Hello Brooke "Cheryl's post was not an accusation"
Yes, Cheryl didn't directly accuse anyone of anything. But questions, perhaps fairly or unfairly, have a way of appearing as so. And she did say, "Since I don't know, I don't trust." That's strong language in my book. "And the post (how many times does this have to be said) wasn't about targeting Epic-Fu," Fine, if wasn't about Epic Fu then she could have make general statement of what she was seeing without naming any names. "The post SOUGHT the "correct information". And from Epic-Fu, got it." But the information could have just as easily been cleared by email. Terry Rendon --- In [email protected], "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Terry, Cheryl's post was not an accusation.. She didn't state anything > that needed "backing up". And the post (how many times does this have > to be said) wasn't about targeting Epic-Fu, they were used as an > example illustrating how she COULDN'T know what was behind the product > usage - in a post that was also about many other things that have > unfortunately been lost in the subsequent discussion. > > This is basic, and important, media literacy stuff. > > The post SOUGHT the "correct information". And from Epic-Fu, got it. > It also resulted in a change to the Epic Fu site that can serve as a > shining example to businesses everywhere that want to communicate > clearly and ethically about the issue, especially to a young and > impressionable audience. They went from ambiguity to heroic clarity. > Depite some Inflammatory and knee jerk comments, it seems like a giant > win for all concerned. > > Brook > > > On 12/24/07, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree an open discussion is healthy. But you also have to have > > information to back yourself up. If you're going to make something > > public have the correct information to back your statements up. For > > example, if I was going to write a blog post tomorrow that I was > > suspicious about how a presidential campaign was handling their > > finances. Shouldn't I have some sort of information that backed up my > > suspicion? > > > > Terry Rendon > > www.terryannonline.com > > > > --- In [email protected], "Jeffrey Taylor" > > <thejeffreytaylor@> wrote: > > > > > > " If I were suspicious about how one is using advertising on their show > > > and I had some questions about it, I would privately relay my > > > questions through an email to the right people and keep it there." > > > > > > > > > She did. Cheryl clearly states in the video that she e-mail Zadi and > > Steve > > > about it before recording. Cheryl made the vid knowing that Zadi and > > Steve > > > knew about it. > > > > > > And the video wasn't just about Epic-Fu. > > > > > > Open discussion is healthy. We all keep saying things behind > > people's backs, > > > and it's good to air the dirty laundry once in a while to keep the > > gossip > > > and rumors from taking over, and to also resolve conflicts en masse and > > > perhaps even learn something in the process. This all has been a > > good thing, > > > and the way people have discussed has revealed more than the discussion > > > itself. I've been pleasantly surprised by some, sorely disappointed in > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/2007, terry.rendon <terry.rendon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I asked the question on the Hummingcrow post "Am I the only who > > > > believes that most of the concerns brought up in this video should > > > > have been handled privately?" > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people giving criticism of others. It helps > > > > artists grow with when they get feedback, negative or positive. My > > > > problem with Cheryl's criticism, however, towards Epic Fu was that it > > > > called into question their business practices. Another problem is at > > > > one point she calls Steve and Zadi "slick, carefully crafted," which > > > > in my perception made it personal. In those two areas it crossed the > > > > line for me. > > > > > > > > If I were suspicious about how one is using advertising on their show > > > > and I had some questions about it, I would privately relay my > > > > questions through an email to the right people and keep it there. Some > > > > would say I probably shouldn't even address it privately because it's > > > > really not my business anyways. If you don't trust something on the > > > > internet I think the best thing is just not visit the site anymore. > > > > > > > > I know many new media people believe in total transparency. However, I > > > > believe there has to be a limit. There's always going to someone who > > > > is not satisfied the way you do things (especially if you have large > > > > audience) and if you have constantly answer peoples concerns that can > > > > turn extremely exhausting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeffrey Taylor > > > Mobile: +33625497654 > > > Fax: +33177722734 > > > Skype: thejeffreytaylor > > > Googlechat/Jabber: thejeffreytaylor@ > > > http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Brook Hinton > film/video/audio art > www.brookhinton.com > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab >
