[videoblogging] Surfin surfin USA | surfingUS.info to enjoy the freedom
Surfin surfin USA | surfingUS.info to enjoy the freedom Freedom to browse any web site from any place, school or workplace use our cool anonymizer http://www.surfingus.info";>SurfingUS.info Unrestricted access to MySpace and everything else! Come on join in and have fun with our proxies now! http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/onefake/";>OneFake.com
[videoblogging] Fake it! Browse securely and anonymously with OneFake.com
Fake it! Browse securely and anonymously with OneFake.com Enjoy the benefits of anonymous secure browsing using http://www.onefake.com/ Come on join in and have fun with our proxies now! http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/onefake/ Enjoy now!
Re: [videoblogging] Fake it! Browse securely and anonymously with OneFake.com
> Fake it! Browse securely and anonymously with OneFake.com > Enjoy the benefits of anonymous secure browsing using > http://www.onefake.com/ > Come on join in and have fun with our proxies now! > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/onefake/ > Enjoy now! spammer be gone! -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
Steve and Zadi are pioneering not only a format, but the very landscape of New Media. They produce an excellent, entertaining show about modern culture, and I feel they shouldn't be forced to defend their professionalism and talent. Chris McCaleb --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > 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 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] > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the inevitable conversation about what we're doing
> > On Dec 24, 2007 10:41 PM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 24, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Sull wrote: > > > > > > i'm glad you received appreciation and offers based on that post... > > > but i can assure you...or maybe at least bet... that if it were I or > > > many others that tossed that blog post up no such offers, > > > publicity or appreciation would result. > > > > This is probably what I disagree with more than just about anything > > in this whole thread. You know what most of the stuff people on > > Techmeme and Twitter are talking about? Something that one person out > > of nowhere had some insight on and thus caused everyone into a fury. > > If you really believe in something, dont just assume no one will > > listen to you and be quiet. > That comment was a setup to my real question to you... the one you decided not to answer. Still, in response to: "It wound up on Techmeme with links from Mashable, Newteevee, The Hollywood Writers Guild blog and I got contacted by some striking writers and got offered a panel position, but not a single comment on this list, even after asking." I'm simply contrasting the weight your post has been given elsewhere with what you expected here on this list (and within a timeframe that you deem acceptable) and my opinion that these stated forms of attention that your post received is not the norm. Sure, people will read and listen to anyone who has something to say. I am not suggesting the extreme slant that you have insinutated... where i am to believe that it's not worth expressing ones opinions and insights... please. I just think that when you compare an offer to be on a discussion panel to a lack of response here... is just exaggerative babble. "I feel like this with the group while trying to discuss > the writers strike. The implications of the strike are so perfectly > tied into the subject matter that so many people here discuss, its just > *weird* its not on any ones radar. > > To here you and Jay say you are sleeping through this one makes me > feel like you have been bitten by vampires and have turned into > zombies. :D " > I did not say or suggest that i was going to sleep through this topic. I did say that your post did not excite me to reply here or on your blog. Mostly because i feel you are jumping the gun in some aspects and also because I would like to take some time to think about the topic.. do some of my own research (including comparisons to historical events) and just get a better grip on what I feel is happening here and how things may pan out. Is that ok? Early predictions mean little to me. If I need to witness this event for another month (since it is on my radar ;)... before jumping in with any grand insights here or elsewhere so be it. Sure, this IS an interesting time for the "TV" Entertainment industry. Some of what you say may end up being accurate. Or not. My initial reaction was that you are over-analyzing and over_emphasizing how fucked the Studios are. So I'll think about it some more, as I already said in my last post here (meaning I will likely reply later and not be a "Zombie" to the issue). The real point i was making is... your blog post and request for thoughts here... and the state of this mailing list should not be correlated. I dont think thats fair, especially in the last week of the year. Cheers. Sull [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Criticism
> Steve and Zadi are pioneering not only a format, but the very landscape of > New Media. > They produce an excellent, entertaining show about modern culture, and I > feel they shouldn't be forced to defend their professionalism and talent. Agreed. I'm sorry that if anyone got a different impression. I know Steve and Zadi well and how hard they work on their show. Straight up professionals who are setting the pace. We are all in this together. Someone emailed me offlist: "from start to finish, it was clear that we valued the drama more than the issues at hand. Crazy making." Looking back, I am definitely guilty of this which I regret. I seemed to end up arguing about everything under the sun for the sake of argument. I have an ego as big as anyones. All the strange old grudges seemed to have popped up for the event. Anyway, let's enjoy this week of relative quiet in our work lives. Plenty more to come. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Criticism
Here, here. I consider Epic-Fu to be THE break-out hit of the year. On Dec 25, 2007, at 2:03 PM, cfmccaleb wrote: > Steve and Zadi are pioneering not only a format, but the very > landscape of New Media. > They produce an excellent, entertaining show about modern culture, > and I feel they > shouldn't be forced to defend their professionalism and talent. > > Chris McCaleb > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > > 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 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] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > 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 wrote: > > > > > > I asked the question on the Hummingcrow post "Am I the only who > > > believes that most of
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
Maybe arguing is one of the easiest forms of collaboration or conversation, and thats why such things always generate the most traffic. It also hints that vlogging will never lead to the death of the sitcom or cheesy drama ;) Im no language specialist but I wouldnt be at all surprised if we've got a richer variety of words to use in the causes of conflict and competition, than for any of the more beautiful forms of human engagement. I want to watch stuff with people stroking their chins and having 8 hour debates about interesting subjects. But people will really tune in,a nd in honesty my own attention would peak, if a foodfight broke out instead. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Steve and Zadi are pioneering not only a format, but the very landscape of > > New Media. > > They produce an excellent, entertaining show about modern culture, and I > > feel they shouldn't be forced to defend their professionalism and talent. > > Agreed. I'm sorry that if anyone got a different impression. > I know Steve and Zadi well and how hard they work on their show. > Straight up professionals who are setting the pace. > We are all in this together. > > Someone emailed me offlist: "from start to finish, it was clear that > we valued the drama more than the issues at hand. Crazy making." > Looking back, I am definitely guilty of this which I regret. > I seemed to end up arguing about everything under the sun for the sake > of argument. > I have an ego as big as anyones. > All the strange old grudges seemed to have popped up for the event. > > Anyway, let's enjoy this week of relative quiet in our work lives. > Plenty more to come. > > Jay > > -- > http://jaydedman.com > 917 371 6790 > Video: http://ryanishungry.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 >
[videoblogging] Re: Why i must leave Blip
Nah trust me what you saw there was the true spirit of christmas, well done Mike, again. Paul Knight http://pjkproductions.blogspt.com
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > 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 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] > > >
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Woolf" 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > > 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 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. > > > > > > >
[videoblogging] Re: Criticism
"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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Woolf" 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > > > 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 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
[videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
Robert I want to specifically address an issue you have brought up and I don't think you were being heard. You took a lot of heat concerning the Podtech - Censorship of Loren debacle. Words were said and mud was flung in all directions. Upon reflection, I don't think folks separated you from the company or in fact the actual person that generated the situation in the first place. I think we as humans start to classify folks as "personalities" and not as real people. I met a very nice person (this would be you) a few years back. We talked as regular folks. To be honest I tend to do that with everyone I met. But others treat you as "The Scoble" with reverence. The other side of that seems to be intense anger when there is a disagreement. It is not right but there ya go, it is human. Part of it is the celebrity thing. The other side of it is somedays we just do not act according to our better natures. I didn't speak up and say "Hey, he didn't cause this situation why are you going after him?" I have been to other events where folks wouldn't part their lips toward me because I'm not an "A - Lister". This is a good thing as it cuts down on the amount of BS I have to produce. I'm aiming for zero emissions. When I look at the comments section of your blog those folks play rough. I don't know how you can plow through that stuff on a daily basis. What is scary is that these folks like your writing but are almost cannibalistic in how they respond to your posts. You may or may not have good reason to deal with this group again. I don't know. But I do want to say that speaking for myself only I acknowledge the dog piling you received and it wasn't right. For whatever part I played I'm sorry and I heard what you said. Gena
RE: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
Gena, Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate that too. I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I see a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make businesses that get more of us paid. Let's turn it away from PodTech. Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. There's tons of others, too. As to PodTech's run-in with Lan Bui, there's a reason why we were arrogant in response: those pictures were taken at our party: the Vloggies. An employee used them without checking because she assumed that the community would support us and that pictures taken at our own event could be used without worrying too much and it was on a sign, not something that would make us tons of money. Turns out she was very wrong (how many of you have never made a mistake?), but if someone took pictures at your Christmas party last night, and you used them on your blog, and then that photographer sent you a bill for $3,000 wouldn't you be a bit miffed? Especially after you lost tens of thousands of dollars on such party? (PodTech lost a lot of money on the Vloggies, and, indeed on the videoblogging network it was trying to build). Today PodTech is turning away from videoblogging and more toward corporate content which doesn't pay videobloggers at all - so we all lose. Myself? I'm moving to something new next month - it'll be fun and I want to take the community with me, but my eyes are far less idealistic than I was when I left Microsoft and thought that this community would really be fun to work with. It doesn't take much business insight to see that this industry, er, community, is having a tough time coming up with a business model. It doesn't take sharp eyes to see that this community hasn't rocked and rolled, even while other video communities have. Maybe there won't be a good business model for videoblogging (although I think I've found one and would like to get more people on board), but it seems to me that when a company is helping pay videobloggers that this community should have done everything possible to make sure it succeeded. Me? I'm going to do everything possible that Zadi and Steve succeed, and succeed wildly. That's how I'll give back to the community. I really appreciate this note, it's a great Christmas present and makes me feel like doing even more to help this community. Robert Scoble ### _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gena Sent: Tuesday, December 25,
Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
Robert, I'm really sorry that your first venture out of Microsoft didn't turn out to be an overwhelming success. It wasn't entirely your fault, as things like this go. But I am afraid you're trying to hang your baggage about this failure (and I think failure is a good thing) on this community. Podtech could not have done a better job of communicating through it's actions, regardless of its intentions, that Podtech did not care about videobloggers anymore. Long before now. I really don't want to crap on the goodwill sent by Gena, and I am the first person to do my best to see both side of an argument. 1. Firing Irina, saying that Podtech's focus had changed and publicly saying how much Podtech had spent on her was a signal to us that Podtech did not want to focus on this community anymore and wanted to turn towards corporate content. I saw nary a negative comment about Podtech before Irina. Podtech should have known that Irina had a huge network of influential people who love her, and rightly or wrongly took her firing personally. In retrospect, it could have been done better. 2. The Lan and Vloggies controversies did not help. This was an opportunity for Podtech, at the very least, to communicate their respect for the community as they changed their business plans. Still, it was a debacle on both sides from start to finish. Total dramafest. 3. Podtech is just as responsible for the ill-will created as this community may be, and the sad thing is that the "goodwill cost" of certain decisions was not calculated before the decisions were made. It cost Podtech more to fire Irina, to not take care of Lan immediately and to be a bit greedy with the Vloggies than it saved. As for the rest, I really hope you'll get a cooler head about this. Blip gets thanks and lauded here all the time. Many others do as well, and the ones that don't get our eyeballs and sponsorship/VC cash that puts food on their tables (and in some cases, Baccarat crystal and Royal Doulton china on their tables, too). They'll be fine, because you're absolutely right when you say entities don't need "us" (whatever "us" is) to do well. I don't think that many of us think that at all. I really hope you do well at Fast Company or wherever you end up, Robert. You deserve success simply for having the massive courage it takes be your authentic self in all forms of media. And I am sorry we live in a world in which being playfully, passionately excited about something, like you are about technology, is given such a nasty reception at times. On 26/12/2007, Robert Scoble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gena, > > Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a > really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate > that > too. > > I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps > saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. > > One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a > million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we > hired > dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people > who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people > here > paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was > born. > > Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on > businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually > turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack > I > don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. > > I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty > predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How > many > of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the > dead > pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag > printed attacks against me? Not many. > > Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money > away > from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it > definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to > take > risks on behalf of the community. > > That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite > my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I > see > a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this > community > has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make > businesses > that get more of us paid. > > Let's turn it away from PodTech. > > Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated > Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked > for > him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the > other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are > dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeV
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. > seems like a bad deal, but maybe worth the hassle of fighting Youtube > and her DMCA takedown request. > this kind of thing sends a chill through the creative air. >
RE: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
Jeffrey: >Podtech should have known that Irina had a huge network of influential people who >love her, and rightly or wrongly took her firing personally. In retrospect, >it could have been done better. The problem is that at some point or another it's a business. If money keeps flowing out and not coming in at an increasing rate eventually investors get itchy. PodTech was going through its own managerial problems at this time too, which caused almost every problem you detailed below. You might have seen that the CEO is no longer the CEO. You might notice that I'm off to do something else (even though my show was pretty damn profitable). And that almost everything else is getting closed down except that which brings in revenues. I won't say anything bad about Irina, but I've learned many times in my career that whenever you hear about someone getting fired from a company that there's more than one story. Keep in mind that Irina had been laid off when we hired her and we invested a TON of money in her career and in Eddie's (and we even let Eddie keep thousands of dollars in gear so they could keep doing their show - that's more than I'll get from PodTech when I leave). And sorry for beating up on the community, I hope it comes out of this and sees some real success stories. Sorry that PodTech wasn't one of them, although PodTech is still living to see another day and still deserves our support. Robert Scoble ### _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:43 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com; Robert Scoble Subject: Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble Robert, I'm really sorry that your first venture out of Microsoft didn't turn out to be an overwhelming success. It wasn't entirely your fault, as things like this go. But I am afraid you're trying to hang your baggage about this failure (and I think failure is a good thing) on this community. Podtech could not have done a better job of communicating through it's actions, regardless of its intentions, that Podtech did not care about videobloggers anymore. Long before now. I really don't want to crap on the goodwill sent by Gena, and I am the first person to do my best to see both side of an argument. 1. Firing Irina, saying that Podtech's focus had changed and publicly saying how much Podtech had spent on her was a signal to us that Podtech did not want to focus on this community anymore and wanted to turn towards corporate content. I saw nary a negative comment about Podtech before Irina. Podtech should have known that Irina had a huge network of influential people who love her, and rightly or wrongly took her firing personally. In retrospect, it could have been done better. 2. The Lan and Vloggies controversies did not help. This was an opportunity for Podtech, at the very least, to communicate their respect for the community as they changed their business plans. Still, it was a debacle on both sides from start to finish. Total dramafest. 3. Podtech is just as responsible for the ill-will created as this community may be, and the sad thing is that the "goodwill cost" of certain decisions was not calculated before the decisions were made. It cost Podtech more to fire Irina, to not take care of Lan immediately and to be a bit greedy with the Vloggies than it saved. As for the rest, I really hope you'll get a cooler head about this. Blip gets thanks and lauded here all the time. Many others do as well, and the ones that don't get our eyeballs and sponsorship/VC cash that puts food on their tables (and in some cases, Baccarat crystal and Royal Doulton china on their tables, too). They'll be fine, because you're absolutely right when you say entities don't need "us" (whatever "us" is) to do well. I don't think that many of us think that at all. I really hope you do well at Fast Company or wherever you end up, Robert. You deserve success simply for having the massive courage it takes be your authentic self in all forms of media. And I am sorry we live in a world in which being playfully, passionately excited about something, like you are about technology, is given such a nasty reception at times. On 26/12/2007, Robert Scoble mailto:robertscoble%40hotmail.com> hotmail.com> wrote: > > Gena, > > Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a > really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate > that > too. > > I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps > saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. > > One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a > million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we > hired > dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people > who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people > here > paid, some of which got
