Arriving at “the truth”

I want you all to notice what happened last night while I was sleeping: my readers fact checked my ass.

See, I got excited about Technorati based on the searches I was doing and the results that I was looking for. But then you all tried your own searches and brought other evidence to bear.

It’s why I don’t like blogs that don’t have open comments as much. The addition of you brings us a lot closer to the truth.

Thank you.

Imagine the old days of “professional” press. You would have read a review in, say, the New York Times, and if the review didn’t match what you were seeing there was really nothing you could do about it. But in the new blog world you can see what results normal people are getting. You can also hear from the CEO of the company (and all the workers, if they are so obliged).

That’s why online media matters. It’s not because of me. Any idiot can write a review based on 30 minutes of searches. But online is the only place where you can say “hey, wait a minute!”

58 thoughts on “Arriving at “the truth”

  1. By their very nature, blogs encourage the debate. Chris, John C. Welch, LayZ et al – by simply posting your comments on here you’re discrediting yourselves – a blog post generates the debate, it encourages people to take the information they’ve got and actually THINK about it. Question it, argue it, scream blue-bloody-murder at it, it’s made you think about it and provided the opportunity to comment on it. You’ve posted a response and indulged your pedantry by putting Scoble right there at the end of your keyboard, ready to respond to your argument. Take a step back and have a better look.

    It’s a bloody conversation! Regardless of your newspaper corrections pages, your on-air discussions or your ’strongly worded letter to the editor’, blogs are letting you voice your opinion in an unfettered tirade. You think that Robert’s got somethign wrong so your saying so.

    Would any traditional media you know print/broadcast for 27 responses to the same story? Doubtful!

  2. By their very nature, blogs encourage the debate. Chris, John C. Welch, LayZ et al – by simply posting your comments on here you’re discrediting yourselves – a blog post generates the debate, it encourages people to take the information they’ve got and actually THINK about it. Question it, argue it, scream blue-bloody-murder at it, it’s made you think about it and provided the opportunity to comment on it. You’ve posted a response and indulged your pedantry by putting Scoble right there at the end of your keyboard, ready to respond to your argument. Take a step back and have a better look.

    It’s a bloody conversation! Regardless of your newspaper corrections pages, your on-air discussions or your ’strongly worded letter to the editor’, blogs are letting you voice your opinion in an unfettered tirade. You think that Robert’s got somethign wrong so your saying so.

    Would any traditional media you know print/broadcast for 27 responses to the same story? Doubtful!

  3. Here you can get your own blog. And I don’t control the comments here. I might set the top line agenda, but you’re plenty welcome to change that in the comments.

    But, back to the topic. If you think I’m an idiot you can go over to Blogger, TypePad, WordPress, Spaces, and open yourself a blog and start showing the world how to do a blog properly.

    Now, go to KGO and try to get your own radio talk show.

  4. Here you can get your own blog. And I don’t control the comments here. I might set the top line agenda, but you’re plenty welcome to change that in the comments.

    But, back to the topic. If you think I’m an idiot you can go over to Blogger, TypePad, WordPress, Spaces, and open yourself a blog and start showing the world how to do a blog properly.

    Now, go to KGO and try to get your own radio talk show.

  5. @24. Again you miss the point. You basically implied that blogs are the only place in “media” where one can have a two way conversation. Clearly that is not accurate. Blogs just basically an on line version of talk radio. You as a blogger, choose the topic to be discussed. In a true “conversation” either party can choose the topic. And, just like in talk radio, a blogger can cut off the conversation any time he wants, by either deleting comments (which I know you don’t do, but I’m talking about blogging in general), or refusing to continue to respond to comments. So, explain to me where the vast difference s between blogging and other media forms is? Other than latency in print media, I really don’t see the huge differences. In blogging the BLOGGER controls the topic. How is that a “conversation”? And how is that different than any other medium?

    “A guy like you would never even be allowed to be on the air.”

    Relevance to the “conversation”, please? Nice attempt at an insult, but I don’t see how that was related to my point.

  6. @24. Again you miss the point. You basically implied that blogs are the only place in “media” where one can have a two way conversation. Clearly that is not accurate. Blogs just basically an on line version of talk radio. You as a blogger, choose the topic to be discussed. In a true “conversation” either party can choose the topic. And, just like in talk radio, a blogger can cut off the conversation any time he wants, by either deleting comments (which I know you don’t do, but I’m talking about blogging in general), or refusing to continue to respond to comments. So, explain to me where the vast difference s between blogging and other media forms is? Other than latency in print media, I really don’t see the huge differences. In blogging the BLOGGER controls the topic. How is that a “conversation”? And how is that different than any other medium?

    “A guy like you would never even be allowed to be on the air.”

    Relevance to the “conversation”, please? Nice attempt at an insult, but I don’t see how that was related to my point.

Comments are closed.