Well thats pretty bad. If we are going to talk about 'moral aspects' of vlogging, then Id say the stuff you've mentioned is just as important as advertising standards.
Blogging and vlogging has the potential to repeat a lot of the worst of traditional journalism. Its good to give warning to the subject that you are going to be writing or vlogging about them, and bad to mislead, deliberately or not, about what the nature of the criticism is. I can understand better the level of your pain and disappointment given these details that were not immediately clear, and the twitter stuff. I dont twitter, sounds like amoungst its good uses, it has the potential to encourage bitching and throw away one liners, that are meant for an unkind moment in time. Chat rooms etc have a strange potential for great horror, turning the passing conversation, created within the bounds of present company, and only supposed to last an instand, into a perpetual record with a far greater audience. I still shriek with horror at the thought of some of the stuff I said in the first vloggercon backchat. As for wider isues of criticism, and the pain of having to defend yourself, I believe that although there are benefits to openness, questioning, etc, these downsides are very real. Stuff hurts, we dont like to be hurt. And questions are inevitable, nobody is ever immune, no matter how high a level your conduct actually takes place at. The best you can do is to keep fresh and updated, as full a disclosure as possible of such aspects of your business as may lead to questions and cynicism. Then you dont have to defend yourself each time, though there will still be pain, frustration, and the temptation to get sucked in to answering everything again. The wider your audience, the more likely you are to get people on your case, but also to have a large number of fans, ready to defend your integrity on your behalf. I mean I know I knock Scoble for not actually being a fan of naked conversations, more like conversations witht he sleeves rolled up occasionally, and I have been very vocal at attacking all sorts of compaies and individuals that 'do bad' in my eyes, but I can empathise with the pointless suffering this can generate on a human level. I imagine what it would like to be a genuine politician, people get cynical about politicians but I imagine politicians also become rather cynical about people. And we end up with a strange situation... One of the things that people used to go on about with vlogging, was just how great it is to connect directly witht he audience. And how doomed the stars of old were for being uncontactable, being shielded by layers of other who will keep most away. But its pretty easy to see why constant full access can be a rather large drain. Its far from clear that most humans can sensibly handle that much attention, whether its good or bad. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Steve Woolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Excuse me. > > Cheryl sent us an email letting us know she would be criticizing our > content for being "bubble gum" content. We responded with examples of > the important issues we try to bring up, the interests of our > audience, and so forth. > > At no point did she ever ask us about sponsored links, how we make > money, or whether we use product placement. She asked nothing about > our business model, our motivation to commercialize the show, or ask > anything else on which she could base her commentary about our > perceived untrustworthiness. > > Cheryl did not reveal this fact in her comments, rather she made it > appear that we were full informed that our professional integrity was > going to be called into question. > > > Steve Woolf > > > > > --- 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] > > >
