4 ms·

Pretty much all of the items (written as a sarcastic response to the article) were attempts at suggesting he's creating his own obsolescence by ditching Faceboo

Pretty much all of the items (written as a sarcastic response to the article) were attempts at suggesting he's creating his own obsolescence by ditching Facebook. In the very first paragraph of the story, he's chided by a Silicon Valley CEO for not being a part of the site. Clearly people want to have him as a friend on Facebook. But he's not having it. My problem is the gap he's creating for his magazine's journalism by doing this. It's the equivalent of covering the Washington Redskins when you have no real interest in football. It's like being a food columnist when all you eat is Taco Bell. It's like being a TV critic when you don't own a TV. It's like covering a city hall beat but deciding that you hate meetings. As an editor of Wired, he better get on Facebook, fast, because it's his job. That article isn't going to convince people to stop using it.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Professional TV critics get the shows sent to them before broadcast so their stories go live at the same time as the show airs, they could probably live somewhere remote without traditional cable or broadcast access and do fine. I'd imagine being an editor of Wired means you don't need to go trawling Facebook for the latest breaking tech stories either.
- shortformblog 16y ago
  Try playing devil's advocate with the football example because you completely missed my point, buddy. The idea isn't that he's using Facebook for the latest tech stories. It doesn't have anything to do with WHAT he reads on it. The idea is that he's intentionally making it harder to "get" the piece of culture that he's chosen to cover in his career. It has nothing to do with HOW he uses the service; it has everything to do with blocking oneself off a key piece of popular culture on the Web. It's one thing if it's an up-and-coming service. It's another when 90+ percent of your readership uses it and turns to you for information about it. I do not understand why my original point got downvoted because he's not doing his job as a journalist by not using one of the key pieces of technology people expect him to know about. And as readers, that should be of huge concern.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Professional TV critics get the shows sent to them before broadcast so their stories go live at the same time as the show airs, they could probably live somewhere remote without traditional cable or broadcast access and do fine. I'd imagine being an editor of Wired means you don't need to go trawling Facebook for the latest breaking tech stories either.

shortformblog 16y ago
Try playing devil's advocate with the football example because you completely missed my point, buddy. The idea isn't that he's using Facebook for the latest tech stories. It doesn't have anything to do with WHAT he reads on it. The idea is that he's intentionally making it harder to "get" the piece of culture that he's chosen to cover in his career. It has nothing to do with HOW he uses the service; it has everything to do with blocking oneself off a key piece of popular culture on the Web. It's one thing if it's an up-and-coming service. It's another when 90+ percent of your readership uses it and turns to you for information about it. I do not understand why my original point got downvoted because he's not doing his job as a journalist by not using one of the key pieces of technology people expect him to know about. And as readers, that should be of huge concern.