Disqus - Latest Comments for digidave

Re: When a blog beats a NYT story

digidave — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:21:41 -0000

Ya know: That's not really a question for me. I know the Times folks knew of the blog. Some of them followed it as well. But it's not Spot.Us' place to tell them what and what not to publish. It seems that Megan's piece makes the assumption that somehow Spot.Us was in a place to do that.

It seems she says that the NYT piece was bad but the blog posts Lindsey did was good - but that because the NYT piece was bad Spot.Us somehow came up short. That logic doesn't really compute for me......

Re: When a blog beats a NYT story

mathewi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:17:46 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Dave. I agree that it shouldn't have been either/or
-- why would the NYT not package the two together as a feature, or at the
very least include a link to the blog? I just don't understand that. In
any case, congrats to you and to Lindsay on a job well done.

Re: When a blog beats a NYT story

digidave — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:11:29 -0000

Hey Mat

Great post. In truth one of the comments below answers this for me: It shouldn't be an "either/or" situation.

And .... it isn't.

The blog that Lindsey kept was a part of her Spot.Us pitch. We said from the beginning that we were going to offer it - and we did.

The NYT story let us put a feather in our hat - but it's a mistake to judge it by itself - and that is what the CJR article did. If the NYT had simply linked to her blog - the CJR piece would have discredited itself.

One link and the whole thing changes.... hmmmmm

Re: I'm innocent, but I can't say the same for the Union Tribune

digidave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:36:15 -0000

I'm chiming in late here.

I don't know all the in's and out's of the discussion - but I can see that it is a very good discussion.

I can agree to this: The appearance of a scandal is just as bad as the scandal itself.

I think that's why Justin, who I really only know via online, got upset. The tweet can seem like an accusation and even if it's untrue (which as Justin pointed out - it had no kickbackery but was a heart-felt donation) it still stings. Then again the statement "the appearance of a scandal is just as bad as the actual scandal" can be applied to the initial donation as well - until you consider that Justin did it publicly. That Justin put it out there as a Tweet to Scott was the best move IMHO.

This is an interesting ethical space for nonprofits which are rising up all over. I've chatted with Scott from VOSD about this stuff before.

I still believe that transparency about where money comes from is key.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as clean money. If that's what you expect of nonprofits - it is impossible. If somebody finds me clean money - I will find them fairy dust and we can do an even trade.

But: One can make money cleanER by making it transparent.

In this case Justin's contribution which is probably smaller than contributions from others is the cleanest of it all!

Re: Spot.us Comes to LA - mediabistro.com: FishbowlLA

digidave — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:43 -0000

Very excited to be in Los Angeles. Let's see what happens next?

Re: Yahoo embracing Twitter? (Scripting News)

digidave — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:42:14 -0000

Dave: I agree this is a winning strategy - but I think that's what TweetDeck, Seesmic Desktop and all the others are already doing. Yahoo might be late to the game. Unless of course they can, as you say, "work to be a better place to use Twitter than Twitter.com" - but add to that "become a better place to use Twitter than all the third party clients that already exist."

Re: Is Crowdfunding the Future of Journalism?

digidave — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:12:36 -0000

Hi - this is David Cohn the founder of Spot.Us. I just wanted to say: Great article. I appreciate the lay of the land approach to all this.

It is an interesting experiment and we are having some success.

In the end what we are really testing is two fold. One part is very much under our control and the other isn't.

Our platform: It needs to be a tool that folks can use.
Society: Is local civic journalism something that people are willing to donate 10 or 20 bucks towards. If there is no other way to report on city hall unless a group of people come together to share resources: Is there a marketplace that can support this?

People donate to charities all the time because it is a perceived social good. The question is if journalism can also be perceived as something that benefits society.

We will find out.

Re: Ning and porn: Get a life, blogosphere

Nick S — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:33:03 -0000

Dave's right..

Re: Microsyntax.org: A Messifesto

stoweboyd — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:38:50 -0000

Interesting way to look at it, that we loose data because it is not syntactically marked.

Re: Microsyntax.org: A Messifesto

digidave — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:19:53 -0000

This is awesome Stowe. There is an immense amount of data lost on Twitter every day. I think there is the potential, through some organization, to capture it.

Re: I am not a newpaper gravedancer, but if ever I was tempted in that way, I know which grave I'd start at

digidave — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:52:37 -0000

I'd only echo Tracy on this.

The Citizen took a cheap shot and also stereotyped "bloggers." It is a work in progress -yes. But, to take a cheap shot back, at least we are working on it.

Re: State of the Spot - mediabistro.com: BayNewser

digidave — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:04:23 -0000

We will see!!!

I always try to treat spot.us as an experiment. That said - I want it to work, but not at the expense of lying or being untrue to what I support (the future of journalism).

I'll do another "state of the spot" - and I'll try to do it before another 6 months pass. Until then.... onward

Re: Twitter is the New Digg, Only This Time with Celebrities

bobcaswell — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:06:07 -0000

@digidave Yes, exactly. Twitter has plenty of celebs on it... but what celebs ever talk about using Digg?

Re: Twitter is the New Digg, Only This Time with Celebrities

digidave — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:36:07 -0000

I totally agree with this post. I've actually been digging a lot less since Twitter came on the scene about two years ago. And now Twitter has experienced a growth that Digg still hasn't. Obviously Digg has grown, but I feel like it never shed its geeky origins and community. Twitter, as you noted, was on Oprah.

Re: Watch Out Twitter Spamers Got the @replies (and a solution)

digidave — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:22:08 -0000

Please do this!!!!!

The Twitter spam is getting out of control. Even if it doesn't report directly to twitter it will make me feel more empowered.

Re: I Am Afraid Of Ghosts

digidave — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:20:32 -0000

I think it goes both ways. Content is still king - but collaboration is queen.

In chess the King is the most important piece, you guard it with everything you have. But the queen is the strongest piece.

Re: Product idea: Digg for ads (Scripting News)

digidave — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:08:18 -0000

"Imagine a new Digg-like site where marketers submitted ads."

They already have that.... it's called Digg.

HA!!!! I crack me up.

In all seriousness - it seems like a good idea. As long as the site was upfront that it was all about adverts so everyone knows what to expect - I think it could work.

Re: I may be a lot of things but I am not a brand

digidave — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:06:22 -0000

I tend to agree with Steven on this as well (see my blog post for how it got started).

It really comes down to ethos. Brands can be tied to corporations. I am not saying that corporations are evil or anything like that. But because of this potential connection, thinking of myself as a brand means that I can be a corporation..... which is true. As an independent contractor I am.

But what if I hire people? Are they "Digidave." Do they become part of MY brand? That just seems weird.

The answer is both yes and no. Technically if I hire them - they are part of my brand. But then what about me as a person? Do I no longer have an identity? Do the employees represent my brand as a person or as a corporation?

Screw that. I am a person - and I live my life online. End of story.

I am NOT a brand. Or if I am - that is really just the way people interpret my personality. It is not something that can be transferred and I am more than just an economic producer.

Re: I may be a lot of things but I am not a brand

digidave — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:00:28 -0000

That is the idea exactly. I am just as guilty of thinking that "branding" was the most important thing too. And in some sense it is - but I think the word "brand" makes us imagine something plastic and fake.

If thats what brands are - then no. I am not a brand.

What is important to me now is just... living my life... and doing that online is an earnest a way as I can. That is how people know that it is ME. And they can trust Me. So yes... its a brand. but I hate to call it that. It makes me lose sight of what that brand is really about... which is me, just being myself.

Rock on.

Re: The reboot of journalism (Scripting News)

digidave — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:24:23 -0000

Sorry for dropping off for a bit Dave.

I think that this might be what we disagree about.

Its not that I will find somebody without a dog in the fight. It is just that I think some people's "dog" could just be "honest and fair reporting."

I think if somebody is paid purely to report as they see it - then that is the only thing they are responsible for and what they will put their effort into doing.

In some ways I don't know if we've ever really had that. Even newspaper reporters have to sell adverts (whether they know it consciously or not).

But again... I say.... ONWARD!

Re: It is NOT personal branding - it’s Just living your life online.

digidave — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:41:30 -0000

Comments left out from Digidave's old typepad migration

* Dave Earley

I hadn't really noticed the five Daves before. Very nice. I didn't tackle the "personal branding" issue too much, but just put up a post linking the "individual journalist" to Clay Shirky's "Unthinkable" post the other day.

Definitely more thought has to go into the issue, but excellent post, and exactly what a lot of journalists are scared of doing - living their lives online.

And maybe in MSM there's just a bit too much dwelling on the perceived awesomeness of Rex Manning Day.

I'll collect my 10 Journo-points on my way out ;) Ah, missed the "intensedebate" comments below. Damn.

----------

Kristine

Great post. Totally agree that brand is too static, too inflexible. I prefer to talk about building online identity rather than brand. An online identity is genuine because it is me, more flexible than brand as people grow, change have ups and downs, for brands such natural parts of life are much harder. I can build an online identity on projecting who I want to be as well of course, useful for journalism students, but then I have to support it by consistent behaviour for it to be cerdible.

In many ways I've "inherented" these thoughts on identity vs brand from my friend Adriana who's very passionate about this, but the more I use social media, especially for my work, I see more and more how impoartant and useful they are. A recent post of Adriana's on this: http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2009/01/brand-as-i...

As a journalist I find all the time that it's so much easier to interact with people on my blog, where I'm only representing me, than on the site of my employer(s) where I'm supposed to represent the brand with all its connotations and history

Re: Collaboration is Queen

digidave — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:39:50 -0000

The following comments got lost in the transition to wordpress:

* Joanna Geary
HI,

Came across your post via Paul Bradshaw. Really enjoyed it - great read.

Whilst I don't see news organisations owned by different corporations collaborating any time soon, I think there is an opportunity for them to be reaching out and working better with the people they claim to serve.

I love the "collaboration is queen" idea. Would you mind me using it as the tagline for my blog?

Cheers,
Joanna

--------------------------
* Gerard_Barberi

Someone plays chess here...

So, who are the pawns? What gets sacrificed for a story?

And, what piece are the journalists? The knights?

-----------------------------------
mattoyeah

Your takedown of the scoop mentality is brilliant, but I'm not sure I agree with some of the underyling assumptions about "basic human psychology" used to dismiss competition generally. Humans collaborate but they also compete. Competition can be disastrous (war, bad scoop for exclusivity's sake, etc) but also channeled to good effect. It's true that recently scooped journalists sometimes call off the dogs and move on, but they are far more likely to call off the dogs if no one else is lurking around.

Re: The reboot of journalism (Scripting News)

dave — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:42:25 -0000

I just don't think there's anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight. Maybe
that's what we disagree about. When you meet someone like that, let me know
who they are.

Re: The reboot of journalism (Scripting News)

digidave — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:05:18 -0000

Dave - perhaps our views are more similar, but one thing still troubles me.

I remember the blog post that you linked to above. I'm happy that you've had success because of your blog. I've gotten opportunities because of my blogging too.

But I have a dog in the fight - as did you.

I think you have a good attitude towards it: In that post you mention that you have a bias but that you try to remain balanced and that even your products aren't perfect and you try and stay honest about it.

I trust you to be honest in what you report on - even if it is a subject that you stand to benefit from.

But I can't trust everyone. So I think somebody needs to be able to report on topics whose only dog in the fight - is that they do good honest reporting.

But I do agree: Ads aren't the answer. Those can infect reporting too.

So I think we agree: There will be money in news. I'm not sure how it will flow either. I hope that however it does flow transparency will be an integral part of it. Because in the end - there is no such thing as "clean money." Advertising dollars aren't clean. People reporting on subjects they stand to benefit from can be tainted as well.

Even what I am trying: "community funded reporting," has potential snafus down the road.

So for now... ONWARD!!!

Keep on rocking.

Re: The reboot of journalism (Scripting News)

dave — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:43:27 -0000

You're absolutely right about how I make money because of the blog as
opposed to from the blog. I've even written about this, recently.

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/02/11/how...

It was a very widely read piece, and lots of comments. I've always viewed it
this way.

It's also been the topic at a few BloggerCons, though mostly people didn't
want to hear about it, they wanted to know how to make money from ads, which
I see as ridiculous waste of time for most blogs. I've never had an ad on my
blog, never will. I use it to promote my own ideas, and some of them make me
money.

What I didn't say in the piece and plan to write one about at some point, is
that I've also used the blog to get a lot of other things to happen that I
wanted to happen that couldn't have if I didn't have a blog. Examples:
blogging itself, RSS, podcasting. I've also had many things that I wanted to
take off, tried to make take using the blog, but failed. So there's more to
it than wanting it and having the attention. The time has to be right as
well.

I hope I've never said there won't be money in news -- I believe there will
be. I'm just not at all sure how it will flow.