Podcast: The Ultimate Series - Episode 1 - The Pilot
I grabbed the AudioBoo App for the iPhone thinking that I’d use it to start a new short form audio podcasting series. I happen to be more interested in video myself, but audio is probably more useful and more versatile in where, how, and what you can do with it.
I’m calling this episode “The Pilot.”
Let me know what you think.
Misc: About that link I posted last night...
I realized after looking at the last link that I posted that it needed a little cleaning up. So this will be a more dedicated piece.
I got the idea from Journerdism, which doesn’t seem to have permalinks for its link blog. That’s rough, but I can live with it. The reason is that he quoted this part of the article I linked:
“Jeff Jarvis does a great job of defining a different way to do investigative journalism, which he calls process journalism. I prefer to call it iterative journalism. Everyone follows a “process,” so that word doesn’t really define it. Traditional journalists follow a process, and so do blogger journalists. Theirs are just different processes. “Iterative” is the way of the Web. Create something,...
Link: This short piece says a lot about what blogging should be
This hits a note close to home. A couple weeks ago, I was sitting and chatting with Mike Henderson, Wolfy, and he was saying that too often, arguments (debates, as I refer to them) online were a little too all over the place. I answered back that I thought that was the point of online conversation—that all thought was iterative, and the perfect blog post and the perfect comment didn’t necessarily exist—that all debate was based on the last thing said. That’s the beauty of the ongoing conversation online, as I see it. Granted, this isn’t necessarily “investigative journalism,” but it is something that can be equated to what’s being said here. All online conversation offers the opportunity to drift off-topic, seemingly, when what’s really happening is that the people involved are thinking through their positions and adjusting to what they see as the point of the moment. That’s a big deal. Whenever anything is put into print it’s over. Either you write a perfect article, or a flawed one. That’s that. And a lot of people think that’s the way it should be. In a generation, that’ll be laughed at. I think we should laugh at it now. (via Journerdism)
Link: Excellent mashup of music and sports press conference clips
If you pay attention to sports, you’ll probably recognize several of the clips that are mixed together here in this outstanding remix, set to music. All of them are laugh out loud funny in context, especially the one with Joe Namath. It’s four minutes long, but worth it, to me. (via Deadspin)
Misc: Bob Conrad brilliantly lays out a strategy for launching a social media political campaign
Start here. Read all the parts, then come back.
Having read that, you should now know what I think the background is. There’s this guy running around on Twitter and other places, I suppose, who was talking about getting a cease and desist order for his actions fighting against higher taxes in Nevada. Or something. See, the problem was that while there was publicity about the cease and desist, the dude categorically refused to answer questions about:
- Who sent the order
- What the order actually called on him to “cease and desit” doing
- Who he really is
- Anything else
It was the quintessential bullshit PR stunt completely void of:
- Transparency
- Truth (presumably)
- Real names
- Substance
See, the thing is, when Bob sees something inherently interesting to PR people, something he lays claim to being,...
Link: In case you care about that debate below on the internet as a human right
E!! over at “E!! The True Conservative Story” put the debate out there to her readers and got some response. My favorite was the first, wherein I’m called a moron for what I consider a red herring argument. So I’ve responded. Thanks to E!! for noticing something over here and making it more widely known. I’m of the opinion that it really isn’t that serious of a question at this point. I based my post on a few assumptions that probably are pretty illogical. But I like the idea of thinking about that stuff. It just bums me out that while I’m trying to debate the responsibility to society of news organizations who are founded on the ideals of an informed public that it becomes a debate about government intervention and socialism, which never even crossed my mind. It’s still fun, if a bummer, though.
Misc: How would news organizations charging for access affect, say, the internet as a human right?
I came across a couple of stories the other day that were unrelated but quickly became related in my mind as I read the second one. With the talk that I’m hearing about the death of newspapers (sometimes equated completely wrongly with the death of journalism), and the other talk among journalism pundit-types (Jay Rosen, Steve Yelvington, others) of plans by some news organizations to monetize web content by creating firewalls and account-system access, I thought a particular quote from an interview with the author Michael Lewis was particularly poingnant:
When I published my first pieces for publication 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, if I published something in The New Republic, it might get a few readers who subscribe, and...