Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
carlton benjamin
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Open letter to Doc Searls & Hugh MacLeod on Shooting at Bubbles
i read your post carefully. but i must disagree - and i hope we can disagree civilly. the nyt piece has been sorely misrepresented to the point of caricature. you really distort the article in a way that reduces the piece to national inquirer status. sorry but that's not at all the case. if the "blogosphere" reacts with sore and raging petulance to any examination by the MSM, then you know what? it really ain't worth saving and its critics are right about it being populated by a small collection of self-absorbed twits mewling for each other in an echo chamber. personally, i don't subscribe to that POV. but to see the piling on in techmeme - and i read nearly all the posts - well, it was simply ridiculous.
- 0 points
- Jump to »
StevenHodson
Disgreeing civilly is something that I try very hard to do especially when the person I am disagreeing with is being civil in the first place. As for distorting the article I would beg to disagree because the word blogger could have been echanged out for any other type of profession .. regardless of the profession it was written to be an attention grabber with no substances that couldn't be applied to any other profession.
1 year ago
in New York Times: blog trolling 101 on Mathew's comments
wow, that's rich: a newspaper guy like you taking pot shots at the ny times from your comfortable perch at a toronto rag. the fact that the times presented another slant on today's events touched off the predictable bitchmeme and you just couldn't resist piling on with yet more mediocre mumblings..
whatever. but here's a thought: instead of doing your derivative daily, why not surprise the world with an original story. i know - that involves actual WORK. so...probably not.
LOL
whatever. but here's a thought: instead of doing your derivative daily, why not surprise the world with an original story. i know - that involves actual WORK. so...probably not.
LOL
1 reply
mathewi
You know what's even richer, Carlton? You just posted a lame,
derivative comment on my mediocre mumblings. Here's a thought: how
about coming up with something original? Or better yet, give me a
link to the blog where you're generating all those stimulating,
original and thought-provoking posts, and I'll be sure to drop by.
derivative comment on my mediocre mumblings. Here's a thought: how
about coming up with something original? Or better yet, give me a
link to the blog where you're generating all those stimulating,
original and thought-provoking posts, and I'll be sure to drop by.
They don't need "saving".
... the NYT wants you to think they do, hehehe, because it takes focus away from the fact that their stone aged institution is the only thing in any real immediate danger. (Of course it had to be the NYT... the ONE newspaper that probably will still be around in 10 years... although, oddly enough, it will be a blog. They might try to call it something else... but it will be a blog IF [and that is a very big if] it survives.) I wonder how many "real journalists" have died in the past 12 months... why doesn't the NYT make a spectacle of them? Why don't they warn their own industry against the dangers of deadline stress and middle of the night re-writes under extreme pressure to get the presses up and running again. Speaking of presses... let's talk about the stress in the print plant ... i've worked there, I know how it gets.... WAY more stressful than the web, hmm kay. Careers are all stressful and everybody dies, simply no exceptions whatsoever. The Times' piece was a total fluff job and the writer knows it, the blogosphere knows it, my freaking mom knows it, the only person who missed that fact was you. Sorry if that wasn't conducted "civilly" enough... but hey, saying "it really ain't worth saving" isn't exactly very diplomatic, so I guess I'm about as sorry as the NYT is for publishing the article in the first place. ;)