tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post114185591635327441..comments2024-03-06T05:30:41.694-05:00Comments on Pho's Akron Pages: Teapot: Meet the TempestScott Piephohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141996946234588442006-03-10T08:22:00.000-05:002006-03-10T08:22:00.000-05:00Guilty, Daniella (I suspect you've seen my comment...Guilty, Daniella (I suspect you've seen my comment at BFD). I have a tendency to do that - not so endearing, I know, but definitely a trait that led me to law school (or was developed in law school?).<BR/><BR/>You've heard me before, so you know that I do prefer some guide to none at all. I'm a bit hardwired that way.Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175591212176951287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141942468532483092006-03-09T17:14:00.000-05:002006-03-09T17:14:00.000-05:00Daniella - I agree that some things might be good ...Daniella - <BR/><BR/>I agree that some things might be good to share, but if the conversation is no longer being recorded, and it's a one on one or one on two or three, who makes that decision as to whether the info gets shared? That's the sticking point for me. Are we really saying that because I'm still in a room that hosted an interview and I'm now talking to the interviewee in a side conversation about something I want to emphasize and then the candidate re-states or adds to what they've said, that I should - on behalf of the possible readers of...my blog? of MTB (because I should add that additional material to the MTB website?) - consider whatever is said to be "required blogging"?<BR/><BR/>I KNOW this is most likely NOT what you are saying - I am saying that it is questions like these that then have to be answered if we are really moving toward holding each person who attends an MTB interview responsible for disseminating the information.<BR/><BR/>I have to tell you, if I thought that there would be a burden on me to blog about everything I deemed interesting or of possible interest to readers of my blog or MTB, honest? I'd be sure that I was scooting out as quickly as possible - I'm going to gather and review - no question. But I don't want the responsibility of readers believing that I should be disclosing to them all of my conversations. <BR/><BR/>I do not see that MTB is about that.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be attending. I'm not sure.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: I want to decide, as far as an after the interview is over side conversation, as to whether I'm going to blog about it or not. I am not comfortable with being pressured by expectations of fascinated folks (rightly fascinated btw) to brain dump all the extemporanious chatter.<BR/><BR/>Could you say more about this, because I'm genuinely wanting to know how others feel about that - about opening oneself up to an obligation, incurred simply by being at an MTB interview - before during and after - that whatever conversation that attendee has, others want that attendee to spill.<BR/><BR/>I do think this is worth talking about - I'm just admitting that I find it to be a very, very slippery and invasive slope that does not, for me, coincide with the idea of MTB. But I know, I may be wrong.Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175591212176951287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141916380378413112006-03-09T09:59:00.000-05:002006-03-09T09:59:00.000-05:00To use a newspaper metaphor, some people are tablo...To use a newspaper metaphor, some people are tabloid and others broadsheet (though plenty of New Yorkers swear by both the NY Post and the NYTimes, though they obviously get very different experiences from each). Among drinkers, some people like working class dive bars once frequented by stevedores and sailors, others enjoy New Yorkey style clubs where half the fun is people-watching. Everyone to his or her own style (and again, lots of people, me included, enjoy both, at different times, in different moods). The market finds a way to provide what people want, and people are of course free to patronize or not patronize places that suit their style or don't.John Ettorrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229971392235689875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141875181055247132006-03-08T22:33:00.000-05:002006-03-08T22:33:00.000-05:00Wow, John. Thanks very, very much. Your comment ...Wow, John. Thanks very, very much. Your comment means a lot to me.Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175591212176951287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141873492512548402006-03-08T22:04:00.000-05:002006-03-08T22:04:00.000-05:00You're indeed right about this being a lot of soun...You're indeed right about this being a lot of sound and fury about very little. But I also understand the larger context in which this all got utterly misinterpreted: because some bloggers can instantly jump to conspiracy theories about how traditional media work, mostly out of simple ignorance of some of the mechanics, those critics are then likely to be judged by some with their own fine tooth combs when they set up alternate systems. The MTB folks had perfectly defensible reasons for doing what they did. Critics just have to get used to the fact that they're going to be watched closely for hypocrisy. It comes with the territory. But the fact that Jill was involved told me a lot. Her reputation speaks for itself, INCLUDING an important detail: that she took the time to go to PD editorial meetings to watch and learn how one tiny part of that operation works. She did some reporting, in other words, which always beats jumping to conclusions. We could all (myself included) do with more of the former and less of the latter.John Ettorrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229971392235689875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141871199890538152006-03-08T21:26:00.000-05:002006-03-08T21:26:00.000-05:00Pitch perfect as always.What's really funny - no, ...Pitch perfect as always.<BR/><BR/>What's really funny - no, I mean, really, as in, I was laughing last night?<BR/><BR/>Chris's first post - and you can check me on this - was smack dab in the middle of my Tuesday evening shuffle, the night my kids have Hebrew school from 4-6pm, and, what I usually do is some work from 4:15 or so until 5 and then do dinner intermittently with other work so that I can get the table set etc. before I get the kiddies and get home at about 6:15 and finish up the grub. Then, it's on to homework, bedtime and so on and I'm not back in my chair until 9pm or later.<BR/><BR/>Well - Chris's post went up, according to his blog time-stamp, at 5:36pm and I distinctly remember having my hands in dishes and suds, laughing to myself, saying, What a way to kick a mommy blogger when she's down!<BR/><BR/>Dead serious. I really thought I was being ambushed, because there's just no way on earth on a Tues. or Thurs. that, if someone writes something that requires my attention, I'm going to be able to give it.<BR/><BR/>That is why I wasn't the first responder. And I did want to sleep on it anyway and see what others felt.<BR/><BR/>Still - Chris, if you're reading this, that thought - about you picking on a mommy blogger when she can least defend herself? I don't really expect that you knew that - I just found it to be a funny coincidence.<BR/><BR/>Next time though...;)Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175591212176951287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1141871149732218572006-03-08T21:25:00.000-05:002006-03-08T21:25:00.000-05:00It was silly, there's no doubt about that.It was silly, there's no doubt about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com