Things I Can't Believe I Just Read
Local bloggers surely have been entertaining of late, and now that a wicked head cold is finally starting to clear, I'm starting to catch up on some of it.
Here's a good one from the Lone Star Times/KSEV/CLOUT paid staff:
We are continuing to look into the defense of Rep. Larry Taylor’s appraisals that was brought to our attention by his wife. It should be noted that Taylor was included in an early draft of CLOUT’s ad but then removed; he only reached public attention in this regard after someone (not on CLOUT’s staff but with access to the draft) leaked it to a reporter. CLOUT didn’t make Taylor a public issue; the leaker did. Regardless, we are endeavoring to research the issue and will publish our conclusions prominently.
My goodness. They might have smeared the guy themselves, but they decided against, but some unpaid, non-staff associate who had access to their original draft leaked it to a reporter to smear the guy, but please don't associate the smear with them directly, as they're still investigating.
Wow. And they wonder why some reputable pols decline their requests for interviews.
That's even better than this bit of ragging on Marc Campos:
Marc Campos, heretofore the lone defender of State Senatore [sic] John Whitmire, is just SHOCKED ... SHOCKED I tell you ... that the Texas State Senate has steamrolled through the anti-Bill White bill to end SafeClear as we know it.
It sounds exciting, almost scandalous, eh? Well, except Campos never wrote anything that would suggest he was shocked. Indeed, in the linked post, Campos was critical of the anti-SAFEclear bill that Whitmire zipped right through committee at the time, which served Whitmire's purpose of getting the mayor's attention and eventually obtaining changes he wanted to the program. But one supposes it was more exciting to mischaracterize Campos as being SHOCKED ... SHOCKED!
With the power of alt-media also comes responsibility, folks. And with responsibility comes credibility.
On a not-so-local note, blogger Jason Kottke announces he's quit his job to blog full-time, but rather than run ads, he'd like to remain "pure," via the donation model:
Like I said above, there's got to be a way to support media that doesn't involve advertising. But more than that, I don't want to disrupt the relationship dynamic we've got going here. There are currently two parties involved with kottke.org: me and the collective you. Advertising introduces a third party. In my experience, the third wheel of advertising often works to unbalance the relationship in favor of either the author or the readers (usually in favor of the author). If ads were involved, I might feel the need to change what or how I write to appease advertisers. I might write to increase pageviews and earn more revenue. I could fill pages with ads, earning more revenue but making the content more difficult to read or pushing some content off the page entirely. You could block advertising and deny me needed revenue.
Err, okay, whatever. At least he's not asking for contributions for volunteer blockwalking.
Look, I don't begrudge Kottke his dream to be the user-supported KPFT of personal blogging, but I just don't get the "third wheel of advertising" commentary.
Let me ask this of readers here -- do you believe I'm unbalancing our relationship with those google ads to the side? Or back when I ran blogads (dropped because I think they're too big and ugly), were you bothered?
I'd be shocked, but please do tell if you think he's on to something.
Personally, I think this attitude towards advertising is all wrong. I rather share the view of the Pegasus crew that advertising -- whether on a blog or on the newspaper of the future -- could well be an integral part of the web experience, bringing together advertisers and readers who are likely to share interests. Google Ads try to do that based on keywords, but keywords are not content. Nobody knows content like the provider of said content. The web advertising model that figures out how best to engage this relationship may well be a winner.
I wish I had a bigger interest in it, but my brain just doesn't seem equipped for figuring out how to make money off the internet. Rather than act holier than everyone, I'll just admit that.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 02/23/05 19:53 | Other | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
The ad wasn't leaked by an "associate" of ours-- it was leaked by someone in the advertising department of the paper to a reporter on the news side of the paper.
The reason Taylor was pulled from the ad before it ran was because we wanted to be cautious and confirm the data regarding his appraisals.
If paper staffers had practiced reasonable jouralistic (and business) ethics, Taylor's name would not have become a public issue.
BTW, Taylor's wife is refusing to cooperate with my efforts to validate her claims in defense of her husband and their appraisal. Read into that what you will.
Posted by Paid LST Staffer @ 01:11 on 03/04/05
It's always someone else's fault, right? And Dan is never wrong.
I've seen your own journalistic ethics at work, remember? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones with regard to that topic, and certainly not here.
You shouldn't be surprised when reputable people don't want to play with KDAN or LST. Taylor may or may not be reputable, but I don't blame him or his wife for wanting no part of the whole thing.
Posted by Kevin @ 06:41 on 03/04/05
I don't understand your point.
Of course Dan makes mistakes. As do I.
But this one wasn't one of ours.
In order to reserve the space in the paper, we put in a "placeholder" ad. It was a first draft.
Upon further, careful review, we decided that Taylor's situation was questionable enough that we didn't want to run with it. So we took him out.
So how does some fool in the advertising department of a paper leaking a draft of our ad to a reporter who then tries to curry favor with the local power structure by faxing them a copy become our fault?
Presumably you write and save "draft" blog posts. If someone broke into your server and posted your text before you had a chance to give it a final review and decide you in fact wanted to post it for the entire world to read, would that be your fault? No.
In spite of that, we realized that Taylor's name had gotten dragged into this thing, so we gave his wife airtime to respond. And we were respectful.
And we have tried-- and are still trying-- to give her a chance to explain their appraisals.
We WANT to help them clear any public doubt about their appraisals. We'll give them air-time and space on LST.
Is there some further step you think we should take to be fair to Taylor? I'm open to your suggestions.
Posted by Paid LST Staffer @ 09:36 on 03/04/05
I honestly don't care what you do as I personally don't trust your organization. I have seen it in action, and it doesn't merit my trust. Sorry.
And no, I no longer have free suggestions for you. Or paid advice.
But the crying over "journalistic ethics" is laughable. Preach that stuff to the Cult of KDAN, but don't try it on me, okay? I'm not sympathetic, and thought we had covered that ground already.
If the paper betrayed some contractual trust, sue them. If the questionable data were in an ad they had, even a draft ad, I suspect you'll have a tough go of it. But, I'm not a lawyer, and that's not legal advice.
Posted by Kevin @ 09:46 on 03/04/05
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.