Comments on: No thanks

By: buy cheap cosplay costumes

buy cheap cosplay costumes — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:53:49 +0000

Buy Anime Cosplay costumes, wigs and Cosplay accessories from most popular Japanese anime and Manga, like Naruto, Bleach, Final Fantasy, Chobits, Kingdom Hearts, and more at cheap prices. Shop now and get your dreaming costume for cosplay parties, Halloween, Christmas, holiday fanfare or just a simple fun!

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:27:29 +0000

For what it’s worth, this incident was just mentioned on the Howard Stern show today in response to Mediaite’s ranking of a number of radio hosts (including Don Imus) as being more powerful than Stern:

http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/category/?c=Radio+Hosts

By: Web Feet Integrated Marketing » Blog Archive » Abrams Research’s Mediaite Launches Today

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:26:48 +0000

[...] Abrams Research has drawn fire for lack of church-and-state separation, most recently by Jeff Jarvis, Buzzmachine [...]

By: Paid Content : Bonfire of Vanities: Mediaite Launches To Fill In Media-Covering-Media Void

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:55:15 +0000

[...] the oddly-named and controversial site founded by Dan Abrams, has launched. Or is supposed to launch sometime tonight (it worked for [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:27:47 +0000

I thought good editors were there to help a writers more effectively express their ideas. My tiff is that most editors today do not do that, they do not pay attention (or perhaps they just don’t care) about the writer’s intention or the readers wants. Many have gone to the same schools and can produce the same AP article. If that’s not what they’re supposed to do, please take the time to enlighten me with more than a single sentence…almost seems like you’re not actually here to discuss anything.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:23:58 +0000

Nothing I could do would make me “less bad” in your book, Lucas. That is well and fully and frequently long-since established.

By: Lucas Grindley

Lucas Grindley — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:35:17 +0000

Telling people you are unethical doesn’t make it any less bad, Jeff.

By: jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-06-20 — jardenberg unedited

jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-06-20 — jardenberg unedited — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:01:42 +0000

[...] No thanks [...]

By: Rob Levine

Rob Levine — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:12:59 +0000

“Payment is still being hammered out” = “The check is in the mail” 2.0

By: miguel

miguel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:26:17 +0000

Sam reveals that he doesn’t understand the job of an editor.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:20:38 +0000

I am and always have been quite transparent about that and you can decide on your own how much salt to sprinkle on what I write.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:19:28 +0000

No, I checked before but kept reading and finding more. The conflict is so thick you could cut it with vermouth.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:55:49 +0000

Wow what a response email, she just doesn’t get it.

Her comment about Jeff’s HuffPo work says it all:
“Because no offense, but I wouldn’t recommend paying you for your contributions to HuffPo over the past year – for example, this one was over 1700 words – I definitely would have sent it back to you with a deep edit. ”

With an edit??? This may have made sense in the old word when space was limited, but now words are free, we can type and publish as many as we want. This also shows a hubris that irks me. She’s basically saying she knows better than Jeff on how to express his ideas and that she knows better than I, the reader, what I do and don’t want to read. I find that offensive.

Listen up Rachel and all other editors. I, the reader, am not stupid. I can decide what I find interesting or not. If Jeff is writing something interesting, I”ll read all 1700 words. If he’s rambling madly, I’ll do the editing myself by clicking on a link to a different page. I would rather get the full story than have someone, who doesn’t know me or what I value, cut out pieces that I find valuable because they do not. You are not adding value, in fact you are reducing it. Good luck with that business model.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:48:35 +0000

never knew “rocky” was a lawyer.

By: Mark Coughlan

Mark Coughlan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:00:12 +0000

Seem like fairly rational guidelines to me. Does the Guardian not have something similar for their contributors?

Regards the ‘hammered out’ phrase, one assumes they are planning to pay all contributors and are not looking for free content, if so I don’t see an issue once they have it all ‘hammered out’ by the time it comes around to taking submissions. Thereafter I assume all contributors are deemed to be freelance can choose to submit or not as they wish

Isn’t #13 largely similar to what contributors to Comment is Free have with the Guardian? I’ve seen articles from CiF pop up in Irish newspapers, is there some kind of syndication deal then? If so, have the Guardian not negotiated with CiF contributors for a revenue share when it comes to selling their contributors non repugnant thoughts? (In much the same way that this entity you write about is outlining).

Once Abrams didn’t interfere with the editorial line and the contributors were free to criticise other Abrams entities then I don’t see an huge issue there either.

Lastly, you only checked their website after posting? C’mon…

I’m a big fan of yours and WWGD but with the utmost respect I think you’ve been either a) unfair or b) overly cynical.

By: miguel

miguel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:42:27 +0000

here’s Sklar’s email to Jeff:

http://charitini.com/post/126446346/bloggers-do-it-in-public

I think she makes some very strong points.

By: Andrew Graham

Andrew Graham — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:46:50 +0000

Jeff:

Just stopping by — if the terms and conditions bother you, that’s a fine issue to get all bloggy about. But I don’t see the logic in bashing the content of a site you haven’t even read yet.

In order to determine whether Mediaite is meant for thinly veiled flackery or acts of actual journalism, I’ll take the comparatively pragmatic approach of throwing it in my RSS after it launches and actually reading its content.

(By the way, I enjoyed the WWGD? book party in February. Thanks for that.)

By: miguel

miguel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:39:40 +0000

Isn’t Mr. Jarvis both a contributor and consultant to the Guardian? Can anyone “splain” the difference?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:51:19 +0000

Thank you Jeff — Dan Abrams is a cockroach.

By: Morning Briefing, 06/19/09

Morning Briefing, 06/19/09 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:42:47 +0000

[...] Jarvis says no thanks to Mediaite. Rachel Sklar calls his post class-less and [...]

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:34:46 +0000

He’s already launched a rebuttal via Twitter (which, unfortunately for him, inevitably makes even the most eloquent rejoinder look like a crude missive hammered out by a petulant teenager).

http://twitter.com/mediaite/status/2237504861

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:59:00 +0000

It’s almost hard for me to believe this is a real letter/offer & not a parody. I can’t see how anyone who already has a vehicle to communicate with interested readers would benefit from participating in this project.

By: Web Media Daily – Friday June 19, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself...

Web Media Daily – Friday June 19, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself... — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:24:52 +0000

[...] No thanks [...]

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:17:59 +0000

Methinks Abrams has forgotten the first rule of disclaimers; the more detail you go into, the easier it is to find a loophole.

Disclaimer: This is my opnion, nobody elses. You have a problem with my opnion deal with me.

By: Colored Opinions

Colored Opinions — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:24:59 +0000

Well said.