Disqus - Latest Comments for Shane Richmond

Re: Radiohead: Some numbers on In Rainbows

Shane Richmond — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:10:18 -0000

Interesting stats but you're right that there needs to be more info.

Warner Chappell is Radiohead's publisher, not its record label. The band didn't have a label at the time of In Rainbows and licensed the CD release to various labels (XL in the UK, for example) on a one-time basis.

Re: http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/archives/2006/12/telegraph_blogs_2.html

Shane Richmond — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:50:28 -0000

Thanks Adam. And well done on your blogging from Paris. I really enjoyed it.

Re: The New RBI Blog Central

Shane Richmond — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:15:28 -0000

Just three computers? Lightweight!

Re: One site, two issues in online journalism

Shane Richmond — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:15:45 -0000

In the words of the folks at 37 Signals, who are at the cutting edge of the internet-driven business revolution: "You don't have a scaling problem yet."

I take your point that there is a journalism gap but let's give innovators like Rick all the support we can and worry about scaling later.

BTW having had a drink with Rick last time I was up in Norwich, I suspect he would have mixed feelings about being described as an innovator.

He has a reassuringly down-to-earth approach to what he's doing. He knows his job and he knows his audience. He's learning the medium fast. Scaling - which in a way is a problem to aspire to, rather than one to fear - can be tackled later.

Re: links for 2007-02-25

Shane Richmond — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:41:33 -0000

Are you really shocked Martin? I didn't think anybody saw MG as unbiased when it comes to their rival broadsheets. In my view, they play up their rivals woes and play down their successes and do the reverse with stories about the Guardian.

Of course I'm biased too, so perhaps that colours my perception of what is published in MG.

Roy Greenslade is the honourable exception, in my view. I've always found his analysis to be reasonable and fair - even when he's criticising us.

Re: links for 2007-02-25

Shane Richmond — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:44:07 -0000

One other thing: I don't know how I managed to link my previous comment to a specific post from my blog. I intended to link it to my blog homepage but the post I ended up linking to is amusingly appropriate in the circumstances.

Shane

Re: links for 2007-02-25

Shane Richmond — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:58:18 -0000

Hi Bobbie. I don't think anyone does claim otherwise. That's why I asked Martin whether he was actually shocked or was just being sarcastic.

And I hope I didn't come across as upset about the email. Mildly exasperated, perhaps, but I hoped the end of my post - threatening to tie people to railway tracks or simply copy the Guardian in on my emails - would show that I was taking it in good humour.

Finally, the 'won't take blogs away line' refers to an earlier part of the email. We're adding new bloggers and also trying to keep the size of the site manageable. I didn't want our existing bloggers to feel they might be elbowed aside to make way for new names.

So what I was saying was: 'keep your blog active and we won't take it away'. I realise it's not much of a distinction but there you are.

Re: Dave: I guess the Telegraph doesn’t watch my videos

Shane Richmond — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:32:21 -0000

Hi Robert,
Our article was online just after 1pm GMT on the 30th - which is 8am US East Coast and 4am on the West Coast. We didn't miss your video, we just wrote our article well before you published it.
Regards,
Shane Richmond