Comments on: The knot in my stomach is CNN

By: David Weinberger

David Weinberger — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:30:18 +0000

Oy, Elisa. I feel yuh pain. I think maybe Jay has the right idea. These short, highly consructed pieces are a corrupt form, even with the best intentioned and most professional people doing them. What issue can be explained in three minutes? And the need to grab and hold an audience has to be a tremendous burden to the producers.

By: Elisa Camahort

Elisa Camahort — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:58:49 +0000

I read this as I was waiting for a local news station to show up to interview me on the same subject. They were here for 40 minutes, and I spent the next 5 hours feeling exactly as you describe. They used two ~5 second quotes, the first of which was OK (although I made the same point more intelligently many times in the conversation) the second quote was literally picked up mid-sentence, and without the context of the first half of the sentence I think it made no sense at all.

Throughout the interview the reporter’s questions made clear to me that she really wanted to go in a certain direction with the story…a direction I just don’t agree with, so I’m sure she thought the whole thing was a waste of time from her POV. but yeah, that sick feeling in your stomach as you wait to see what they do with your words…bleh.

By: Jay Rosen

Jay Rosen — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:15:24 +0000

For the reasons you state here I have stopped doing taped commentary for TV news stories. I just tell them no. I made one exception the last few years–for Frontline’s News Wars–and regretted it. From a two-hour interview one sentence was used on the air.

You have them pegged, David. It’s going to be another hysteria story. It would take a super-human effort by the producer to avoid that, and such people are rare.

By: David F.

David F. — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:08:17 +0000

To those whom much is given…

I think the A List is not saying much about it or is “withholding judgment” because they don’t want to seem hypocritical — a la Bush — when the truth comes out. David, if someone not your friend were accused of this, would you be so circumspect? I think not. Don’t make me go through the archives and pull out snap judgments you’ve made on less evidence. You can’t comment because you know the people involved? Huh? That is precisely why you should comment. What do you make of the purpose behind meankids.org? If Locke made an anti-semitic or racist attack on a blogger instead of just being a sexist misogynist, would you be so reluctant to talk?

By: philo

philo — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:56:06 +0000

“…a willingness to hear long sentences…”

bravo, well put…yes, perhaps, but not in this life-realm, because we think–and believe–on this great Earth with our pineal glands

By: David Weinberger

David Weinberger — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:24:14 +0000

Liz, well put. I think everyone’s initial reaction (almost everyone’s) was shock, dismay, outrage. Now we should let the complexities emerge out of our initial straightforward reaction. The complexity stretches in every direction, including the emergent behavior of crowds/mobs and the multifaceted personalities of the people involved…leaving out for now the sick f*cks who posted death threats; I’m not ready to admit complexity there yet.

We need some room to talk and think without fearing that what we are saying will be reduced to fodder for denunciations. It will take some time to get past our initial simple shock, some kindness, a willingness to hear long sentences, and a lot of honesty.

So, thanks for the honesty Liz, and thanks to all who have posted in this thread so far.

By: Phi...

Phi... — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:43:33 +0000

wha…?

By: Liz Ditz

Liz Ditz — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:38:10 +0000

the media version of an “oooh, shiny” reaction to these sorts of things.–thank you Mark, that gives me a handy image to think with–better than, “If it bleeds, it leads”.

I’ve been reflecting on how I personally responded to Kathy Sierra’s post: with emotion. I admire Kathy, but I know Frank Paynter personally and have a high opinion of him. I don’t know Chris Locke or Allen Harrell, although I’ve followed their writings for several years and have left comments and/or exchanged emails.

And yet somehow, I believed the picture that Kathy painted without question.

Emotion precludes thinking. It took Ronni Bennet’s post at BlogHer to make me stop feeling and start thinking.

The issue of emotional reactivity, and how to manage one’s own emotions in volatile situations, is one we need to bring into the Stop Cyberbullying arena, especially in regards to teaching youth.

As far as covering all the issues in one interview: this is a complex, nuanced conversation, that we are just starting to have in an organized way.

By: Steve Matthews

Steve Matthews — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:06:07 +0000

Regardless of the CNN spin, you shouldn’t feel bad for presenting a complex issue with a well rounded view. The piece will be what it will be. Doesn’t make much in the end.

By: Mark Federman

Mark Federman — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:44:41 +0000

I think Kathy Sierra's case (and a bunch of others that have hit the press lately) are not about blogging or the 'net, so much as they are about society - as brutal, misogynistic, racist and violent as it is. The more voices that call collective attention to this reality, the better, in my view, even if it takes the sensationalizing of several Internet-based events to bring it to the fore. Unfortunately, CNN and the rest tend to have the media version of an "oooh, shiny" reaction to these sorts of things.