Disqus - Latest Comments for michael webster

Re: “If the news is important, it will find me”

Aidan Henry — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:17:25 -0000

News is time-sensitive. Knowledge isn't.

-Aidan

Re: “If the news is important, it will find me”

liza — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:42:47 -0000

Ummm.

Yes.

millenials are masters at networking. they are in control of their likes and dislikes in ways we didn't dream of as kids and teenagers. these are people who grew up with "america's funniest videos" and "the real world". Privacy? Voyerism? their definitions are very different from ours.

knowledge, if is important, will get to them because they have networks of people "watching their backs" and taking care of their pipeline.

if you are my age, you became an adult in the 80s, at a time when you had to choose between "networking" to get a job and become a yuppie or saying FU to the man and punking out in one club after another.

trust me. networking, the way they do it, has NOTHING to do with the 'networking', the dirty word i loved to hate in the 80s.

Re: “If the news is important, it will find me”

mathewi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:19:02 -0000

Obviously this approach wouldn't apply in all cases, or with all kinds
of knowledge, Michael -- some kinds of knowledge are obviously worth
seeking out on their own. Are you saying that every article in a
newspaper falls into that category?

In any case, not everyone has the time to seek out knowledge in every
place it might pop up -- why shouldn't they find it however they can?
Isn't that better than not finding it at all?

Re: “If the news is important, it will find me”

michael webster — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:49:08 -0000

Uh, would you say "if knowledge is important, it will find me."? No.

Re: TED: These sour grapes taste terrible

mathewi — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:13:02 -0000

Indeed.

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Disqus

Re: TED: These sour grapes taste terrible

michael webster — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:08:01 -0000

Didn't Groucho Marx have the same complaint?

Re: It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs

mathewi — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:33:08 -0000

I actually meant the "drive by" to be sarcastic -- I just don't know the HTML markup for sarcasm :-)

And apart from being ironic, I think your point about TechCrunch's post leading people to read Lessing's speech is actually a pretty important point.

Re: It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs

michael webster — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:02:43 -0000

Mathew;

I don't think that there was a "drive by". In context, having read the entire article, the point was simple: there is too much reacting on blogs, and not enough reading, thinking.

The TechCrunch article, as much as I like Duncan Riley, was a perfect example of what I take her point to be.

And I agree with Carr's observation about Cynthia's third point - it does feel like a cop-out.

There is also a deeper irony in Lessing's speech; some of us would not have taken the time to read it, but for TC's own little drive by!

Michael

Re: It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs

mathewi — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:26:01 -0000

I think that's fair, Michael -- it's true that Ms. Lessing's larger
point has a lot of merit, and I'm certainly not about to argue that no
one should read books, or that TechCrunch is as good as War and Peace
or anything like that.

I'm just not sure why she had to engage in that little drive-by on not
just blogs but the entire Internet. There's lots of rubbish books out
there too, not to mention ones that taught people plenty of things
that turned out to be wrong.

Re: It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs

michael webster — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:10:59 -0000

Mathew, I agree with Cynthia's comment. When you read the entire Lessing speech, and give it a charitable interpretation, what she says about the internet is that is selects for inattention. (I would also add that it rewards absurd claims with inappropriate amounts of traffic.)

Ironically, the techcrunch article demonstrates the first thesis: it is impossible to read Lessing's speech as anything other than demonstrating a profound respect for and homage to reading.

And she doesn't think, parenthetically, that much reading goes on in blogs.

But the parenthetical remark is just that. The entire essay is a beautiful piece of work.

Today my office internet was out; I was "forced" to read Andrew Goodman's work on Adwords for 3-4 hours.

I may make internet down/book reading up a new office tradition!