Comments on: There, there, Ron

By: ban

ban — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:00:43 +0000

By: Why We Should Feel Bullish For the Future of Journalism « DigiDave – Journalism is a Process, Not a Product

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:38:17 +0000

[...] One of them is what I can only childishly describe as “retarded infighting.” This week Jeff Jarvis was the subject of an attack because he is “not a nice guy.” To me this article was equivalent to accusing Jeff of palling around with terrorists. [...]

By: A scenario for news (Jeff Jarvis, Buzz Machine, 24/11/08) : Centro de Estudios de Medios

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:30:43 +0000

[...] the snarkoff recently about my holding journalists to account for the state and fate of journalism, commenters [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » A scenario for news

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » A scenario for news — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:16:33 +0000

[...] the snarkoff recently about my holding journalists to account for the state and fate of journalism, commenters [...]

By: Big think « Reassembler

Big think « Reassembler — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:23:42 +0000

[...] future of journalism needs a Big [...]

By: links for 2008-11-13 | I’ve Said Too Much

links for 2008-11-13 | I’ve Said Too Much — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:31:40 +0000

[...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » There, there, Ron “Look,” Rosenbaum concludes, “there’s nothing wrong with Jarvis doing all this thinking and decreeing.” Gosh, thanks, Ron. But if you question my authority to discuss the future of journalism, I wonder who made you the DMV of the discussion. (tags: jeffjarvis) [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Roll over, Beethovan

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Roll over, Beethovan — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:09:51 +0000

[...] its veteran clerks as a metaphor, Carr laments newspapers getting rid of their experienced talent. Kicks to my groin aside, I’ve also lamented that. I’ve argued that when newspapers offer [...]

By: Ian Betteridge

Ian Betteridge — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:59:22 +0000

Jeff asks: “So how much attention do I pay to your insults?”

By my count from the above comments, you pay him about 284 words-worth of attention. Which, I think, might be a little too much

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:44:37 +0000

All you did at 2:18 is insult me. What do you expect me to say? I have other things to do now. I hope you do, too.

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:40:31 +0000

See my comment at 2:18 p.m. Jeff, you keep dancing around. It’s becoming more than a little ludicrous.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:00:57 +0000

Evade which subject? I lost your antecedent in this thread.

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:58:20 +0000

Jeff, it’s funny to see you evade the subject. Why are you so afraid to discuss your ideas? Here’s why: You’re clearly none too confident of your point of view, or you wouldn’t spend all of this time with all of this pointless dodging.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:51:49 +0000

It’s relevant either way. Tranasparency breeds trust. Opaqueness breeds distrust. You don’t trust me and my readers to know who you are. So why should we trust your opinions? We cannot judge your self-interest.

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:13:53 +0000

Jeff, my cable provider assigns “dynamic I.P. addresses,” so this “Charley” person could have been anyone. I couldn’t possibly care less who you supported for president.

By: Jarvis v. Rosenbaum, Digested for Easy Reading | Web2.0h...Really?

Jarvis v. Rosenbaum, Digested for Easy Reading | Web2.0h...Really? — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:25:57 +0000

[...] Jarvis retaliates with a condescending, personal rebuttal of Rosenbaum, depicting Rosenbaum as sentimental and [...]

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:25:05 +0000

For example, seeing that you have the same IP address as someone named Charley who who was upset that I supported Hillary Clinton, we can see perhaps where at least some of your animus comes from. That’s relevant. Haven’t you heard that one of the ethics of blogs is transparency? I’d say your other views are relevant to our opinion. You know all mine.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:22:23 +0000

Knowing your name would at least confirm that you have the courage to stand behind your insults. But you don’t. So how much attention do I pay to your insults? You guess the answer.

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:18:04 +0000

How would knowing my name change anything? You wouldn’t give my opinions any more credence. You’re a self-described egotist with a point of view, and it’s not going to change. You know that, I know that, and anyone who reads your blog knows that.

By focusing on my name, and your labeling of those who don’t buy into your self promotion, you are merely dodging any discussion of the substance of your ideas, such as they are. This is a tactic of con men since time immemorial. Jeff, you think you’re good, but you’re actually boring and unoriginal. I’ve seen your movie many times before.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:55:55 +0000

Your identity is an issue because it speaks to your courage to stand behind what you say. I do. Rosenbaum does. You don’t.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:55:27 +0000

Well, Tramp, I would call this dissent on a blog. Hmmmm.

(Note that newspapers, too, would not allow themselves to become vehicles for anonymous personal attacks.)

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:42:49 +0000

Jeff, my identity shouldn’t be an issue. I haven’t raised any topics or made any claims that would make it relevant. If it would make you feel better, I could invent a name and a biography, but I don’t see the point. As for tolerating attacks, well, maybe in one of your new media cheerleading seminars, you could discuss the tendency of the blogs to be echo chambers, as opposed to the dead-tree media that try to incorporate dissent.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:27:56 +0000

Trampoline, whoever you are,
Have a blog of your own? Care to write there under your own name? Have the guts to? Links would then appear here. But that’s not as much fun as just sniping, is it? You’d have to have something of substance to say. Happy to talk about the issues with you. Not going to tolerate attacks for the sake of them. Why should I? Why would anyone? You might have more credence in this discussion if you had the guts to say who you are.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:25:28 +0000

“Warren,”
Note the date: July. The paper reached agreements with employees and all unions and will continue publishing at Advance. NJ.com, the online site, is a different company under the corporate roof and there was no discussion of sale of it. I worked on the online side.

By: Trampoline

Trampoline — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:54:27 +0000

Ah, now Jeff defines his critics as “snipers” and will commence deleting their comments at will. I am shocked, just shocked.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:38:24 +0000

I’m now instituting the rule using sparingly before: If all you do is come to insult, I will kill the comment. Say anything you like in strong disagreement about issues, great. But drive-by snipings add nothing. If you did it at my home, I’d get you off my property. This is my home. And if you have a complaint, well, note Rosenbaum’s nonlinking policy first.