Mainstream Media: Harry McCracken's Ethical Stand
By Tom Foremski - June 18, 2007
| |
- Subscribe to SVW by email - You should follow me on Twitter here - Send me a friend request on Facebook and LinkedIn. |
By Tom Foremski - June 18, 2007
- New! SVW Webcast Channel - Interviews With Top Executives - Free Registration.
Tom Foremski #28 on San Francisco - Silicon Valley Top 50 Most InfluentialAllow me to (uninvited) clarify a piece of Tom's thesis.
Conversations are interactive for the participants, and are held solely for the participants.
A conversation that is held for the benefit of a non-participating audience becomes *something else*. People don't talk with each other in front of an audience the same way they would if they were alone.
If you advertised
Yes, you can change the video size to whatever you'd like. Just take a look at the embedd code.
I think I would pass almost all of them, but how do you resize a youtube or other embedded video to fit a web page's size?
I know you have to keep the dimensions proportional, but can you just change the height and width, or is there something else you have to follow?
There is no place like the West Coast for innovation
I love the feeling of innovation for 1400 miles- that is the West Coast! Having moved from San Francisco to Santa Monica in the late 90s and being in start-up modes with companies for a majority of that time, it is great to confirm my true feelings all along - that we are in the innovative crux: California! Couldn't agree more that the creative energy in LA is bound to drive the technology her
David: I don't think the problem is finding a new term for a stilted conversation, but that 'conversation' is misleading when applied to social media because it's about something that is much more exciting and amazing. Conversation is a red herring when it comes to understanding this next phase of the Internet...
I beleive that the nomenclatures may be what's failing us.
None of our current lexicon really fits exactly:
A CONVERSATION is really an exchange of ideas, with each response being dependant on the other and with the overall context...
A DISCOURSE is more of a formal debate.
PUBLICATION is as you say, to make content available publicly (but seems not to have enou
I enjoyed reading this. McLuhan is worth re-reading, especially his book THE MECHANICAL BRIDE. Digital media are bringing us back to something like the manuscript era, where readers were usually writers who compiled their own books. Now we're creating & compiling our own "books" -- sometimes we call them "blogs" -- by mixing text & image & sound/music online. My "prose+comics scrapbook" form
I agree with your bounds on what constitutes non-conversation, but somewhere in between is conversation. Ten to fifteen comments is often quite interactive. There are also side conversations that can happen in those large comment streams you mention. I've particularly seen this in some buzz threads.
Another small point of contention: you're using a term, publishing, which is increasingl
Personally, I think "conversation" works quite nicely, but I'd guess I'd define "conversation" more expansively than you do. Actually, I kind of like the WordNet definition: "the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc." (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conversation), which fits what we're doing on/with social media.
In any case, I wouldn't
I love the McLuhan quote.
If you read the comment streams on blogs, it's usually not a conversation.
It's usually what an old boss of mine used to call "parallel independent conversations" which is very much in line with the notion of two-way publishing.
Question for me is: is it sufficient and to the greatest benefit for legal frameworks to simply consider social media as publishing, or should they adapt to consider a new category - something like a 'permanent conversation'?
In other words should it hold people accountable in the same way it does when the act of publishing and hence the motivations of the publisher are clear? Seems to
The Microsoft deal with Facebook included an advertising deal--the $240M was for a share of the company and for the ad deal.
Thus, saying they bought at a valuation of $15B is significantly inaccurate.
George, sarcasm sometimes gets lost in translation, my apologies.
The Chinese governement has this stigma attached to it, basically don't mess with them. If google is mad enough to take them on, I wouldn't put it past them buying google and sacking the moron who made the decision.
And that significant lead will result from...adding something Apple has already added?
And that make sense to you?
Tom, you and I are of the same mind on this. I am so tired of reading blogs or listening to podcasts or watching video embeds about social media people using social media to talk about social media. I really want to hear about specific business uses of social media. As I've said frequently, we need to remember that these tools are just communications channels, and we'll all be better off when w
An excellent analysis, Tom Foremski. I think there could be a great long term benefit for Google by its foray into China. By the timing of its very prominent presence there, coming during the great boom in Internet usage and awareness, Google's retreat, may become a kind of catalyst in the long term memories of tech savvy Chinese...the leaders of tomorrow. I forecast a triumphant return for G
Great post. I believe publishers can have advertising supported businesses. In fact I don't think that's debatable. First though they need better tools to leverage their audience data and their own ad matching systems. Essentially they need to build a new improved display channel. New pub controlled networks could then emerge that would crush the performance of what exists today. Then all the
Eric, What's wrong with making a reasonable profit as a news organization? I agree with you that there is a race to the bottom going on because the econopmics of online news continue to worsen.
At some point, we have to figure out how to reward news organizations doing a good job otherwise we are in serious trouble as a society. That's what I would like to see Mr Hellman's money go to
Gabe: You should get a press pass and if you don't, you should ban SXSW stories from Techmeme. (SXSW gets very noisy, you'd be doing us all a big favor :)
Tom, two points:
1. You are a strange man.
2. Press passes cost $299? You sure? In any case I wasn't offered one. Please reread my tome on this matter: http://twitter.com/gaberivera/status/10238453895
Money is neither noble or ignoble. It is value-neutral.
You seem convinced that this project will be exclusively funded by the ultra-rich; obviously BANP's hope is that the community will step up and slowly allow the organization to be weaned off Hellman's seed money. I wish them luck -- but to be honest, the track record for local endeavors of this type isn't great so far. Still, I res
Danny: I agree... But press passes aren't free this year. They cost $299. Gabe can afford $299.
This sums it up perfectly:
'Advertising doesn't sell stuff' by Dave Trott
http://digg.com/u1Ps9L
Eric: What's so noble about a non-profit status in regards to news organizations? What's so noble about relying on handouts from billionaires to produce local news?
If we can develop profitable news business models then we will have competition, and that is good for news, good for everyone.
San Francisco used to have more than a dozen daily newspapers. Each one trying to compe
While I'm no fan of the way the BANP has acquitted itself thus far, your comment that "There's plenty of 'non-profit' media businesses around, the largest local one is the San Francisco Chronicle." is glib to the point of meaninglessness.
As I'm sure you're aware, an organization's not-for-profit status is far more germane to its mission than to its ability to generate revenue. The Chro
Free the Gabe 1! The Techmeme 1?
Seriously, if there are any TV editors getting passes, then Gabe should. Press isn't just defined by writing stories.
Actually, there is good news for publishers ... And it involves creating engagement experiences with the content rather than trying to sell content directly. (see some examples in this AdAge article: http://micurl.com/xijmu)
The key is create an experience that broadens the one:many experience of today's newspaper expereince with a socially connec
It is "underground" now because the consultants are pretending Social Media is a big "secret" worth $22K/ day (see my post on this - Is Chris Brogan Worth $22K?http://micurl.com/wpFeo)
As a client trying to buy social media services -- it is too hard today. There many little "bits" running around without a mature understanding of how to create value through a programmatic marketing ap
Silicon Valley Watcher--reporting on the business and culture of disruption. © Tom Foremski 2004 - 2009 Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-noDerivs 2.5.