm not a prude...

re: Jay: you disappoint (there was no need for that language -- especially not the long-drawn-out description).


P.S. I'm taking a break from reading your blog
... and I wasn't counting


Happy New Year, Jay! (a break from blogging might do you good also...) D.

one difficult thread

still, I didn't think it was that bad...


I'm not sure where this whole thing is going but I give you a lot of credit for leting everyone say what they will... and reasoning with them all (to the extent feasible).

reality based policy?


#1. what are the relevant facts that would support your assertion that the Bush White House policies re: Iraq were in fact reality-based?

#2 If those policies were based on reality how come that this late in the game we are so far off from what "we" (Bush administration) expected would happen?

talk is cheap

re: "But all of them are demonstrably false."
Jason: well, you might just as well go ahead and... demonstrate, then? no?

you gotta have the facts


sorry, but I'm not going anywhere... If you disagree with Jay (and have the indisputable facts to demonstrate the "demonstrably false" things on your list) AND Jay would like to hear that too... (it's his blog after all...) fine... I'm listening... Otherwise, you don't seem to be going anywhere with your arguments...

Jay: if there are no facts we could possibly agree on... what's the point of all this? (might just as well go to bed -- it's getting late...) Nighty-night, all! D.

Jason: sorry, but I'm not going anywhere... If you disagree with Jay (and have the indisputable facts to demonstrate the "demonstrably false" things on your list) AND Jay would like to hear that too... (it's his blog after all...) fine... I'm listening... Otherwise, you don't seem to be going anywhere with your arguments...


still, an honest debate is hard to find...

Jay: Sorry about stirring-up this tangle with Jason (it was just that I would have really liked an honest debate). D

(not) making our own reality

MORE: posts

re: 'we make our own reality'
that would only be true if we controlled *all* the movers (which, luckily, we don't...-- if there was any doubt about this, you'd think the Iraq fiasco would have cleared it all up...)

being big is not enough

re: "I think the aide who said we create our own reality was absolutely right."

Jayson: We may be big but we do not dictate (control) what all others do at all times (see Iraq, if you have any doubts) -- that's why we DON'T "create our own reality" (since our reality is affected by what others do or don't do...: if we created our own reality wouldn't you say that the Iraq thing would have been gloriously done and over with a long time ago?)

re: "By the way - I find your characterization of the President as leading a "revolt against empiricism" to be wholly unsubstantiated."

well, that was a bit poetically put ("revolt against empiricism") -- aside from that, what kind evidence would you need to agree with Jay's assessment of the situation?


conveying local info efficiently

get more variables in the rating process --> convey more info

(Fabrice Florin's general idea could be applied to rating things like pizza places)

Lisa: good luck with your project! (sounds impressive)

Mike: I agree... (re:"blogs" per se, may not be the best medium to deliver hyperlocal information, especially data")

-- let's just take Lisa's example above (pizza places): some sort of a ranking or comparison would convey the info much more efficiently; I like Fabrice Florin's idea (he applied it to news but it could be applied here too: get more variables in the rating process and convey more info...)
I think innovators need to keep in mind that most people have a limited time and willingness to spend gathering info.

And for those who *want* more... in a *narrative* form? why not?