Comments on: Not not getting it

By: greg0658

greg0658 — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:28:12 +0000

: - ) remember … “Baby on Board” … so don’t rear end me

By: Richard Stacy

Richard Stacy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:20:01 +0000

I have to say that “get it” versus “not getting it” pretty much sums up my experience of introducing people to this whole social media thing. Whether using the term “get it” is a self important / too pejorative - maybe. Perhaps it would be kinder to say “on board” and “not on board”. Maybe we (Jeff) could revive Tom Wolfe’s description of Ken Kesey’s group of Merry Pranksters from the 1960s - that of being literally and metaphorically “on the bus”.

By: Amanda Congdon

Amanda Congdon — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:36:10 +0000

Maybe saying someone “gets it” or “doesn’t get it” is self-important, but I find it helpful and direct. When I hear it in conversation, or read it on someone’s blog, I immediately have a better sense of that person or company and where they are in their understanding of new media– assuming I trust my source.

Everybody gets that they need to “get it”. That’s huge.

And the amount of folks that get it is on the rise. These are good signs!

By: Jackie Danicki » Wishful thinking ahoy

Jackie Danicki » Wishful thinking ahoy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:40:35 +0000

[...] Jeff Jarvis says that, even if everybody doesn’t “get it”* (which the Guardian’s Alan Rusbridger thinks they do): everybody realizes they have to [innovate]. [...]

By: greg0658

greg0658 — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:52:42 +0000

I wonder if the World Wars of the last century had not happened … where the population exponential would be today.

Population growth drives economies … and global climate change is making population out the villan.

Is that a “gets it” point or are we just talking about newsies survival?

By: Martin Stabe » links for 2007-03-08

Martin Stabe » links for 2007-03-08 — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:25:34 +0000

[...] BuzzMachine: Not not getting it Jeff Jarvis: “I do think itâ€™s time to give up accusations of not getting it. Iâ€™ll plead guilty to using the phrase too often. And Iâ€™ll admit that it was pretty self-important. So Iâ€™ll try to get rid of not getting it.” (tags: online journalism guardian bloggers blogging msm) [...]

By: anon

anon — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:41:55 +0000

Essjay got it.

By: Jeff Jarvis on Teaching Journalism « Media Junkie

Jeff Jarvis on Teaching Journalism « Media Junkie — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:40:14 +0000

[...] about his views, but he does put in some strong words about the death of Old Media, as he did in his latest post: I think that - especially after the last yearâ€™s cold reality checks and volcanic change in the [...]

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:43:18 +0000

Uh, got it. (I think.)

I am the mystery blogger to whom you refer. What I was objecting to is that the “doesn’t get it” lumping and labeling gets slung around rather loosely these days. If we were discussing sports, that’d be fine (Duke fans clearly don’t get it). But we’re discussing industry- and career-threatening stuff and “doesn’t get it” is not a good label to get stuck with.

Last week a colleague and I argued about how to proceed with a website. One of us wanted to start running more video. The other said that would be grand but it wouldn’t get us to our immediate page view goals. Does one of us not get that it’s a multimedia world? Does the other not get the current imperative to serve banners and make a profit? No, it’s just an argument about priorities. As you say, a search for the right move to make next. I like your conclusion in this post.