Disqus - Friends of hardaway

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: 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: 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: 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)

digidave — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:36:57 -0000

Sorry.

I disagree that money won't be involved at all. Maybe I misinterpreted the first comment in this thread, and then your response - but I read it as:

"Where's the money.. [to pay reporters]?

From what I understand: you posit that there is none because the news will come directly from sources. I don't disagree with that. Some stories only need a direct source and should just be done via that direct source's blog. In that case - there probably won't be money involved.

But some stories require more.

To play my own devil's advocate.

You have probably done a lot of reporting yourself... for free. You are both a source and a reporter via this blog. You've probably donated countless hours to reporting. And while you didn't get direct money for it - I imagine the blog has helped your career.

Maybe that is how it works: everyone is a source - but they do more than just write their own thoughts on a subject - they do reporting on the subject, asking around, digging, helping to organize a community of people to help them report. That reporting might be free - but it benefits their career - so they can "donate" the time.

But I also think there is a model for somebody to become an expert in a subject like "following the trash" - doing it in a community and then trying to repeat that in different communities over and over again - and those communities help pay the reporter in exchange for them helping to answer a question. So money could be involved if they provide a real tangible value add.

Just my thoughts.

Re: The reboot of journalism (Scripting News)

digidave — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:20:43 -0000

This is still the only place where I disagree with you Dave.

I do agree that our focus should be on saving journalism, not newspapers.

I also agree that sources will (and should) go direct. There are many day 1 stories where a reporter just rehashes what was told to him. In that situation - there is no value added.

But some stories take a few weeks worth of asking around, making phone calls, going through public documents, etc.

In some cases you might even be able to distribute the workload. I would be open to a process where that can happen seamlessly. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In doing an investigation, even a simple one like "where does my recycling go? - if the work is distributed and one volunteer reporter mucks it up - the whole thing gets off-track.

There are some stories that do take more than just calling up one spokesperson and finding the best quote. Those stories take time - and while we can distribute the workload - I think they would work better if there is a person at the head - who is taking responsibility for the project, its outcome, its forward momentum, etc. Somebody who says "I'll be accountable."

In theory - that person will be spending a lot of their time. Even if it is just one month - they will have to eat and pay rent during that month. So unless they are trust-funders they'll need support. I think that support can come from the community as well.

That recycling story is a real example we want to try: http://spot.us/pitches/154
(I bring it up not to pitch - just to demonstrate what I imagine).

Anyone can "join the reporting team" and help with the reporting. Or - if they already have a 9-5 job and they don't have time - they can contribute small amounts of money to help the reporter at the helm.

All-in-all though: I totally agree on one thing - the way is forward, not back. There will be (and should be) decentralized news processes. Journalism should be participatory. The idea that one company, one person, gets to define and make the news is passing.

Rock on.

Re: If you don't like the news... (Scripting News)

digidave — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:12:08 -0000

I tend to agree with you on this Dave.

As I've put it (for a bad analogy): Think of the old media as an elevator going down - and on the other side is a different elevator (new media) going up.

It looks chaotic if you don't know that there is another elevator going up.

That said: the elevator on the way up hasn't reached its full potential. And there are some people that may never recognize it as such. So there are some things lost. But it isn't "chaos."

For me the most important thing to keep in mind is that "What is bad for newspapers isn't necc. bad for the world."

http://bit.ly/wQHXa

Re: How investigative research happens in the blogosphere (Scripting News)

digidave — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:25:34 -0000

That was the point I was going to bring up Fred.

I think reporting in public is DEFINITELY the way to go.

I also think there is something to be said about blogging on what you know (as the first comment discussed).

But it seems that Dave almost has an axe to grind against anybody that makes their living by reporting - as if, since some people do it for free.... nobody should get paid for it.

Some people knit for free. Does that mean nobody can knit for a living? Some people cook as a hobby, should chefs start moving to the unemployment line?

There is no battle between "bloggers" and "journalists" because they are both doing the same thing: Communicating. Some do it all day every day and then need to be compensated - some people do it in their spare time. Agreed the second group of people can do just a good of a job: But they tend to focus on issues like tech and it can take them upwards of a few months to do investigative work.

If this were about city politics - I'd want somebody reporting every single day.

Just two cents.

Re: Point of view is everything (Scripting News)

digidave — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:11:30 -0000

Well - since you wrote the post, what you want will influence it. So while I don't think it makes a difference in the larger scheme of things - it makes a HUGE difference in how we should read this post.

Re: Point of view is everything (Scripting News)

digidave — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:32:50 -0000

Dave
I agree we are further from the "you'll miss us when we are gone" spiel - but there is something that doesn't connect.

Journalism is a craft: as you note it is telling a story. That story uses facts, sources, opinions, (as you noted). Journalism is a process - not a product.

But like all crafts - the more you do it - the better at it you will be. Somebody who is a basket weaver and weaves baskets all day every day is going to be better at it than I would be - as somebody who weaves baskets only in my spare time.

So while I believe greatly in citizen journalism - I think there is value in having professional journalists too - people who practice the craft every day and are really good at digging up facts, figures, telling stories etc.

What doesn't connect is your view: I can't tell if you think all professional journalists should disappear or you really do want them to continue to have a place.

At the end of this blog post you write: "Now, I'm not glad to see the news industry go that way, I've been pleading with them to embrace the future, to stop fighting it...."

But at the same tine - you say that there is absolutely no need for them in the future.

Which is it? You can't want them to hang around if there is no need for them?

I go back and forth on this myself. As somebody who has worked on citizen journalism projects with Jay Rosen - I've seen the merits of citizen journalism but I've also seen its limits. Namely that long-form investigative journalism can be hard work and it is difficult to ask people to practice it when they already work a 9-5 job.

I know you are utterly convinced of your inability to be wrong - but it is important for you to consider that there are other points of view on this. That indeed the great Dave Winer might be wrong and you should consider that not all readers or consumers of news are like you - Most people don't know how to use RSS yet. Perhaps they are ignorant of the web - but they deserve to be informed via journalism (the process not the product) as well. Having professional journalists around can help.

Best

Re: links for 2008-11-11

digidave — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:57:53 -0000

25 cents: The sheer economics of it.

I'm working in a local market. To raise $1,000 off 25 cents (1k is what I estimate the average investigation costing) would take 4,000 people.

That might be possible for national investigations - but I think a local market is too small.

It also comes down to the economics of payment gateways. It costs 15cents per transaction. So if somebody donated 25 cents it would still cost spot.us as an organization 15 cents which means we actually only make 10cents.

But I do agree with your sentiment. If I could figure it out - I would.

Re: links for 2008-11-11

digidave — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:52:39 -0000

I agree: In the future I want to figure out how to do matching grants, etc.

For now: $25 is a suggested amount, but you can click the "or another amount" and donate as little as $2 if you want.

In fact - you can do that for all 6 of the pitches we have in our system right now: a total of $12 - and if you check out all at once, it'll take you just as long as if you were donating to one pitch.

But the site still has work to be done to make all this clear. What you are seeing is about 1/4th of what is in my brain and I hope I can get out digitally.

Until then - thanks for your feedback and any participation.

Best

Re: Jason’s long goodbye: Give me a break

digidave — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:59:19 -0000

I agree with Sarah here: It does make me think about where blogging is going, but it certainly doesn't make me think that "blogging is dead." That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Would Michael Jordan declare basketball dead after he retired?

Shaq and Kobe would certainly disagree.

Moreover: I understand Jason's complaints about the blogosphere needing to mature, but leaving won't help. In fact, it's stupid. I think he contributed to what he was complaining about (worrying about hype instead of content ala I'll give you a macbook air if you follow me on twitter).

The solution: Worry about content!!!

I guess what I'm trying to say is - he should "be the change" - not "be the guy running away."

I do want to see the blogosphere mature, that's part of why I'm working on spot.us - but blogging aint going anywhere.

Re: The Death Of The A-list

digidave — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:16:35 -0000

2nd try.

I think anything that will help the blogosphere mature is a good thing. We still need to grow up and into our own clothing, so to speak.

But I also don't think the A-listers are going to "die." They will always be around - and I think Scoble knows this. Circumstances don't change overnight - so unless they all go Calacanis on us, I expect there will always be A-listers.

That said - they might be less important than A-listers are today. And that's good. Next time I run into scoble I can speak to him blogger-to-blogger instead of blogger-to-fanboy.

Re: The Death Of The A-list

digidave — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:11:09 -0000

I too think it's about time. The blogosphere needs to grow up a bit and that won't happen if we rely on A-listers all the time.

Still: I don't think they will "die" - they'll just lose some influence and "awe-ness." If I run into Scoble now, I don't need to be a fan boy, I can just talk to him blogger-to-blogger.

I think Scoble (above) also knows that the A-list isn't going to die. Situations and circumstances just don't disappear overnight. So - unless everyone goes Calacanis on us, tomorrow's techmeme will still be dominated by a few and I'll still feel "privileged" when I occasionally get on.

Re: Why I don't like 'crowd sourcing' (Scripting News)

digidave — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:19:14 -0000

I don't know if "collaboration" works for Threadless or iStockphoto. I think it does for wikipedia though.