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" > <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] > > >
