"Some old school journalistic sensibilities need to pervade these discussions"
Dude! Maybe my journalism degree is not as worthless as I thought! Happy Holidays everyone:) Terry Ann Rendon www.terryannonline.com --- In [email protected], "Steve Woolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems like everything's been said that needs to be said, at least as > far as the EPIC-FU / advertising topic goes. We appreciate all the > clarification and support of the group. > > As we said in our response video, Cheryl's core question about what is > an ad and what isn't is a completely valid one. We all have an > obligation to answer difficult questions. And those of us who ask the > questions have an obligation to be responsible shepherds in the > conversation that ensues. > > I think the extended nature of the conversation and some of the > questions around the rest of the video led emotions to run high all > around. > > We'd better make sure we all stick together through these times, > because that is the only way we will ever really make a difference in > the way media is created and consumed. That means no half-baked > commentary that can be construed as an accusation or an attack. Some > old school journalistic sensibilities need to pervade these > discussions to prevent them from devolving into drama-fests. > > Our $.02 anyway... > > Happy holidays to all, > > Steve & Zadi > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Cheryl" <cheryl.colan@> wrote: > > > > Steve, you are 100% correct. I meant to state that in my comments > > section when I originally added that I contacted you, but somehow > > omitted it, and for that I emphatically apologize. I want to point out > > that I did make a correction and disclose that fact in my comments > > yesterday - the comment is here: > > http://www.hummingcrow.com/2007/12/21/new-media/#comment-8554 > > > > I also should let you know that my Spam Karma plugin entrapped YOUR > > comment on my site linking from my comments section to your message > > here on the videoblogging list. I just noticed it in the spam folder > > two minutes ago and recovered it from spam. You posted your comment > > before I posted my correction; however, because Spam Karma flagged it, > > I did not see this comment prior to posting my correction. > > > > I'm not going to duplicate my correction here unless I receive a > > request to do so - anyone who wants to see it can follow the link. > > > > I do reiterate that my intention was never to call your professional > > integrity into question, nor to imply that you knew the full content > > of what my blog post would be. > > > > Cheryl Colan > > > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Woolf" <swoolf@> 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] > > > > > > > > > >
