4 ms·

Hate to sound negative (and prob will get downvoted), but why is this news at all?

by asanwal 16y ago

uptown 16y ago
I know your question was rhetorical, but I'll give an answer anyway. Because unfortunately (in my opinion) news has become as much about whos delivering the information as what's being said. And I use the word "said" because many times whats written or spoken isn't even what I'd call reporting. Take Wikileaks for example ... much of the main stream media reporting on Wikileaks has placed as much prominence (or more) on Julian Assange as they have on the trove of information thats been exposed. Cable-"news" has built brands around their personalities that pass off editorializing as reporting. This has resulted in viewer loyalty to the point where many of their viewers threaten to go elsewhere if their favorite newsreader isn't retained. This "story" has all the ingredients to fit into that model ... two prominent internet personalities (Arrington & Scoble) without enough followers, fans and haters to ensure that there'll be people on either side to fuel the fire using their platforms to promote their opinions about stuff. Is it news? I guess about as much as what you see presented as news elsewhere.
- asanwal 16y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. And I tend to agree. In the case of Wikileaks, the guy did something substantive at least (whether you agree or disagree with it) so I can understand the fascination with the man behind the story as his motivations, methods, etc are potentially interesting. In this case, this whole thing appears void of any real "substance" which I guess is what led to the question.
acconrad 16y ago
In truth it shouldn't be news, because it is simply one man's (one user's) opinion. The reality is that Scoble is a tour de force of the tech world: the man has a power with his words to change the course of how startups can gain (or lose) fame/funding/etc. In the case of Quora, they have the accolades to withstand the storm a bit better than most startups. I think the message here is that even a prominent tech figure can be quelled if he breaks the rules. I think an underlying message here is that the power of the people still rules supreme - what this community can take away from this exchange in Scoble v Quora is that the power of the people still win, so if you can build a compelling piece of software that appeases your customers, even if the critics don't like your product, you can basically give them the finger and tell them "xx customers couldn't disagree more!" Remember that he may be a juggernaut, but the bigger they are the harder they fall, and to not let one man's negative comments on what you work on deter you from your course.

Hate to sound negative (and prob will get downvoted), but why is this news at all?

by asanwal 16y ago

Hate to sound negative (and prob will get downvoted), but why is this news at all?

I know your question was rhetorical, but I'll give an answer anyway. Because unfortunately (in my opinion) news has become as much about whos delivering the information as what's being said. And I use the word "said" because many times whats written or spoken isn't even what I'd call reporting. Take Wikileaks for example ... much of the main stream media reporting on Wikileaks has placed as much prominence (or more) on Julian Assange as they have on the trove of information thats been exposed. Cable-"news" has built brands around their personalities that pass off editorializing as reporting. This has resulted in viewer loyalty to the point where many of their viewers threaten to go elsewhere if their favorite newsreader isn't retained. This "story" has all the ingredients to fit into that model ... two prominent internet personalities (Arrington & Scoble) without enough followers, fans and haters to ensure that there'll be people on either side to fuel the fire using their platforms to promote their opinions about stuff. Is it news? I guess about as much as what you see presented as news elsewhere.

asanwal 16y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. And I tend to agree. In the case of Wikileaks, the guy did something substantive at least (whether you agree or disagree with it) so I can understand the fascination with the man behind the story as his motivations, methods, etc are potentially interesting. In this case, this whole thing appears void of any real "substance" which I guess is what led to the question.

acconrad 16y ago

In truth it shouldn't be news, because it is simply one man's (one user's) opinion. The reality is that Scoble is a tour de force of the tech world: the man has a power with his words to change the course of how startups can gain (or lose) fame/funding/etc. In the case of Quora, they have the accolades to withstand the storm a bit better than most startups. I think the message here is that even a prominent tech figure can be quelled if he breaks the rules. I think an underlying message here is that the power of the people still rules supreme - what this community can take away from this exchange in Scoble v Quora is that the power of the people still win, so if you can build a compelling piece of software that appeases your customers, even if the critics don't like your product, you can basically give them the finger and tell them "xx customers couldn't disagree more!" Remember that he may be a juggernaut, but the bigger they are the harder they fall, and to not let one man's negative comments on what you work on deter you from your course.