giving or not giving oral interviews...

Yes, Jay...

But your mentioned in your prior two entries that you were reconsidering giving oral interviews (at least that's what stuck *me* as interesting).

So, consistent with what you've said so far (if I understand it right), you only made the categorical decision not to do soundbite for TV news but... you *have* reconsidered giving oral interviews in other circumstances, also... Right?

If so, what were your reasons for reconsidering it in those other circumstances? (I think you already gave some reasons, such as having your responses questionably framed, but I get the impression that there must be more to it.)
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/05/21/kurtz_interview.html#comment45860)

you would *never* stop giving oral interviews altogether? (no matter what...) -- ok ... (I didn't think what you wrote and told Kurtz went that far...especially in the light of your prior entries; it seemed to me that there were plenty of things that weren't working nearly as well as of late and if they continued to get worse that was a possibility -- that at some point you'd just quit doing it altogether) D.

Delia

P.S. What would it take for you to stop giving oral interviews altogether (if you see this as a possibility). D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/05/21/kurtz_interview.html#comment45916)

don't give them ideas, Jay:)...(they could just *say* that even if they've already made up their mind if they know you would always talk to them if they say that...) ; sorry about the trolls -- I'm going to stop here on that account... D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/05/21/kurtz_interview.html#comment45934)

what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying...

I look at what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying…*first* and *foremost* — always! ESPECIALLY online… it’s not like you can see the expression on their faces (like you might in the case of a witness) or that knowing that a particular random person wrote a particular post means much — the reverse doesn’t mean much to me either (that a *known* person wrote the post), I mean nowhere as much as what they say and the reasons they give for what they are saying — they may be more *likely* to say something of value but that becomes irrelevant when you have the info in front of you… I suspect you don’t agree but that’s ok :)…. I was just curious what your reasons were… but I don’t really need to know… D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149918)

Jon,

Dan appears to be *more* than a credentialist: looks like, for him, if you’d rather not share your name with the whole world, you might just as well shut up… (you are NOT standing behind your words…) And nope, it’s not an issue of privacy! After all, why *shouldn’t* the whole world know? (from here to eternity…) you MUST be hiding *something*! ;)…

Delia

P.S. (if you haven’t noticed) I’m mostly kidding, Dan…
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149944)

Seth, it seems to me that IF you are evidence based, you wouldn’t be granting presumptions to anybody — you would just look at the stuff (on an *individual* basis) and decide if it’s good or not — if you already have the thing in front of you, what good are presumptions? (the time those would have been useful has already passed).

Jon, I think it all depends… I can think of a number of circumstances where “the new gatekeepers’ values” (according to you) would do just fine… : for instance, not all useful information requires a lot of pondering and getting something quick may be essential

Delia

P.S. The real issue seems to be whether the “non-credentialed reviews” (that *overall* appear to be a mixed bag — well, more so than the “credentialed reviews”) are just something EXTRA that is available… or whether their existence does in fact result in less available quality reviews (”credentialed” or not)… and if this is the case at the moment, is this something that’s temporary or not…

P.P.S. Jon, I agree that too much information to sort through can be a problem (I took a quick look at your article) : rating by those who have already read the stuff seems to be a promising solution (but it needs to be more than just a popularity rating a la Digg — I think Fabrice Florin’s idea is on the right track and can be applied to a lot more things) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149947)

Jon - if your idea was different enough (and for the better) it may still be worth writing your version of Digg (Digg’s system doesn’t appear to have much for IP protection — I mean there seem to be so many copycats and I’m not aware of legal challenges by Digg….) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149950)

Seth: Jon said: “My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then” — this only makes sense if the code was a significant ingredient in the success… (unless Jon could also get the audience) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149952)

what's journalism for?

Paul, I’m curious what you think journalism is for (or *should* be)? As far as I see it, its basic function is to inform us of things we really *need* to know — this, and only this, is the loss of function that’s worth worrying about and (if needed) even worth being subsidized by the government… D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/19/san-francisco-paper-whacks-jobs/#comment-149889)

(if you are not a professional blogger) you can always gather your toys and go home...

Seth,

Unless you are a “professional blogger” (or aspire to be) — the vast majority of bloggers (or whatever you want to call them) just don’t fit this category — this should be fun for you…

If it’s NOT, you can always gather your toys and go home… this is a luxury “professional bloggers” don’t have (if this is a way to make money, it seems to become like a job — you can quit if you want but not without significant loss… )

Plus their real life appears to be intertwined with this blogging thing so they can’t just anonymously decide they’ve had enough, have a clean break and move on…

Delia

P.S. So I wouldn’t envy them too much (it can and it *does* get quite unpleasent at times and they have to face the music come what may). D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/16/why-doc-searls-keeps-blogging/#comment-149876)

Seth…

If you see it as a sin… why be part of it? As far as I see it, the only good reason to do this as a “volunteer” is… because you enjoy it! If you don’t… (or at the point you don’t anymore), there is an easy way out of your “misery”… (if that’s how you see it).

As to being heard, people have limited time so unless you have something they *really* want or need I think it’s naive to think they will drop what they were doing and start listening to you… You probably have a better chance of “being heard” (before they remove you…) if you go to the mall, get on a soap box and start talking…

Again, if it’s not fun for you (everything taken into consideration), don’t do it…

Delia

P.S. I’m not convinced that being an “A-lister,” in itself, makes people in general listen to them… I mean, I took a look at a couple of them (just because I’ve heard of them in favorable terms) and I must confess I was thoroughly bored…. If people listen to them just because they are A-listers, I don’t think they are really listening…

And if you think of it in terms of having “influence”, I don’t think it’s anywhere to the extent that you appear to believe — the vast majority of people don’t read blogs, definitely not on a regular basis.

Some of them may have significant influence because they are seen as“experts.” I’m doubtful of any real “experts” in something where so few things are demonstrably the way the “experts” claim to be. So I agree that it’s a “guru” system…

But in any case, why even worry about it if it’s not fun for you? Go take a nap instead:)…. D.

(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/16/why-doc-searls-keeps-blogging/#comment-149883)

(giving interviews) why participate in the charade?

re: "People might well consider, you say, not cooperating in oral interviews because they might be used briefly' Nope. I simply said that I was re-considering."

Jay,

I think you are right to reconsider it and others would be well advised to do so. If it's no longer about getting to the truth of the matter why participate in the charade (and waste your time in the process)?

Delia
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/05/08/lewis_reply.html#comment43903)

forget about gigs if you can do your own thing

Dan, it seems odd that he would *need* anybody’s gig is he is that good… (should be able to start something of his own and do well at it) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/05/politico-and-transparency/#comment-149721)

(ultimately) *content* drives business (always has, always will)

Dan, I’m not sure Fry is right. It seems to me that ultimately it is the *content* that drives the business aspect of it (it always has been, it always will be — there would just be no selling or buying without it). So as long as content producers would be willing to walk away, they should still have bargaining power. D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/05/politico-and-transparency/#comment-149721)

better when you can see what's going on...

Dan,

Does that really answer your concern? (it doesn’t seem that it would) I mean, trust is a great thing but being able to see what’s going on is even better! It seems to me that… they *still* need to become more transparent… (whether or not Andrew Glass detects any political pressure… yet…)

Delia
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/05/politico-and-transparency/#comment-149721)

great food can work miracles...

Jay, it MUST be be the food... D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/05/01/when_fairness_r.html#comment42854)