<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Rosenblum method</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/</link>
	<description>by Jeff Jarvis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: MikeS</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-386172</link>
		<dc:creator>MikeS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-386172</guid>
		<description>Can you at least answer the question? How is the experiment at The Star-Ledger innovative?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you at least answer the question? How is the experiment at The Star-Ledger innovative?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-386037</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-386037</guid>
		<description>Skepticism is just critical thinking. And critical thinking -- when it&#039;s honest and open -- leads to better outcomes. It helps you decide what ideas to pursue, what ideas to mold into different ideas, what ideas to throw out altogether. That&#039;s not being negative, that&#039;s part of an honest creative process.

In the example we&#039;re discussing, critical analysis shows us that the project is not profitable, not popular with readers/viewers, and draining the newsroom of resources that could be deployed to pursue other ideas. It&#039;s not being negative to say that at some point the pursuit of this strategy will be part of the destruction of the rest of the organization.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Skepticism is just critical thinking. And critical thinking &#8212; when it&#8217;s honest and open &#8212; leads to better outcomes. It helps you decide what ideas to pursue, what ideas to mold into different ideas, what ideas to throw out altogether. That&#8217;s not being negative, that&#8217;s part of an honest creative process.</p>
<p>In the example we&#8217;re discussing, critical analysis shows us that the project is not profitable, not popular with readers/viewers, and draining the newsroom of resources that could be deployed to pursue other ideas. It&#8217;s not being negative to say that at some point the pursuit of this strategy will be part of the destruction of the rest of the organization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-386023</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-386023</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s that skepticism, as you call it, that stops you from trying things. Google puts out betas and learns and makes them better. Newspaper people think they can and should be perfect. That&#039;s what holds them back. You can always - always - find someone in a newsroom who&#039;ll say, &quot;that won&#039;t work... that&#039;s not up to our standards...&quot; That kills innovation. This kind of incessant harping makes it difficult for the person trying to do anything new or different. It forces people out of the newsroom who might be able to bring innovation. It is destructive. You call it skepticism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s that skepticism, as you call it, that stops you from trying things. Google puts out betas and learns and makes them better. Newspaper people think they can and should be perfect. That&#8217;s what holds them back. You can always &#8211; always &#8211; find someone in a newsroom who&#8217;ll say, &#8220;that won&#8217;t work&#8230; that&#8217;s not up to our standards&#8230;&#8221; That kills innovation. This kind of incessant harping makes it difficult for the person trying to do anything new or different. It forces people out of the newsroom who might be able to bring innovation. It is destructive. You call it skepticism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-386009</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-386009</guid>
		<description>This &quot;naysaying and carping and negativity&quot; is what journalists call skepticism. It&#039;s one the hallmarks of good journalism -- the ability to analyze what some authority is claiming, test those claims against reality or history, and point out flaws in the argument. It seems like you prefer to dodge a real debate. First you questioned my motives for disagreeing, then you insulted me like a bully, now you claim that since I don&#039;t agree with your idea, I&#039;m dragging the industry down.

I don&#039;t think you&#039;ve explained how this experiment at The Star-Ledger is innovative. But beyond that is the obvious flaw in making innovation your goal: that it is entirely possible that something could be both innovative and not useful. It could be a new idea, but not one that has any value in pursuing. Can&#039;t you see that this might be one of those cases?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This &#8220;naysaying and carping and negativity&#8221; is what journalists call skepticism. It&#8217;s one the hallmarks of good journalism &#8212; the ability to analyze what some authority is claiming, test those claims against reality or history, and point out flaws in the argument. It seems like you prefer to dodge a real debate. First you questioned my motives for disagreeing, then you insulted me like a bully, now you claim that since I don&#8217;t agree with your idea, I&#8217;m dragging the industry down.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;ve explained how this experiment at The Star-Ledger is innovative. But beyond that is the obvious flaw in making innovation your goal: that it is entirely possible that something could be both innovative and not useful. It could be a new idea, but not one that has any value in pursuing. Can&#8217;t you see that this might be one of those cases?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385953</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385953</guid>
		<description>This kind of naysaying and carping and negativity is why newspapers are in such trouble and have not innovated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This kind of naysaying and carping and negativity is why newspapers are in such trouble and have not innovated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385952</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385952</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s innovative about it? It&#039;s been tried in several places, and the format is basically the same one used in broadcast journalism for the last 40 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s innovative about it? It&#8217;s been tried in several places, and the format is basically the same one used in broadcast journalism for the last 40 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385880</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385880</guid>
		<description>enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385868</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385868</guid>
		<description>Enough. I think it&#039;s innovative and good. You don&#039;t. What more is to be said that isn&#039;t an utter waste of time?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enough. I think it&#8217;s innovative and good. You don&#8217;t. What more is to be said that isn&#8217;t an utter waste of time?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385861</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385861</guid>
		<description>But what is your measure of success? If it&#039;s not viewership, and it&#039;s not revenue, and it&#039;s not the distribution of truly meaningful information, then what is success? Is it just whatever SEEMS successful to Jeff Jarvis?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But what is your measure of success? If it&#8217;s not viewership, and it&#8217;s not revenue, and it&#8217;s not the distribution of truly meaningful information, then what is success? Is it just whatever SEEMS successful to Jeff Jarvis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385859</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385859</guid>
		<description>I have a life and a job. 
I think the product is very successful as content. 
It is new and will grow and improve. 
Nothing I know of online got tons of ad revenue from the start. 
There are also complications such as who sells video ads. 
I am confident that the product will grow and be a success. 
Sorry. You seem to prefer to kill the baby. 
Disgruntlement is not always pretty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a life and a job.<br />
I think the product is very successful as content.<br />
It is new and will grow and improve.<br />
Nothing I know of online got tons of ad revenue from the start.<br />
There are also complications such as who sells video ads.<br />
I am confident that the product will grow and be a success.<br />
Sorry. You seem to prefer to kill the baby.<br />
Disgruntlement is not always pretty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385857</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385857</guid>
		<description>Who&#039;s gutless now, Jeff? Who doesn&#039;t have the balls to stand by his words?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who&#8217;s gutless now, Jeff? Who doesn&#8217;t have the balls to stand by his words?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385760</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385760</guid>
		<description>Spare me the insults, Jeff. I&#039;m just in a position to know these things are true and report them -- you know, like a journalist. I&#039;d be interested in your thoughts on the substance of these facts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spare me the insults, Jeff. I&#8217;m just in a position to know these things are true and report them &#8212; you know, like a journalist. I&#8217;d be interested in your thoughts on the substance of these facts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385743</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385743</guid>
		<description>gutless &quot;inside&quot;: could we perhaps be a disgruntled former employee? have the balls to stand your words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>gutless &#8220;inside&#8221;: could we perhaps be a disgruntled former employee? have the balls to stand your words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385731</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385731</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately for your argument, the experiment that you and Rosenblum brought to The Star-Ledger has been an abject failure in every way so far -- massive investment of money and resources, no sponsor on the horizon, almost zero audience. Also, the &quot;pencil pushers&quot; who thought they were part of a fun new future have grown to hate the exercise, and some have proven incapable of doing the work in a reasonable amount of time. And with the Ledger&#039;s massive scale-back in staffing, many of these videographers fled -- including the managers tasked with running the silly operation.

Well done!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately for your argument, the experiment that you and Rosenblum brought to The Star-Ledger has been an abject failure in every way so far &#8212; massive investment of money and resources, no sponsor on the horizon, almost zero audience. Also, the &#8220;pencil pushers&#8221; who thought they were part of a fun new future have grown to hate the exercise, and some have proven incapable of doing the work in a reasonable amount of time. And with the Ledger&#8217;s massive scale-back in staffing, many of these videographers fled &#8212; including the managers tasked with running the silly operation.</p>
<p>Well done!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/14/the-rosenblum-method/#comment-385486</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=3861#comment-385486</guid>
		<description>FYI - You can watch Michael Rosenblum being interviewed by Brian Lamb this Sunday (11/16) at 8pm &amp; 11pm ET on C-SPAN&#039;s Q+A program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI &#8211; You can watch Michael Rosenblum being interviewed by Brian Lamb this Sunday (11/16) at 8pm &amp; 11pm ET on C-SPAN&#8217;s Q+A program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

