Comments on: There, there, Ron

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.

By: Rick Hancock

Rick Hancock — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:33:25 +0000

In response to Chris (No last name given), if I’m showing my ignorance then EVERY journalist should consider being as dumb as you say I am. Since leaving traditional journalism three years ago and becoming an entrepreneurial multimedia journalist I make more now than I ever had working for the “Man,” I have way more independence to work on the stories I want to work on and because I’ve learned how to use just a few basic multimedia tools like blogging and audio-video editing I’m pretty much employable for the foreseeable future. So, if a Black man living in New England can make a decent financial living doing this; of course I’m going to be optimistic about the future of journalism. Now, back to what Chris (No last name given) said about my first comment. My comment was in response to several earlier posts that cited great journalism produced by mega newspapers like the NYT. The NYT, WashPo and few other papers will probably survive and maybe even thrive financially in the coming years. But let’s be honest here, many daily newspapers just plain suck. Just because you work for a newspaper doesn’t automatically mean you’re producing great reporting. If you want to say that all online journalism isn’t yet up to par to some quality newspaper operations, fine. But it’s also true that many newspaper reporters also suck at what they do.
Chris, (no last name given), it sounds like you are an intelligent person who is deeply concerned about how your government is being run by politicians and also how they are being covered by journalists. Instead of complaining and calling me ignorant, what are you prepared to do? It’s not clear if you are a journalist are someone who cares about journalism. Either way, it doesn’t matter. What’s preventing you from reporting on the activities of state government? You don’t need a license to be a journalist, in fact you don’t need a newspaper to be a journalist. All you need is a desire to speak truth to power, an ability to ask clear and concise questions and most of all be transparent and ethical in your reporting. We all agree there is a market for great reporting, my broader point is that we don’t have to wait for the corporate media masters to get their acts together to ensure our continued existence. The web has allowed us to better fend for ourselves. Whether you want to take part in this revolution is totally up to you.