« Yo, Coach Wei! | Main | Compound documents »
October 9, 2006
Arrington on pro news
Arrington on pro news: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch tells a professional journalists' conference how the front page of the New York Times contains less useful information than the front page of Digg. Sparks fly. I haven't read accounts from other participants yet, but this passage struck me: "I think we become somewhat immune to verbal attacks as bloggers because everything we do is questioned in comments and in other blogs. I am routinely harangued by mainstream media as well, who neither understand blogging or care to. The most common attack is that bloggers are not and never will be objective in their writing for one reason or another. I assumed giving a little bit of criticism back would spark debate, not ostracism. But I found that mainstream media is not comfortable being questioned. I assume that's because they've insulated themselves from feedback, and therefore haven't grown a thick skin." I think groups which manage to quickly and accurately incorporate external feedback tend to do better, longterm, than those which over-emphasize the group's internal needs. It sounds like Mike felt he paid the price for raising forbidden thoughts: "I could have, and should have, sucked up to these people. Others at the conference were. They still command a lot of traffic and a link thrown our way is always helpful. But I didn't do that. I never do that, and I'm told that its bad for my career." I want to read more from what others say, but see two critical issues here: the best structures for news stories in a networked world (this issue is a superset of the "are bloggers journos?" blahblah); and what are the traits of successfully evolving workgroups?
Posted by JohnDowdell at October 9, 2006 8:01 AM
Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use and Online Privacy Policy (updated 07-14-2009).