The other day I got an email from the owner of Sitecubed.com asking if they could reprint my recent article written on evolt.org.
Later that day I sent them my approval along with my bio. A day or so down the road I checked the site out and it was posted. Along with that - I’m now the very first author on the authors page.
On a personal note:
I found it pretty cool that someone thought enough of my article to reprint it elsewhere in the world.
Add to the discussion.
Many times people can’t convey their ideas as clearly in a live clip as in a written article. A one hour “live” interview can be much better said in a small article.
I’m not being negative about your idea. Maybe what you have in mind would bring more information into our usual TV & Radio type media coverage?
Who’s Howard and why can’t you make up your mind as to wether or not Aaron actually knows what he’s talking about …
Instead of asking if I actually know anything or not - try asking realistic question on what I am trying to explain.
However, it could be easier for you to just claim that a person doesn’t know anything then to actually ask them intelligent questions. This really only shows that you yourself don’t know anything and are trying to bring people down to your level.
Who knows - maybe you can’t be to blame. I’m sure your parents didn’t raise you correctly and that’s the reason for your rejection toward new ideas.
On another note for Howard
Take a look at the conversation currently going on at http://evolt.org/article/Voice_Over_Web_the_Future/25/60105/index.html#comments on this.
Yeah, I saw that. Then I started thinking about six things at once and lost my train of thought. Sorry :-(
Let me try again… a little background info…
I was involved in interviews with a couple of local news organizations recently. I also failed to have some other news organizations even do an interview.
These experiences coupled with your ideas (which I admit I haven’t fully investigated nor totally comprehend) MADE ME THINK about how news is gathered, sifted, and presented back to the public.
I spent an hour with a very personable feature writer in a restaurant. I hadn’t really done the kind of preparation I should have to properly present the information I wanted to present. She took my ramblings and wrote a very nice article that made very good sense. Not only that… it was all correct ;-)
Some of my other experiences were less enjoyable. The story in one case was good, it just wasn’t quite correct. To others, the news value was lost or figured it wasn’t going to make them money.
OK,
Back to my thought… Let’s say that Barbara Walters is interviewing Aaron about his blogging. She could spend an hour live with him as he explaind xtml and html and all of that other stuff. The REAL story that the public is interested in about why Aaron Blogs, etc. might be eight minutes of that hour.
A good journalist would find out the story and do a supurb job of presenting it in a written article.
Now I’m not saying there is no place for radio or television or …. whatever. What I’m saying is each type of media has its place. For sheer consumption of information and knowledge reading is currently the most effective media in my mind.
Whoa, long winded.
By the way whoever the impertinent person is… everyone has something to offer… if you think about what they are attempting to say. One should encourage the sharing of ideas.
What were your thoughts about Aaron’s idea?
Good thoughts Howard and I agree for the most part with them.
My idea evolved from the amount of bias news that’s out there and journalist taking a story and only presenting what they felt would get them better ratings. My idea wasn’t to overthrow written journalism but to enhance it. Possibly add another detail to a story just as you would a photo. Something that will help you fully understand what’s going on.
On top of that there is a huge amount of people out there that are blogging and are sometimes right where something is happening. Other times people are interviewing during a war and then taking that information and trying to quickly make something out of it for a story.
Ideal it would be nice to have speech documented into a story ALONG with directing the user to other resources (preferably people that are talking about this as well).
So when you read that New York Times article you read a great article and you’re done. Add my idea in a bit and have voice, links to other people talking about the same issues and their opinions. That way, if the NY Times journalist is being biased, people will pick up on it much quicker because they’ll be able to see various people’s thoughts.
The hardest part would be organization but people are already working on the discussion linkage part. Right now the growing technology for that is called “Trailbacks”. Hundreds of personal websites are using it (which made it popular) and now various other companies are beginning to see the benefits of this. The O’Reilly Network being a major player. [Example of TrailBack]
I think I get it… kind of like next generation links.. except the ‘links’ or trails would lead to other sides of the same issue instead of just one persons perspective?
Obviously our interests are different.
Take this one for example : http://ace.acadiau.ca/score/others.htm
This guy has a huge list of music notation software and the links. If I wanted to compare all of these packages to decide which one to buy this would be a place to start. The problem is it would be a huge task to do the research to make a decision. The average person isn’t willing to make the effort. What could be done differently to encourage Mr. Average to gain the knowledge without the effort?
As you are well aware, biased coverage is probably more desireable to Mr. Average. “Tell me how I feel or think about this.” then I don’t have to.
If you can figure out a way to do that you would be a hero in my book!
Oh, what the heck, this was the good experience..
http://mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1053253064312810.xml?grpress?NELK
Sorry, I’m too lazy to figure out your fancy links ;-)
I’d disagree - people like options. They don’t like being told what to think and being socially manipulized.
The idea is to let people be who they wish to be. A left wing or a right wing, a jock or a nerd, a boxer or a pianist. People don’t wish to be controlled. They’re open to the idea of someone telling them ONE side of the story as long as they point out that there are other opinions and thoughts on the matter.
It’s funny that we’re talking about this right now because there’s a HUGE debate going on with this topic at mind. (McChesney, media reform and the FCC & www.mediareform.net/)
And if you’re wondering — Yes, I did tell my representatives how I feel about the hijacking of public airwaves by a few powerful corporations.
Yes, people want options. No, they don’t want to be told what to think, etc.
What about the herd mentality? I think people have a strong need to belong and allow themselves to be otherwise influenced to feel or think a certain way that oedinarily they would not. It’s happened to me… call it peer pressure?
BTW, what happened to Real Content?
Howard Says:
Aaron,
This must be very satisfying!
I personallyn still like the stove story you told. Very well written and humorous.
It is a great feeling when you have a positive effect on other people’s lives.
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/050803/hap_050803073.shtml
Sunday 3:00 PM? Bach to Broadway!