I guess there was no way to ask that gently...:)

Micah,

Well... it's certainly *different*... whether or not it's an improvement (when everything is taken into consideration) appears to be a value judgment. There are also a whole lot of things that are just unknown -- I find the hero-guru system to be a terrible way of getting to the truth of what's really going on.

Delia

Jay,

I'm going to try to be much gentler this time, but isn't there a different kind of corruption when it comes to the blogosphere? well.. the prominent people involved with this (and not just some bad apples, something systemic that distorts the information that reaches the public)?

Delia
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48592)

Jay, again I think they *did* frame it wrong (that they could have done much better in that respect) but I'm wondering if everybody would have gotten more out of the "after matter" if it would have just been *suggested* that they do a follow up article that explores the subject more in depth... instead of telling them just how wrong it all was...(that's done and over with) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48611)

Jay, this is sounding more and more like beating on a dead horse... If they did a shabby treatment of a worthy subject, why not go into great detail about how it could have been much better? (it seems that that would be a lot more interesting and useful to read) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48615)

Jay,

Alright,then! let's do this the easy way: you come across like a sore loser who was pissed that they didn't include you among the interviewees, went out and *asked* them to interview you and then raised hell because it didn't turn out the way you wanted...

Delia

P.S. As to my "editing your blog", I was trying to help you out of this vicious circle but... keep spinning around! -- what do *I* care?

P.P.S. As to the other question, that's very serious stuff! and it seems to go way beyond linking or not linking to things... definitely worth talking about!(if we are still in talking terms...) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48619)

Jay,

ok, looks like I was wrong (but that's the impression I was getting after seeing you go at it for so long mentioning Mother Jones at every turn) and yes I'm afraid I've reached my tolerance level on the topic...

Delia

P.S. I hope you are going to talk about the other issue (corruption of the blogosphere) soon -- I think it would be great if you did a separate article on it... I hope you don't perceive it as "editing your blog," it's just a suggestion and something I'd really like to see... D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48622)

re:"I hope you'll address.... is not editing my blog.

Telling me to halt my examination because it's beyond your tolerance level and go on to something more constructive... that is editing my blog.
I am sure the difference is clear to you."

Jay,

Again, I didn't "tell you what to do" -- I simply agreed with you that... *I* have personally had enough of this topic the way it has been going (in other words, if this is ALL that's being offered, *I*'m out of here...for *now*...)

But this shouldn't be any problem whatsoever since you've got so many others that are still listening...

As to the other topic, I said I was *hoping* you would talk about it soon, maybe have a separate article on it (so your discussion, with the others, would not be interrupted by this)--I have no idea what could have made you think that I was "telling you to halt your examination" or anything of the kind...

Delia

P.S. This is getting a lot more complicated that it needs to be: IF you end-up doing that article on corruption in the blogosphere I'll definitely read it! and could probably participate in a discussion on the topic forever... (well, pretty much...) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48636)

Jay,

I'm really tired of this, but I don't want you to be left with the wrong idea, so here's my last comment on this (if this doesn't clarify it, I doubt anything would... so I'm going to have to let it go...):

re:"Jay, this is sounding more and more like beating on a dead horse... If they did a shabby treatment of a worthy subject, why not go into great detail about how it could have been much better? (it seems that that would be a lot more interesting and useful to read) D."
as I already told you, at that point I thought you needed help out of a vicious circle... but even then *I didn't tell you what to do*: I simply told you what it looked like to me and *suggested* a change of focus... while staying on the topic you have chosen (something that would read, at least to me and I assumed I wasn't the only one that saw it that way -- I may have been, I don't know --, more like a dispassionate exploration of the topic and less like bashing Mother Jones to no end).

Delia

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48647)

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48648

why *didn't* they link? (as far as you can tell) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48718)

Jay,

I think that based on the quality of your blog and especially based on previous history of the issue it is quite normal to expect to be linked to... (not in the sense of feeling *entitled* to get links -- just a logical continuation of what's been going in the past)

Delia

P.S. And you may well have been right earlier on when you thought it was curious and it may have something to do with corruption...

re: "About one of your earlier questions, isn't there corruption in the blogosphere we ought to concern ourselves with even if MoJo didn't go a great job in illuminating it... I'm a trifle concerned that this post, criticizing a progressive magazine, has been linked to by Instapundit on the right, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate voice in the center, but not a single link from the left. Fortunately I have the Huffington Post to get it out there, but it is curious."

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/27/mother_jones.html#comment48725)

was Seth right?

Jay, I'm not sure "balance" is the right word, it seems to me that what people may be concerned with the project being not only fair but welcoming to ...well... non-liberals...
If you think this is something you really *can* offer, it would be great! (but definitely not easy...)
If this is not something you can do (or would care to do), I think it would be much better (and clearer for all) to just limit it to those of liberal persuasion... and maybe suggest that the project is "mirrored" by some conservative initiative... and a separate independent one, why not?

Delia

P.S. re: "This is someone I respect and admire a great deal, and more so after his decision to execute this turn in his studies."

I didn't know what to make of this (it seems a bit odd, to me... I mean, *adding* a new interest would be one thing but out of the blue deciding he is just not going to do any more of his extreme fair use thing etc... begs the question "why?" -- I think Lessig may well have very serious reasons that he is just not disclosing...). D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48520)

oh, Jay... you don't *really* believe Lessig's stuff, do you? -- I mean, it's so way out there I don't see how he, or anybody else, thought there was ever any real chance it was going to become the law -- and thank God it didn't! it would have made terrible law -- (interesting intellectual arguments if you are tolerant to the extreme... and I am not...; he may have much better luck with things like science fiction)

Delia

P.S. alright! looks like another thing we disagree on...

P.P.S. it's already past midnight, I gotta go to bed... good night, all! D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48524)

re:"And I don't think you understand how academics work."

Well... I certainly don't understand academics a la Lessig (or any "academic based" advocacy group). I don't think anybody *should* understand it... that's not academics, that's lobbying!

Delia

P.S. If you think the law is terrible *now* -- you should have seen just how much MORE terrible it could have been if Lessig's ideas prevailed; but...as I've already said, I think we are much better off that *didn't* happen... D.

P.P.S. Sorry if he's a personal friend or something...
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48530)

Jay,

re: I don't think anybody *should* understand it... that's not academics, that's lobbying!
You sound like a commissar. Scary."

huh? I think you missed the context: it was simply a way of saying the what Lessig and organizations such as the Berkman Center, for instance, do is just NOT academics... and, yeah, it's NOT *conventional* lobbying either... it's lobbying the academia! (something that shouldn't be allowed...)

Delia

P.S. and yes, that's *my view* on the topic, of course, and by the looks of your responses I can see a lot of merit in dropping it... (unless, of course, you can show that having "academic based" *advocacy groups* does NOT result in lobbying the academia or that lobbying the academia is in itself quite ok... I'd be listening... ) D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48538)

Jay, (you may not have intended it that way but) it certainly appears that Tim has been less welcomed(I mean, if he's had different opinions, he's always been gentle about it -- unlike me..., I'm afraid:) --; yet I always seem to get answers from you and my comments appear to post instantaneously...) : this is what I meant when I said make sure you *can* make EVERYONE feel just as welcomed as the next person... otherwise, make it clear to people that's not a realistic expectation so they can make up their mind whether they still want to participate D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48541)

Jay,

I think you are missing the point, entirely... anybody should be allowed "to push" for whatever policy they want (however unwise, Lessig NOT excepted...).

They should just be honest as to what they are really doing... (don't call it academics and don't do it in an academic setting if the outcome of your "academic inquiry" is set from the outgo... I don't see how that could possibly qualify as academics...)

The big problem I see with "academic based" advocacy groups (Dan Gillmor's term), such as the Berkman Center -- Lessig had the original endowed professorship, if I remember right -- is that they result in a perversion of academia and a perversion of true scholarship (they are just impervious to opposite points of view, as far from academic principles as you can get...).

Delia

P.S. Just look at what has been the Center's effect on academic freedom at Harvard, for instance? Marginalizing people like Arthur Miller... who certainly deserves a prominent place at the discussion table when it comes to Internet and Society ...

A true academic group would have *equally* welcomed both Lessig AND Miller... and be glad to have them BOTH... and there would have been no advocacy going on (the two very different views would have been presented as valid alternatives)D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48543)

Jay, I hope you *are* indeed missing the point (and it's not something much more sinister going on...) -- Seth sort of warned me that I walked into a Kool-Aid-drinking-cult and shouldn't expect normal reasoning... at the time I though he was just funny but I'm not so sure any more...

Delia

P.S. anyways, I gotta go... good luck with your project! D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/19/otb_amze.html#comment48546)

does he *really* want to have that debate? (hard to tell...)

Dan, I think you are wrong on this one… giving good counter arguments wouldn’t be “selling the book” (if done right, it could plummet sales). Your REFUSAL to formally counter what he is saying, may well give the impression that you just don’t have serious valid counter arguments… and thus *help* sales…

Delia

P.S. yes, you have “spoken” against it (here and elsewhere) but, as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been a real critique (and that’s disappointing): these people (PBS and BBC, both of them decent entities) want to give you the chance to do it right: you should take it! D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/16/amateurish-pro-journalism-promotes-dishonest-book/#comment-150790)

Dan,

Here is what you said: “It is a shabby and dishonest treatment of an important topic.” Pretty strong negative statement — nothing wrong with that of course, as long as you back up your claim. I just don’t find that you (or Lessig, your reference) did a good job at this — I’m thinking you could probably do much better… And you do end your post by saying “Let’s definitely have that debate. But let’s base it on facts…” So… why NOT have it, then? (and by all means, base it on facts!) when PBS and BBC are offering?

Delia

P.S. As to Andrew’ publicist just being happy the book is talked about, if you are thinking if you showed Andrew’s book was terrible (and I mean *really* show), that would make the book into a “cult book” (just like you have cult movies following really bad movies), I guess I can see your point… but this seems to be a minor concern when compared with getting the real counter arguments out… if you have them…

P.P.S. will be away for the day (will check your blog in the evening)
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/16/amateurish-pro-journalism-promotes-dishonest-book/#comment-150792)

Dan,

The whole tone of your and Lessig’s arguments sounds wrong. It seems to me that you are both going after the wrong things … Why not focus on the real issues (you acknowledged) Andrew raises? Why not just have the debate that you say is worth having… (with or without Andrew… on PBS/BBC or not…)?

Delia

P.S. But if you are not going to have Andrew, I think you still need to have *somebody* to represent radically different views. D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/16/amateurish-pro-journalism-promotes-dishonest-book/#comment-150797)

Dan,

“focusing” on things (especially in your *own* book) is NOT a debate… well, good luck with your new project, then! but unless you bring in people with very different points of view (such as Andrew — of course, it doesn’t *have to* be Andrew, but he definitely fits the bill in that respect, maybe not in others), I don’t see how you are going to have much of a debate… the whole reason of commenting on this post (and the prior one one the same topic) was because you plainly said you wanted to have that debate… maybe you didn’t *really*… I don’t know… but in any case I’ve said as much as I’m going to say on the topic…

Delia

P.S. and no, I haven’t read your book nor is it one my reading list any time soon (I could easily wonder if you brought it up for the same reason you accuse Andrew — to help sales — but I’m going to give you the benefit of a doubt); I have previously read a couple of Lessig’s books (with whom you say you are in agreement) and I must confess I was far from impressed…
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/16/amateurish-pro-journalism-promotes-dishonest-book/#comment-150804)

the great debate that never was :(...

So how about that debate? What are the serious issues Andrew raises, as far as you can see? (the “topics that need serious treatment”) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/05/amateurish-cult-of-the-amateur/#comment-150570)

Seth,

I don’t mind hearing what you think but I was really asking Dan.

Delia

P.S. oh… Seth, I don’t know how to say this but you come across like a frustrated kid that nobody/nothing can make feel better… I think it would be nice is you quieted down (you have a lot of good ideas but they always seem to come with whine) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/05/amateurish-cult-of-the-amateur/#comment-150597)

Dan, you are *talking* about a lot of issues here but I don’t see much of a debate going on… so I think this could be a good opportunity to do something like this: I’d pick the “best issues” both you and Andrew agree on (although you probably ONLY agree on the fact that they *are* issues…), invite Andrew over and anybody else who would care to participate and… have that debate! D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/05/amateurish-cult-of-the-amateur/#comment-150644)

Don’t get hurt, Seth… get better ; you can do it! it’s all in the frame of mind… don’t take it too seriously — look at it as fun! D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/06/05/amateurish-cult-of-the-amateur/#comment-150661)

what's gonna happen?

who/what will end up subsidising journalism?

re: Technology isn’t destroying journalism. “It’s simply destroying the business that subsidized journalism.”

Jay, I'm wondering what you think will happen. It doesn't seem to look promising at the moment... but do you think alternative successful ways to "produce" journalism will be found? *in time*? If not, what will happen? Will the government end up having to subsidize the gathering and dissemination of basic info we *really* need to get?

Delia
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment47842)

Mark,

My concern is that nobody seems to have come up with a "journalistic car" that works... yet, nonetheless, the "horse and buggy journalism" appears to be in the process of dismantling...
So you get the expected reactions: those who strongly believe *something* will come around and solve the problem vs. those who aren't that optimistic...

I like being optimistic but I think we NEED to have some sort of fall back scenario.

Delia

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment47879)

I'm wondering if advertising delivered what was believed to deliver in the print form: I mean, it seems that all advertisers had to go by was how many people read the paper...there were no clicks or anything of the kind to really *know* how many people were even cursorily interested in the ads.

Could it be that the advertisers were paying a lot of money for those ads because they just *believed* they were getting them customers but that wasn't in fact the case?

Could it be that this false belief was easily dispelled online were it was just a lot easier to see that eyeballs do NOT equal dollars? that you can have a lot of traffic and in the same time not many readers even glancing at your ads?

Delia

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment47912)

that doesn't convince me (in itself)-- people have been wrong about a lot of things for much longer than 100 years... but let's say it *did* work: did they figure out *how* it worked? (*what* made it work?)...that may give good clues as to how to make advertising work online D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment47917)

Jay,

If it's "stolen" it's only because they *allow* it... (it would be easy to NOT allow links to their stuff if they didn't want it); so I don't know what's going here... doesn't see to add up... If you see your stuff gets stolen, you don't continue to leave the door open...

Delia

P.S. did anybody at least try to see if they could give *permission* to link (since they are not legally or otherwise required to allow it) in EXCHANGE for a percentage of the money Google etc. makes as a *direct result* of using those links? that would seem fair to me... D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48063)

re: "news sites will make more money by having their content pop up on Google News than they otherwise would"

you'd hope there would be some money to be made from that (the traffic driven back to the paper from Google news and such), but it appears that the profits are no that easy to realize...

... so, since that doesn't take care of the problem (from the journalism content producers' side) and since they are no required to allow links... you'd think that as long as they would stand their ground, they should be able to work out something with Google etc.

after all, if the content production dries up, Google wouldn't have *what* to make money off...

Delia

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48071)

Jay, I take it there haven't been attempts to really negotiate with Google etc. in this respect (or you are not aware of any)-- would you be against something like that? do you think it *might* work and if so in what circumstances? D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48090)

Lame Man,

It *does* make sense: Google would make no money whatsoever if it ONLY did what newspapers can't stop it from doing (just give a short "sampling" of the news they find relevant -- headlines or short passages -- with NO link to where to go find the stuff... *nobody* would be interested in tracking those things down on their own, well, close to nobody...)

Now, if Google did this... just to be *nice* -- provided this to the community and made *no money* at it -- it would be one thing, but this is NOT what's going on... Google makes money! (Jay says not much but who's to judge? their profit margin may still be quite high...)

So then what's the problem with sharing those profits with those who produce the journalism Google uses to *make $*? The fact that the journalism producers don't *have to* allow links give them a bargaining position (well... it *secures* the bargaining position they should rightly have since they are the *content producers* without which none of this could be happening in the first place... )

Delia

P.S. sorry, Jay (looks like we disagree on this one) D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48112)

Jay, would it make a difference to you if the Paul Bass kind of enterprise (a journalistic non-profit, and not commercial journalism) was getting a share of Google's direct profits from using their work? D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48116)

Tim,

I don't know who were you addressing in that post but it was good info! looks like it doesn't even come down to being or not being allowed to link, looks like just the *aggregation of quotes* is in violation of the law... imagine that!

Good thing I didn't start Delia's Random News... (not that I was really considering it). So much for Dan Gillmor's idea that you have the (fair use)right to quote for whatever reason whatsoever --looks like Google would have to integrate those quotes in some sort of a critique or something... (to be within their rights)-- it would be interesting to see! (I wonder if they've considered it...)

Delia

P.S. it's hard to believe that a lot of people are just reading those quotes and not following the links (*very* counterintuitive... and pretty much wrecks my theory:)-- that's the part that sucks!) *lol*

P.P.S. good night, all! D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48119)

Jay, apparently Google was at fault (legally) and it looks like they agreed to "pay up"; they appear to want to keep it "localized" (by not disclosing what kind of financial agreement they made) but I doubt they will succeed -- after seeing that it *can* be done, pretty much anybody who can legally go after them, probably will...re: Tim's links D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48382)

*lol* not quite :) looks like they are just not going to be able to keep ALL they money to themselves... D.

(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48412)

was about to give up on the BuzzMachine

I still think it should be ad free... (I know the presence of the ads, which seems to be increasing makes me visit it much less than I would otherwise)

Jay, if Jeff is “moderating” against *your* posts… I’m out of here for good… D.

(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/30/shooting-red-herring-in-a-barrel/#comment-350604)

Jeff, I got your email (I tried to reply to it — so you’d know I got it — but it keeps freezing my computer for some reason) D.

(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/30/shooting-red-herring-in-a-barrel/#comment-350670)

J-schools should make sure students have realistic expectations

Dan, I’m wondering if J-schools should have some sort of “disclaimers” (just to make sure students know what the realistic expectations are — they generally spend good money on tuition etc.) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/29/oddly-optimistic-journalism-students/#comment-150022)