-
Website
http://publishing2.com/ -
Original page
http://publishing2.com/2006/03/03/web-20-and-media-20-are-still-in-the-11-phase/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
You'd think I purposely did this to demonstrate the need for copy editors. :)
I believe this is what Umair Haque is attempting to do over at bubble generation with his "New Economics of Media". It involves the application of Network Economics in a field that has traditionally been dominated by supply/demand equations.
Progress comes a step at a time. This is progress compared with other media companies and wire services I know. Is it the destination? Of course, not. We don't know what the destination is yet. But I think it is better to note where progress is made and note what the next steps are rather than rejecting the steps that are made because they aren't the final ones. Flies. Honey. You know.
I'm not rejecting these steps -- they ARE good steps -- but I think there's a risk of confusing the steps with the destination.
And I do expect more of a major keynote speech -- to present a vision of where we might be going instead of a description of where we pretty much already are.
you're bang on, particularly about the fact that finding quality blogs is still a huge challenge despite the efforts made by technorati (and its strange authority tool), blogdigger, ice rocket, etc. as a newspaper journalist, who has had a personal blog for two years, it's fair to say newspapers are way behind the curve despite the blueplate special on the best blogging newspapers. in fact, i would argue newspapers are still trying to deal with the rapid news flow created by web sites - let alone the wave of independent blogs. reuters may "get" blogs but it doesn't mean it is going to be able to success adapt and evolve - at least in the short term.
Despite the mockery of all things Web/Brand/Media X.X, I do think there are certain principoles of community, openness and trust which are showing through. All 3 are qualities which both consumers AND business can be epxected to uphold if they are to be respected in the wonderful world wide web 2.0!
Glass house, man. I know you don't like to mix blog and job but before you go getting out the snark gun on other guys doing their jobs, I suggest you ask whether every other media company, including thine own, is doing as much. Is Reuters the leader? Absolutely not. I can name lots of companies that are doing good things but, sadly, many more that are doing too damned little. But I will say that Reuters is doing more than many. That's not saying much but it's saying something. And it's saying what I was saying: He gets it, he's trying. Understanding that the goal is to empower the people is getting the point, in my book.
You accuse me of saying that Glocer has drunk the Koolaid (to be accurate, by the way, it was Flavr-Aid). But why turn this into such a binary attack? Take the victories where we can find them, anywhere we can find them.
If Publishing 2.0 is a glass house, I will gladly smash all the walls -- I didn't build it to worship in it. You can drag my day job into it, but I'd much prefer have a debate on the substance and the merits. And regardless, I speak for myself and myself alone. (I don't own a media company -- just a blog.)
And speaking of glass houses, I would point out that you tote one of the biggest snark guns around when it comes to criticizing media companies who are struggling to figure it out. Part of what bothered me about your post, as constructive as it was, is it that it was so dissonant along side some of your ripping and tearing posts. But what I admire about those sharp edged posts of yours is that you're pushing and challenging and dragging forward -- it's tough love.
Look, I have nothing against Reuters and nothing critical to say about where they are in the learning cycle. As you well know, there are some deeply entrenched economics that make it much harder to actually do what you can envision.
My beef is with the vision thing -- I just don't see it yet. And I certainly don't have an answer myself.
It's such a messy, tangled web at this point (no pun). I think I would respect more a media leader who doesn't claim to have it boiled down to three easy steps, but instead gets up and says -- We just don't know yet. Here are some baby steps we're taking, but like everyone else, we're feeling our way in the dark.
I don't think that Glocer was saying he'd solved everything. I quoted the bits that I thought were significant. Maybe I didn't quote his caveates. And, yes, the glass house is relevant in this case because you are comparing his words to his company, and so if I were Glocer facing this criticism in person, I'd ask -- to paraphrase the late Mayor Daley of Chicago -- what trees you've planted. Wouldn't you? I note that you've now taken out of your "about" page the name of your employer. Is that transparency? Is that fair to Glocer, who should be able to compare your words and corporate deeds? Is that 2.0 of you? I understand why some people do that, but if you do, then I think you should be prepared for people to ask. I'm no friend of Glocer's, never met the man. But I don't think you were fair to him and, along the way, you insulted me -- acting as if I'm an idiot for praising what he said. You say he "fooled" me, which makes me the fool. Further, when it comes to snarking, I think the snark bullets are better spent on those who are not even trying, and there are plenty of those. You say now that you have "nothing critical to say about where Reuters is inthe learning cycle." Sure didn't sound like that to me. If, in the end of your response above, you say it was about the style of how he expressed himself, then I'd say the same to you.
You appoint yourself the arbiter of who "gets it" and who "doesn't get it" -- I said I think you're wrong, that Glocer doesn't "get it" as much as you give him credit for. And you're insulted by that? Talk about glass houses.
If I thought you were a "fool" or an "idiot," I'd say "Jeff Jarvis is a fool and an idiot." But I DIDN'T say that, because I DON'T think that. Perhaps I would have done a better job walking on eggshells if I used the more polite "I believe Mr. Jarvis in this instance was incorrect in his analysis of the speech by Mr. Glocer." Give me a break -- you throw rocks day in and day out -- I hit you with a pebble and you're insulted?
I've inadvertently insulted people before, and I've always felt terribly about it and immediately apologized. But in this instance, you're putting words in my mouth, and I'm offended by your righteousness.
And let's be clear -- I critiqued what Glocer said. I didn't critique Reuters or its actions. This blog is open -- he's free to come and debate ME if he wants.
Since you seem convinced of your moral high ground regarding disclosure, why don't you help me out with this. I had originally intended to put the following in my About, but chose not to. Was that a mistake?
NOTE: I removed the name of my employer because I was too often being cited as the company's public representative, which I'm not -- it's not a secret where I work, but it's my hope that the views expressed on Publishing 2.0 can stand or fall entirely on their own, and not as a function of my resume. Whatever risk I assume in publishing my view should not be shared by my employer, who has no association with this site. While it may be useful to know that I work in publishing, if you're inclined to agree or disagree with me, you should do so regardless of what my day job is. (I'm no a lawyer, so that's my best shot at a disclaimer.)
I take comfort in what I found in your About: "Now he is working as editor of a new news startup, still in stealth." I'm sure it would help your readers to know all about your startup, but I guess you just have to protect those corporate interests.
It pains me to say this, my friend, but what Scott points out in comment #35 is also what disturbs me.
First, it doesn't matter who 'gets it' because getting it isn't doing it.
There's the old story about Steve Jobs after the first Macintoshes shipped and became a big hit. He was looking for what to do next. His executives were coming to him and saying, 'You should hear this guy's great idea because it's genius' or 'You should hear that guy's great idea because it's genius.' But Jobs said, 'No, you folks don't understand: Having great ideas isn't genius. True genius ships."
Grocer can say whatever he wants (particularly if his speechwriters tell him hip stuff to say), but the proof is in the pudding and there's no pudding there yet.
Second, arbitrating who 'gets it' and who doesn't is so old media. This isn't People or Vogue magazines or a discussion about Clara Bow.
Whatever 'it' might be best for Flickr, MySpace, or BoingBoing might not be the best 'it' for Reuters or (god forbid) the AP. There are a few old media companies that will do quite fine for their consumers in 2010 what they did in 1910, and there also are a few startup companies that way. Contrarily, there are a few old media that must radically change from what they've done up until now and also quite a few startups that must. And there's a continuum in between those poles. There is no one way -- no 'it' -- in all this.
And, third, why do you launch ad hominen attacks (as started in comment #30)? Counter his arguments, not him. Any time you have to retreat into ad hominen attacks, it signals that you cannot counter what he has said. Counter the message, not the messenger.