> Depite some Inflammatory and knee jerk comments, it seems like a giant > win for all concerned.
Brook, how can your livelihood being threatened by your professional integrity being called into question be a win for us? We are out there doing this with no safety net. Our show depends on its reputation, which was smeared without any questions being asked beforehand. And for a community that champions itself on transparency, nearly all of our critics have protected updates on Twitter, so we could not participate or view the discussion happening there. Instead we could see parts of responses and half-conversations, which included name-calling. I notice that none of those people have the courage to repeat their statements in public. Steve Woolf --- 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 >
