Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6090)

Wonderment 10-06-2010 01:16 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

So am I the only FB holdout here?
You and Nikki. I am holding the line at Twitter.

Twitter seem especially inane to me (what am I missing?).

I do get how useful Twitter is during an unfolding drama in real time, but since I'm hoping for zero drama in the rest of my life, why would I ever tweet?

harkin 10-06-2010 01:24 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

So am I the only FB holdout here?
No

Quote:

I'm a Facebook addict, and I'm on all day.
Get thee out into the world.

Quote:

It seems to me there's a important qualitative distinction to be drawn between an Einstein and a Zuckerman.
There's more than that and the two don't even belong in the same sentence. Einstein's incredible output of 1905 is something that really is beyond what any lone human should be able to do.

JonIrenicus 10-06-2010 02:05 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 181919)
So am I the only FB holdout here?

no



I signed up long ago and got some hits from people I'd much rather never see again. I was like, ok woah, let's run away from this thing as fast as possible.

... maybe I am just not social, no. I am just more private and prefer more anonymity than alot of the young whippersnappers today.

Kevin 10-06-2010 03:30 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Kudos to Bob for the skeptical stance towards Facebook. I feel as though the state of journalistic coverage of the big tech household-words is anemic for reasons that are interrelated with most media outlets' very reliance upon the thing as part of their own platform. I don't mean that the cause-and-effect is trite or obvious, but I think there is a tendency to see iphone, ipad, kindle, facebook, twitter and SEO, as part of how journalism is done now rather than something to hold at arm's length and pick apart. There are topics that cut a little close to home, and it doesn't have to be a quid pro quo for it to tend not to happen.

Bob has also occasionally diavlogged about these big tech entities with an oh-well, those are the things you gotta dip your toe into when you are promoting. So I was thrilled to see him go both barrels skeptical against something where in some tiny incremental way, criticizing Facebook, driving people away from it that little bit, can hurt BhTV's own presence on Facebook and a person would tend to shy away for reasons of not wanting to shoot yourself in the foot.

Other journalists who usually disappoint me when it comes to technology include TPM, which runs horrifying product-review stories on new iphones since their deal with Gawker, and Amy Goodman who I would dearly love to see critiquing tech from the left, but who I think views it as the tabula rasa that is an essential part of the platform for doing what she does. (They had a want-ad on their site asking for an SEO expert to help Democracy Now move up in the search engines, which is basically understandable in that promotional context, but it makes me unhappy and disappointed. What I wish they would do is talk about what SEO means and "who does it hurt?")

Another one who gets treated like they are the inert air itself, is Twitter. I have barely seen a single news story about it as a company rather than a force of nature. I second Don Zeko's harsh words about Twitter here in the thread. I don't doubt or deny their pervasiveness, but I would like to at least see the question raised of, "Who does it hurt?"

(Exception to the anemia: the very lovely and irreverent theregister.co.uk - "Biting the hand that feeds I.T." It'd be great to see a Register reporter come and diavlog.)

A second thing in the diavlog that caught my ear, to tech companies who think privacy and secrets are outmoded, I would say, "Great- you first!" Zuckerberg can start tomorrow by tearing up all of his corporation's NDAs to show how devoted he is to his radical theories. Then make public all the agreements he has with advertisers and all the ways that they database, track and capitalize on users' various clicks and patterns. He should also make Facebook's code repository open source. It's part of "what you know about your workplace," right?

Simon Willard 10-06-2010 09:09 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Bob has a NYT piece on this topic.

operative 10-06-2010 09:53 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
I agree with you about Twitter, which is an ADD Facebook.

operative 10-06-2010 10:00 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Hmm...I don't think that the Social Network portrays Zuckerberg as a bad person. Complex, a bit obnoxious, etc. but a bad person? Nah. Sean Parker, on the other hand...

Don Zeko 10-06-2010 10:17 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 181942)
I agree with you about Twitter, which is an ADD Facebook.

Not to be confused with an AD&D Facebook.

Simon Willard 10-06-2010 10:58 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 181921)
...
The people without whom our world would be different tend to be the great creative geniuses: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Picasso. No one would have written Hamlet, if Shakespeare never lived.
...
I suppose there's also a kind of "evil genius" in the sense of a person whose creative energy makes the world a far worse place: Hitler or Bin Laden, for example.

I know from past experience that I won't get far by knocking Shakespeare or sticking up for Hitler. ;) But the fact is that we can't do that experiment - we can't find out how the world would look today with the elimination of Hitler in 1938. I mean, we don't have the slightest clue. We might find ourselves in a post-nuclear-apocalypse wasteland. That's because of the butterfly effect -- even a small change in the past can change the course of history in large, seemingly random ways.

There's another problem with asking "What if Shakespeare had never been born?" It's the failure to ask "What if XYZ had indeed been born?" In this case, XYZ is a different, inspired person who writes brilliant plays. Not Hamlet of course, but other magnificent works of which we are unaware in our world.

So let's thank our heroes but not put them on grand pedestals as being a breed apart. Their successes are largely due to accidents of history -- being in the right place at the right time. Let's celebrate the great works as products of human endeavor, and claim partial ownership as fellow humans.

stephanie 10-06-2010 11:23 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 181871)
I'm not a holdout, but I'm pretty skeptical of the claims that are routinely made about the world-historical significance of social media.

Definitely. I'm not a holdout mainly because I have friends who are into it and who don't live close or use the communication methods I prefer regularly. Which means I'm a tiny bit resentful, in that I don't check that often and always feel guilty about it. I have enough ability to feel guilty about stuff without Facebook. It doesn't appeal to me at all as a way to spend my time, it doesn't seem to add to what's available elsewhere, and has major drawbacks -- mostly pointed out by Bob. The inability to easily distinguish between groups and the fear that whatever privacy I think is there will be changed without my permission. (And, yeah, I wouldn't share anything really private, but there are levels nonetheless.)

Quote:

This conversation would have benefited from a more aggressively skeptical viewpoint about the whole enterprise.
David seemed to have a non-romantic crush on Zuckerberg. It wasn't really weird -- I've noticed that kind of thing before in people who spend a lot of time writing about someone -- but it was quite evident and interfered with the discussion of the subject matter.

But you are right that I would have been more interested in less discussion of Zuckerberg specifically (I do agree with David that a movie about a real person that takes liberties is problematic, although it seems unclear that the truth is precisely as David sees it) and more in what the effect, if any, of the popularity of things like Facebook is. My sense is that there's not nearly as much as claimed (and not as much negative effect as feared).

On the other topic they spent a lot of time on, I don't really care who's a visionary and who's not (I think I'd define it differently than either David or Bob -- having more to do with the vision and not who happened to carry it out) and I'm an agnostic on the great man thing, but here it seems really obvious that if it weren't Facebook it would have been something else similar. (And I'd say the same probably with regard to Gates, so if that's the definition -- again, it's not mine -- I seem to be agreeing with Bob.)

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-06-2010 11:44 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 181870)
i, for one, am counting the days until the facebook obsession (especially among boomers like bob) finally peters out. i figured that when Time magazine started trumpeting it, and Walgreens commercials started telling me to "fan" the company, that it would finally be over. (oh, yay, facebook has created a massive free advertising platform for crap companies like walgreens!) but i guess this DV is not pitched to someone like myself -- a proud and permanent facebook holdout.

I have a sort of odd relationship to FB. I had done Friendster in high school, gotten bored, refused to join FB when it came to Brown my freshman year, and caved 2 years later because I was intrigued by social media as an industry to write about. So I did that for 2 years or so, for various places, and wrote mostly positive things about FB's business model. And then the moment that you describe--when it became a universal thing, not a niche thing, and suddenly just became a huge branding platform for companies, not individuals--I got pretty disgusted with it as a business and pretty bored with it personally. I still have a profile, but basically the only stuff that is up there is stuff that loads automatically from other platforms--Twitter, my blog--that I am finding more interesting these days.

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-06-2010 11:50 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 181925)
You and Nikki. I am holding the line at Twitter.

Twitter seem especially inane to me (what am I missing?).

I do get how useful Twitter is during an unfolding drama in real time, but since I'm hoping for zero drama in the rest of my life, why would I ever tweet?

My impression is that FB USED to be a useful place for connecting with people you actually know. Now, it's so cluttered with marketing B.S. that it's really unclear what value it presents to members.

Twitter is different: it's useful for connecting with people--and more importantly institutions--you don't know personally. So it's incredibly useful to people who produce "content" [hate that jargon] for a living, and need to promote it, and for people who want to keep track of lots of content at once--like a giant RSS feed, and want the ability to respond to the writers and get them to respond back.

ledocs 10-06-2010 12:25 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Have not heard this DV.

Facebook is important to a lot of people, hence it is important. If one does not eat meat, does that mean that meat consumption is not an important fact about the current human population? Is Facebook a force for good or ill? Undoubtedly both.

I joined Facebook because of a rock band I was in, I was coerced. I have found it to be mildly useful for some things. It is not at all important to me, one way or the other. Recently, I have been "friended" by various French people who live in our region, people I do not know but might like to know. I hope something comes of that, because I do not know enough French people, in fact. People have urged me to link my Facebook page more to my blog, and I will probably do that eventually. And from there it will be the descent into hell...Twitter.

Whereas I have forged lasting relationships from online forums such as this, nothing of any emotional consequence to me has emerged from using Facebook. But this could happen, as noted above, nothing precludes it. I have found out about a few events on Facebook about which I might otherwise have been ignorant.

So far, I don't know of anyone about whose activities I like to be informed on Facebook. As soon as someone starts to use Facebook extensively for this purpose, I tend to get turned off and to ignore their postings.

By the way, I will be having a meal soon, prepared by myself.

stephanie 10-06-2010 12:40 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 181931)
Another one who gets treated like they are the inert air itself, is Twitter. I have barely seen a single news story about it as a company rather than a force of nature. I second Don Zeko's harsh words about Twitter here in the thread. I don't doubt or deny their pervasiveness, but I would like to at least see the question raised of, "Who does it hurt?"

I'm neither sold on Twitter nor all that negative about it (I can see why people like it), but I'm curious what your answer to the question "who does it hurt" is. As I said before, I'm skeptical about most of the claims for these things as causing the world to become a better place, blah, blah (I'll allow for some exceptions in some parts of the world where they have more significance), but the flip side of that is that I don't see any harm, either. The most convincing argument for me is the Cass Sunstein thing, but there I see more with regard to the internet as a whole and how it ends up structured than Twitter (which somewhat reflects the same structure) and, still less with Facebook.

Quote:

It'd be great to see a Register reporter come and diavlog.
I'll agree that it would be quite interesting to have a diavlog raise all these issues and talk about them, even if I'm not convinced. I'm sure there are aspects of it I haven't thought about.

uncle ebeneezer 10-06-2010 12:46 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
I like 2 aspects of Twitter (though I rearely read it and never tweet.) I like that it has very good real-time quick use for organization purposes. For example we had a gig where we told all our fans that it was $5 at the door but you had to be on the club's email list to get the discount. Then when we showed up to setup our gear the owner changed the story. It was all really annoying and confusing and we needed to tell everyone "hey bring $7, not $5." so for something like that it is helpful. I also sometimes enjoy seeing brief clips of the thoughts/experiences of someone I enjoy, writing in short form on the scene. Like if PZ Myers gets into a creationism museum or something like that. It's great for quips.

So looks like: JonI, NB, Handle and I are all on the margins of FaceBook Nation. Respect, brothers.

popcorn_karate 10-06-2010 01:26 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 181926)
There's more than that and the two don't even belong in the same sentence. Einstein's incredible output of 1905 is something that really is beyond what any lone human should be able to do.

amen!

AemJeff 10-06-2010 01:38 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 181926)
...


There's more than that and the two don't even belong in the same sentence. Einstein's incredible output of 1905 is something that really is beyond what any lone human should be able to do.

... in a lifetime, let alone in a short few months. (Though, in fairness, much of his 1905 output was the culmination of years of thought and work.) It's fair to point out that the work he accomplished between 1905 and 1919, was probably an even greater accomplishment, on the order of (and analogous to) Newton's great work.

Florian 10-06-2010 02:09 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 181919)
So am I the only FB holdout here?

This diavlog was a bore and Bob Wright is wasting his intellect. I have never had the slightest interest in FB. And I have never had any difficulty staying in touch with friends without it.

Molière's Misanthrope (17th century) sums up my opinion of the philosophy of FB:

Non, je ne puis souffrir cette lâche méthode
Qu'affectent la plupart de vos gens à la mode;
Et je ne hais rien tant, que les contorsions
De tous ces grands faiseurs de protestations,
Ces affables donneurs d'embrassades frivoles,
Ces obligeants diseurs d'inutiles paroles,
Qui de civilités, avec tous, font combat,
Et traitent du même air, l'honnête homme, et le fat.
Quel avantage a-t-on qu'un homme vous caresse,
Vous jure amitié, foi, zèle, estime, tendresse,
Et vous fasse de vous, un éloge éclatant,
Lorsque au premier faquin, il court en faire autant?
Non, non, il n'est point d'âme un peu bien située,
Qui veuille d'une estime, ainsi, prostituée;
Et la plus glorieuse a des régals peu chers,
Dès qu'on voit qu'on nous mêle avec tout l'univers:
Sur quelque préférence, une estime se fonde,
Et c'est n'estimer rien, qu'estimer tout le monde.
Puisque vous y donnez, dans ces vices du temps,
Morbleu, vous n'êtes pas pour être de mes gens*;
Je refuse d'un cœur la vaste complaisance,
Qui ne fait de mérite aucune différence:
Je veux qu'on me distingue, et pour le trancher net,
L'ami du genre humain n'est point du tout mon fait.

Difficult to translate. Sorry.

operative 10-06-2010 02:24 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson (Post 181957)
My impression is that FB USED to be a useful place for connecting with people you actually know. Now, it's so cluttered with marketing B.S. that it's really unclear what value it presents to members.

Twitter is different: it's useful for connecting with people--and more importantly institutions--you don't know personally. So it's incredibly useful to people who produce "content" [hate that jargon] for a living, and need to promote it, and for people who want to keep track of lots of content at once--like a giant RSS feed, and want the ability to respond to the writers and get them to respond back.

I still use facebook for keeping in contact with people--primarily a few folks from high school, a bunch from college, a few family members, some of who live elsewhere. Some people that I know use Twitter more than Facebook but I'm not intent on joining them in that respect. I appreciate Facebook quite a bit because it lets me keep up with some people who I would have inevitably lost all contact with otherwise.

Think of it this way--the surprise elements of the high school reunion will be gone in 20 years, thanks to Facebook--'oh, that person died??' 'wow that person gained a lot of weight' etc. and organizing and implementing reunion events will be far easier.

operative 10-06-2010 03:14 PM

Zuckerberg news
 
It's been out for a little while but here's an interesting article on Zuckerberg's donation in Newark:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/06/fa...-gov-christie/

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-06-2010 04:44 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 181977)
I still use facebook for keeping in contact with people--primarily a few folks from high school, a bunch from college, a few family members, some of who live elsewhere. Some people that I know use Twitter more than Facebook but I'm not intent on joining them in that respect. I appreciate Facebook quite a bit because it lets me keep up with some people who I would have inevitably lost all contact with otherwise.

Think of it this way--the surprise elements of the high school reunion will be gone in 20 years, thanks to Facebook--'oh, that person died??' 'wow that person gained a lot of weight' etc. and organizing and implementing reunion events will be far easier.

True. It still has an impact, I just think its value to users has actually diminished since about 2007, when its business model started to change.

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-06-2010 04:49 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Actual thoughts on the DV: David comes off like a PR man for Facebook. From a reporter, that's shameful. Never mind what's in the movie. That is a shameful tone for a reporter to assume.

Bob is appropriately skeptical, except for one thing, I think he is wrong about Bill Gates. I'd give more credit there. Monopolist or not, there was a vision there about mainstreaming computers and it worked.

As for Zuckerberg's vision, yes, there is one. And no, it's not about money. But it's about power. It's about influence. I'm not sure that the desire to 'have an impact," is as 'uncynical' as David likes to claim.

nikkibong 10-06-2010 04:49 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 181977)
I appreciate Facebook quite a bit because it lets me keep up with some people who I would have inevitably lost all contact with otherwise.

and would that have been so bad? why is it important to maintain relationships that otherwise would have died a natural death? why should facebook be the life-support tube of the most superficial of relationships?

operative 10-06-2010 05:41 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 182007)
and would that have been so bad? why is it important to maintain relationships that otherwise would have died a natural death? why should facebook be the life-support tube of the most superficial of relationships?

I wouldn't call them superficial, and I tend to believe that having more contact with more people is a good thing.

Kevin 10-06-2010 11:07 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 181962)
I'm neither sold on Twitter nor all that negative about it (I can see why people like it), but I'm curious what your answer to the question "who does it hurt" is.

Hi Stephanie. Well, it's a good question. This may seem too cynical, but I would come from the assumption that Twitter is hurting someone as we speak, and it's a story I haven't heard because of the anemia of the coverage. In my opinion, Twitter is basically BP, and should be covered like BP. I think that decades of bad precedent means that you do not have to take corporations as innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe Twitter's funding model means they have the luxury of not annoying the layman with advertising for Snickers bars, at least not yet, but they aren't a nonprofit and they aren't open source, so I think of them as a corporation.

I don't know what form the harm may be taking. There are all different ways to criticize for-profit companies. Apple takes some criticism for its supply chain and manufacturing - Twitter isn't doing that, so you can't get mad at them for running sweatshops. I don't know. There are trivial things - I think the name is asinine and it's kind of pathetic to see everybody adopt the little birdy icons and the accoutrements of the medium - and a lot of those people may "...wish Twitter were different but have no choice."

Do they censor? Do they exercise a prior-restraint power over the messages that pass through their thing? What is the flip side of their importance to the Green Movement stuff? Does their top leadership have an axe to grind which is revealed by whose messages they won't run?

I realize they generally get out of the way and that's probably part of what a lot of people like about them - there is no Twitter home page looking like a garish pinball machine full of content crap, like a yahoo.com. They just let the user get on with it, or at least that is the feeling that they create. I don't believe it though. I have no evidence, but my gut tells me that Twitter-the-company is driven by motives as dangerous, hypocritical and arrogant as a Zuckerberg or an Eric Schmidt. This is just what company-founders and venture capitalists are like. (Excepting the benign ones who fund scrappy streaming-video empires...) And they deserve the public backlash they aren't getting.

Quote:

The most convincing argument for me is the Cass Sunstein thing, but there I see more with regard to the internet as a whole and how it ends up structured than Twitter (which somewhat reflects the same structure) and, still less with Facebook.
I'm glad you mention him - I know he is a Deep Internet Theorist but I don't know what he says about it, so I'll go check that out.

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-09-2010 02:39 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
I think there is a problematic bias in business media to look for the nice CEO and contrast him to some industry that--depending on the moment--everyone agrees is 'evil.' So at the moment, it's very sexy to say that bankers are all crooks who want to use debt to own you but Silicon Valley execs are all lovely folks who just want to help empower individuals. Never minding that actually bankers and tech barons are in very similar business (monetizing data).

This kind of moral parable coverage is a function of two things: writers like to have good guys and bad guys, and the tech folk tend to be culturally, politically and tempermentally closer to the reporters who cover them than are the executives of other industries. And despite everything that is wrong with contemporary journalism, the narrative the press imposes still has some impact on how the public perceives executives.

MikeDrew 10-09-2010 05:30 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
In terms of potential for social revolution, Twitter > Facebook.

JonIrenicus 10-09-2010 05:29 PM

Social Network Cast/director/writer panel
 
Anyone who saw the movie and enjoyed it (set of all people with good taste) might enjoy this as well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M35J...eature=channel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfKSJ...eature=channel




http://www.mevio.com/episode/251562/...onference-part

http://www.mevio.com/episode/251561/...onference-part

Kevin 10-10-2010 02:47 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Hi Maha. Hmm, so in addition to the 2 factors you mentioned, I'm curious if you have any reaction to this bee I have in my bonnet, that the tech businesses that are part of journalists' own day-to-day toolkit for content propagation or self promotion tend not to get contextualized as something to cover. It would be like a mythical paper that still utilizes molten-wax waxers and does pasteup, writing news stories about X-Acto. Or Quark maybe. Or for a newspaper that subscribes to AP, to turn around and write stories about Associated-Press-the-corporation. Only in place of AP, it's Facebook, Twitter and SEO/Google that are rendered immune by virtue of having rendered themselves indispensible. What do you think, plausible? Overstated?

Late edit: WAIT ONE MINUTE. Public Business??? This looks really great and coincidentally right on the theme of what I have been wringing my hands about. Congratulations!

operative 10-10-2010 10:59 AM

Re: Social Network Cast/director/writer panel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 182332)

Cool, thanks for the links.

look 10-10-2010 12:53 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDrew (Post 182291)
In terms of potential for social revolution, Twitter > Facebook.

Interesting thought. It definitely has more 'turn on a dime' potential. Be it for social change or advancing the march to the global Gaia brain, I don't know. :)

I think of those flocks of birds we see flying sometimes, that swoop and turn en masse.

I've never succumbed to FB, but I recently tried to join Twitter, but it didn't go through. Will try again.

PreppyMcPrepperson 10-10-2010 06:11 PM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 182376)
Hi Maha. Hmm, so in addition to the 2 factors you mentioned, I'm curious if you have any reaction to this bee I have in my bonnet, that the tech businesses that are part of journalists' own day-to-day toolkit for content propagation or self promotion tend not to get contextualized as something to cover. It would be like a mythical paper that still utilizes molten-wax waxers and does pasteup, writing news stories about X-Acto. Or Quark maybe. Or for a newspaper that subscribes to AP, to turn around and write stories about Associated-Press-the-corporation. Only in place of AP, it's Facebook, Twitter and SEO/Google that are rendered immune by virtue of having rendered themselves indispensible. What do you think, plausible? Overstated?

I'd say they DO get covered. I mean every major paper covers breaking news like FTC or DoJ investigations of Google, the AP's IP lawsuits vs. digital aggregators or the lawsuits against Facebook that have now been fictionalized in the Social Network. BUT they tend not to cover these subjects with the same critical rigor they might bring to other topics by virtue as you say of their personal attachment to the products involved.

Most publications also manage to cover their own management, but again, when there is breaking news. So for example, when BusinessWeek went bankrupt and then was bought by Bloomberg, BW reporters (Jon Fine and Tom Lowry at the time) had to cover that merger, and covered it pretty well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 182376)
Late edit: WAIT ONE MINUTE. Public Business??? This looks really great and coincidentally right on the theme of what I have been wringing my hands about. Congratulations!

Thanks, Kevin! We're really pretty psyched about it, but whether it sinks or swims will depend on how much buzz and support we can generate in the next six months. So, you know, pass it around.

stephanie 10-11-2010 10:51 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Thanks for the response, Kevin. You seem to be assuming that because Twitter is a for-profit corporation it's effect/motives must be negative, and you are right that I simply don't share that assumption.

However, despite that difference, I'd certainly be interested in coverage of the type you mention. (I think there's a lot of speculation/fear about what the technological changes and tools mean, but probably less good reporting about it.)

Kevin 10-16-2010 12:10 AM

Re: The Social Diavlog (Robert Wright & David Kirkpatrick)
 
Yep - empiricism would go a lot further than me mouthing off. :) And on a conciliatory note, the DaVincis, "Friend Request" !
http://twiturm.com/fp3tg

"Бэнд этого дня.."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.