Four reasons newspaper social communities are horrible:

1. The mentality is that once you create the community, you don't have
to do anything else. This increases the liklihood of the inmates
running the aslyum.

2. People *know* the newspaper, which increases the number of people,
which increases the noob factor.

3. One and two chases the smart people away because of the lousy
signal-to-noise ratio.

4. Newspaper people don't like the idea of stifling conversation, but
to do a great community, you have to thatch the dead from the living.

As someone who works in this field, it takes a lot of work to do it
right. But if you do, there's an incredible reward.

Joe Hass
Warren, MI

On Apr 1, 5:43 pm, "Mark J." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Multi-cam live audience (or laugh track) sitcoms make their comeback
> for cost reasons and the desire to bring back the family sitcom, few
> intricately-plotted serial dramas, more Canadian production and fewer
> star salaries (Candace Bergen asked for too much money for CBS' "Big
> D," so they hired Tony-winning but relatively-unknown Deanna Dunagan
> instead, who's making more money from the pilot than she made for
> "August:  Osage County" in Chicago, Broadway and London) and just less
> spending in general:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-03-31-network-squee...
>
> And the comments turn into bitching about "network bias"--just why do
> the wingnuts dominate newspaper message boards so much?  Is it the
> senile old fart Fixed Noise fans with nothing to do?  And if these
> people are allegeldy the majority, how did Barack Obama win the
> election?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
TV or Not TV .... Smart (TV) People on Ice!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to