Disqus - Latest Comments for thornley

Re: A technology Moment: Blogging from 34118 ft above sea level

thornley — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:07:21 -0000

Shashi, Congratulations on the Gold Quill. Well deserved! What you've done in the past 18 months is remarkable.

Re: Personal note: A job change for yours truly

mathewi — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:44:47 -0000

Thanks, Joe -- that's an excellent point. We'll have to see what we can do about that.

Re: Personal note: A job change for yours truly

thornley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:13:03 -0000

Congratulations on the new job Mathew. The Globe is my most trusted Canadian news source. But I have to confess that I do not participate in the discussions at the Globe's site. Its seems like an isolated offshoot from the conversation. I much prefer to participate with comments on your site because you have placed yourself in the centre of the flow instead of asking me to detour down a side path to a separate place.

I'm looking forward to following as you define your new job.

Re: Embargoes: Thanks but no thanks

mathewi — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:51:32 -0000

Fair enough -- but nothing you've said requires that there be an embargo, except the need to generate a lot of hype over a specific date.

Re: Embargoes: Thanks but no thanks

thornley — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:57:49 -0000

Mathew, I'm not missing your point. I just think it's irrelevant. If people are going to do their jobs (which I think they will), it's actually a good thing if people can see a variety of perspectives about an announcement when it happens. This doesn't stop people from doing a second take. But interest is highest and most people go looking for information when they first hear of the announcement. Embargoes allow a broader group of reporters/commentators/critics/peoplelikeme to catch the news and offer a perspective when people are looking for it.

Re: Embargoes: Thanks but no thanks

mathewi — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:52:10 -0000

Yes, I do that Joe, and I'm glad you do too. My point -- which I think
you're missing -- is that I (and lots of other reporters) do all of
that without having to agree to embargoes. Maybe our stories or posts
don't all come out at the exact same moment as everyone else's, but I
don't think that matters as much as some other people seem to.

Re: Embargoes: Thanks but no thanks

thornley — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:25:55 -0000

"What happens is that everyone who abides by the embargo comes out with a nicely-packaged story that hits all the points from the press release, and they all come out at the same time. How does that really help anyone?"

Gee Mathew, you have a pretty cynical view of reporters. I hope they're not so lazy as to simply spew the bumpf from a press release.

Interesting coincidence: Last night, a marketing VP told me about the next release of his WebApp, scheduled for early September. About half way through, he realized he'd told me things he hadn't started out to tell me and he asked me to observe an embargo. And I will. Because I have no desire to hurt a person for a simple indiscretion.

But you can be sure that I will use the time between now and the next release to look at his current offering and test it against the next set of improvements. And I won't spew the release text (I don't event think I'll look at it.) I'll publish my own take.

And I'm not even a journalist. I'm just a blogging exec who has an enthusiasm for social media and community building.

In my experience, the vast majority of reporters who have information on embargo do no less than I intend to do. They research. They look at competitors. They find sources who can give them a unique angle or perspective on the story. And then they publish something that's worth reading.

I think you do that, don't you?

Re: Blatchford pines for the monologue

thornley — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:37:34 -0000

For years, journalists had it all their own way. All we, the intelligent populace could do, was read/watch/listen and howl at the moon. Blatchford is one of the more provocative, readable journalists around. But here she betrays the conceit and arrogance of her traditional mindset. Sad.

Re: Delicious 2.0: Who bookmarks any more?

thornley — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:36:11 -0000

Mathew, Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Like you, I tag, tag, tag on del.ico.us. And I regularly use Search to find things I vaguely remember.

However, I frequently use del.icio.us to find specific posts that were meaningful to me - even though they didn't rate high on Google.

Del.icio.us let's us put the "I' in Search. Google is good for the "We."

Re: Wrong — Steve’s health is my business

mathewi — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:41:05 -0000

Thanks for the compliment, Joe. But with all due respect, as far as
I'm concerned there is a place for both speculation and reporting --
they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Joe Nocera did some of both
in his Times piece. The fact that he put in a phone call to Apple's
PR people and got the standard response doesn't change that, nor does
the fact that he was lucky enough to get a call from Steve Jobs.

Re: Wrong — Steve’s health is my business

thornley — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:38:34 -0000

Mathew, I read your writing regularly and I regard you as a smart and insightful columnist.

There is a difference between speculation and good reporting. The former simply throws out an "I wonder if..." The latter involves follow up. That's what Joe Nocera did. He called Apple's PR department to ask about Jobs' health. The fact that they stonewalled him provided the basis for Nocera to write an article. And the fact that he did chase the story may well have led to him getting the real scoop here - a call directly from Steve Jobs and confirmation that Jobs' current problem is not cancer.

I think that any of us who write about others should not be satisfied with simple speculation, especially about something as personal as someone's health.

Re: Tip: Don’t pull pin while holding grenade

mathewi — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:09:04 -0000

Agreed -- yet another example of the "Barbra Streisand effect" in action.

Re: Tip: Don’t pull pin while holding grenade

thornley — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:01:09 -0000

I was just phoned by a Montreal Gazette reporter doing a follow up story for the newspaper. He asked me for my reaction to Mr. Cavell's assertions that blogs don't matter.

I actually hadn't heard about this story, having been offline for most of last week. So, while the reporter was talking with me, I searched for MediaScrape in Google. And of course, what came up as the very first organic search result after MediaScrape's own Website? Michael Arrington's TechCrunch post.

It will be interesting to see how long Arrington's post hangs in at the top of the Google organic search. And as long as it is there, what many people first learn about MediaScrape will be what Mr. Cavell so aggressively tried to stop. Such a futile effort.

Re: What College Students Can’t Get From Blogging

Corvida — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:38:39 -0000

There are plenty of excuses. Not everyone is aware of how these things work. Meg Robert pointed out some very good points in her post. Not everyone is into the web like that. Sure they're on Myspace and Facebook, but it's for an entirely different reason and not to establish a professional brand but a personal one. It's why my Facebook page is private and I don't own a myspace account. It's not for my professional life.

I just happen to be interested in the internet and social media in particular. Others aren't and you can't penalize them for that. That's not their fault it's of no interest to them. We can't control what's interesting and what's not.

Re: What College Students Can’t Get From Blogging

thornley — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:26:18 -0000

Interesting post Corvida. I can tell you that I ALWAYS look for evidence of something special, intelligent and passionate in the online presence of the people that I hire. And to be honest, if the first I hear about someone is when they hand me their résumé, I'm unlikely to hire them. There's just no excuse in the era of social media to not have developed "brand you."