Alienating the Longtail: How to Win a Popularity Contest
The other day, I wrote a “memo” to Team New Orleans, the group of “citizen journalists” that Chartreuse, Know More Media and Blogmedia among others paid to send to do some “investigative reporting” down in New Orleans. The topic was inhumane treatment a whole year after Katrina devastated the gulf coast.
In that entry I took an intentionally high moral ground pleading with Team New Orleans to be objective. My sniffer smells a skunk and by that I mean that my gut tells me this entire excursion has been a publicity stunt and a political statement – two things that should not be in journalism.
GulfSails calls it CarpetBlogging and I tend to agree. The problem with this exercise is that there is no objectivity. They are going on this mission based on an email to Chartreuses wife citing a number of horrible things still happening down south. What fails to be addressed is the “flip side of the story”.
Anyone feeling slighted can make a mountain out of a molehill but very rarely do activists think about the cause of the outrage. I don’t know the answer to this question, but I venture to guess that the findings of this trip will reflect a number of popular buzz topics that are sure to get the uninformed masses in a tizzy.
So in this entry, I don’t take nearly the moral high road. Instead, I become more direct and more hostile. Loren Feldman needs to grow up.
It’s pathetic how short sighted you are. You think you are the only ones who care about New Orleans? We will bring more attention to this in a week than you have in a year. That’s the truth of the matter, and that’s why your angry.
Here is an example of elitism scorning the longtail. For those who don’t understand the terminology, the longtail is the mass of people whose traffic and influence barely raise an eyebrow. If charted, it would be a long, flat “tail like” chart where more popular blogs rise to the top in terms of readers and traffic and smaller blogs diminish in size. More info here.
In this quote, Loren, one of the “citizen journalists” hailing from 1938Media is speaking to a local blogger, already on the ground in New Orleans and who has been covering the city post-Katrina.
There are two problems with this:
Does not win the hearts and minds of locals. If TNO is going to do real journalism and get real fact and talk to real people, respect is required. Respect of the local citizens, and respect of the local bloggers. Alienating the folks on the ground is no way to get anything done.
Does not win the hearts and the minds of bloggers. Nobody likes stunts. I’d recommend to the other organizations involved with this stunt to back out of your support. BlogMedia has been passing a lot of money around lately and more power to them. But not everything is a worthy cause. Know More Media I have the highest level of respect for. They are a worthy competitor with b5media, but they are truly awesome bloggers with a great network. For the sake of your reputation, Easton, pull your support. You’re getting battered out there.
The Team New Orleans project is a good idea that is six months too late. Trying to fire people up about ghosts long past addressed is doing nothing but making the major players look really, really bad. I write this entry not to be nasty but to bring a moment of clarity to this season of insanity. Please don’t ignore me on this.
Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.
Written by Aaron Brazell on August 17, 2006
Popularity: 2% [?]
Aaron Brazell
Steven Fisher
Ray Capece
Carlos Granier-Phelps
Andrew Feinberg
Mike Dougherty
Chris Bachmann
Leslie Poston
Jerald Sheets
Scott Goldblatt
Mykel Nahorniak
Peter Corbett
Jonathan Dingman
Geoff Livingston
Jeremy Toeman
Rachel James
Chris Parandian
Warren Sukernek
Joseph Hauckes
Shana Glickfield
Vinnie Garcia
David Nick
Duncan Riley
Carol Ott
Darren McLaughlin
Mike Oliver
Rico Masterson
Lou P. Nuts
Hi Char-
If this was indeed your motive then the following should have happened:
1) You should not have blogged about throwing in your own $1000 to have someone go down. There’s nothing that screams “publicity” like publically doing what you did.
2) You should have reigned in Stormin’ Loren early on before he started telling off locals.
Keep it real, mate. You could have prevented a tailspin long ago but in classic Chartreuse mode, you chose to not find middle ground when it was apparent middle ground was needed. See the women of wordcamp argument on your blog as a second example. Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
It’s as always your choice.
Hi Char-
If this was indeed your motive then the following should have happened:
1) You should not have blogged about throwing in your own $1000 to have someone go down. There’s nothing that screams “publicity” like publically doing what you did.
2) You should have reigned in Stormin’ Loren early on before he started telling off locals.
Keep it real, mate. You could have prevented a tailspin long ago but in classic Chartreuse mode, you chose to not find middle ground when it was apparent middle ground was needed. See the women of wordcamp argument on your blog as a second example. Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
It’s as always your choice.
Hi Char-
If this was indeed your motive then the following should have happened:
1) You should not have blogged about throwing in your own $1000 to have someone go down. There’s nothing that screams “publicity” like publically doing what you did.
2) You should have reigned in Stormin’ Loren early on before he started telling off locals.
Keep it real, mate. You could have prevented a tailspin long ago but in classic Chartreuse mode, you chose to not find middle ground when it was apparent middle ground was needed. See the women of wordcamp argument on your blog as a second example. Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
It’s as always your choice.
Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
Aaron, very wise advice. I do think that being able to put aside being “right” comes with age and being knocked around by life a few times — two things perhaps the New Orleans group needs.
Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
Aaron, very wise advice. I do think that being able to put aside being “right” comes with age and being knocked around by life a few times — two things perhaps the New Orleans group needs.
Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
Aaron, very wise advice. I do think that being able to put aside being “right” comes with age and being knocked around by life a few times — two things perhaps the New Orleans group needs.
Instead of holding yourself up as “right”, whatever that means, you could try to work with the people who are dissenting.
Aaron, very wise advice. I do think that being able to put aside being “right” comes with age and being knocked around by life a few times — two things perhaps the New Orleans group needs.
I’m always willing to have a civil debate.
I don’t see the double talk.
I sent them there for one reason. To verify if what was in the email I recieved was true or not.
I don’t think that’s bullshit journalism. Or maybe it is.
Was there a preconceived agenda. Sure.
But that’s modern journalism.
That’s FoxNews and The Huffington Post.
Are you really upset that I use spin?
Which makes you as credible as HuffPost or FoxNews… Come on. Higher standard here?
Aaron,
One at a time.
If you look in the comments of the WOW posts you’ll see that I took down the picture of the person complaining immediately.
What I didn’t sucumb to was the chorus of folks who wanted me to tag pictures their way.
I don’t think bowing down to a few loud people is finding a middle ground.
It’s the same with this New Orleans trip. A few loud bloggers had a problem with it.
I received many emails from some very high places who told me to just ignore them. Which is what I did.
One of the things I learned about fights on the internet. It is very easy to be big and loud. People fall into a trap when they start ignoring themselves and listening to the noise instead of looking at the facts.
I was very open about the New Orleans trip and The WOW post. The facts were laid out very clear.
The only thing that changed was that 6 bloggers (that’s right 6) decided that the trip wasn’t a good idea.
I was supposed to change what I was doing because of 6 people?
And there problem wasn’t with me but with the way The Blog Herald presented it.
But I refuse to critisize the Herald or anyone else involved in my project. They could present things any way they want.
The facts and what I had to say has been on my blog for all to see.
Trying to control other media (and we are all media these days) isn’t what I do.
By having them involved, the price I pay is dealing with the fallout of what they say.
So be it.
They were brave enough to stand by me so the least I could do is stand by them, weather it’s Loren, Tne Blog Herald, or anyone else involved. I may not agree but I won’t critisize publicly.
But the sad part to me was the few people, and it was only a few, who at first supported the project but then changed their minds and started accusing me of things like doing it for publicity, etc. (And I’m not talking about you bcause I don’t remember hearing from you when I annouced it.)
The funny part is I was the only one who didn’t change. I said what I was going to do from the giddyup and that’s that.
The same with the WOW post. I say what I’m going to do and that’s that.
Middle ground is very important in some cases. But it is also important sometimes to stand your ground. Or you’ll be forced to follow the whims of everyone.
Aaron,
One at a time.
If you look in the comments of the WOW posts you’ll see that I took down the picture of the person complaining immediately.
What I didn’t sucumb to was the chorus of folks who wanted me to tag pictures their way.
I don’t think bowing down to a few loud people is finding a middle ground.
It’s the same with this New Orleans trip. A few loud bloggers had a problem with it.
I received many emails from some very high places who told me to just ignore them. Which is what I did.
One of the things I learned about fights on the internet. It is very easy to be big and loud. People fall into a trap when they start ignoring themselves and listening to the noise instead of looking at the facts.
I was very open about the New Orleans trip and The WOW post. The facts were laid out very clear.
The only thing that changed was that 6 bloggers (that’s right 6) decided that the trip wasn’t a good idea.
I was supposed to change what I was doing because of 6 people?
And there problem wasn’t with me but with the way The Blog Herald presented it.
But I refuse to critisize the Herald or anyone else involved in my project. They could present things any way they want.
The facts and what I had to say has been on my blog for all to see.
Trying to control other media (and we are all media these days) isn’t what I do.
By having them involved, the price I pay is dealing with the fallout of what they say.
So be it.
They were brave enough to stand by me so the least I could do is stand by them, weather it’s Loren, Tne Blog Herald, or anyone else involved. I may not agree but I won’t critisize publicly.
But the sad part to me was the few people, and it was only a few, who at first supported the project but then changed their minds and started accusing me of things like doing it for publicity, etc. (And I’m not talking about you bcause I don’t remember hearing from you when I annouced it.)
The funny part is I was the only one who didn’t change. I said what I was going to do from the giddyup and that’s that.
The same with the WOW post. I say what I’m going to do and that’s that.
Middle ground is very important in some cases. But it is also important sometimes to stand your ground. Or you’ll be forced to follow the whims of everyone.
Aaron,
One at a time.
If you look in the comments of the WOW posts you’ll see that I took down the picture of the person complaining immediately.
What I didn’t sucumb to was the chorus of folks who wanted me to tag pictures their way.
I don’t think bowing down to a few loud people is finding a middle ground.
It’s the same with this New Orleans trip. A few loud bloggers had a problem with it.
I received many emails from some very high places who told me to just ignore them. Which is what I did.
One of the things I learned about fights on the internet. It is very easy to be big and loud. People fall into a trap when they start ignoring themselves and listening to the noise instead of looking at the facts.
I was very open about the New Orleans trip and The WOW post. The facts were laid out very clear.
The only thing that changed was that 6 bloggers (that’s right 6) decided that the trip wasn’t a good idea.
I was supposed to change what I was doing because of 6 people?
And there problem wasn’t with me but with the way The Blog Herald presented it.
But I refuse to critisize the Herald or anyone else involved in my project. They could present things any way they want.
The facts and what I had to say has been on my blog for all to see.
Trying to control other media (and we are all media these days) isn’t what I do.
By having them involved, the price I pay is dealing with the fallout of what they say.
So be it.
They were brave enough to stand by me so the least I could do is stand by them, weather it’s Loren, Tne Blog Herald, or anyone else involved. I may not agree but I won’t critisize publicly.
But the sad part to me was the few people, and it was only a few, who at first supported the project but then changed their minds and started accusing me of things like doing it for publicity, etc. (And I’m not talking about you bcause I don’t remember hearing from you when I annouced it.)
The funny part is I was the only one who didn’t change. I said what I was going to do from the giddyup and that’s that.
The same with the WOW post. I say what I’m going to do and that’s that.
Middle ground is very important in some cases. But it is also important sometimes to stand your ground. Or you’ll be forced to follow the whims of everyone.
Aaron,
One at a time.
If you look in the comments of the WOW posts you’ll see that I took down the picture of the person complaining immediately.
What I didn’t sucumb to was the chorus of folks who wanted me to tag pictures their way.
I don’t think bowing down to a few loud people is finding a middle ground.
It’s the same with this New Orleans trip. A few loud bloggers had a problem with it.
I received many emails from some very high places who told me to just ignore them. Which is what I did.
One of the things I learned about fights on the internet. It is very easy to be big and loud. People fall into a trap when they start ignoring themselves and listening to the noise instead of looking at the facts.
I was very open about the New Orleans trip and The WOW post. The facts were laid out very clear.
The only thing that changed was that 6 bloggers (that’s right 6) decided that the trip wasn’t a good idea.
I was supposed to change what I was doing because of 6 people?
And there problem wasn’t with me but with the way The Blog Herald presented it.
But I refuse to critisize the Herald or anyone else involved in my project. They could present things any way they want.
The facts and what I had to say has been on my blog for all to see.
Trying to control other media (and we are all media these days) isn’t what I do.
By having them involved, the price I pay is dealing with the fallout of what they say.
So be it.
They were brave enough to stand by me so the least I could do is stand by them, weather it’s Loren, Tne Blog Herald, or anyone else involved. I may not agree but I won’t critisize publicly.
But the sad part to me was the few people, and it was only a few, who at first supported the project but then changed their minds and started accusing me of things like doing it for publicity, etc. (And I’m not talking about you bcause I don’t remember hearing from you when I annouced it.)
The funny part is I was the only one who didn’t change. I said what I was going to do from the giddyup and that’s that.
The same with the WOW post. I say what I’m going to do and that’s that.
Middle ground is very important in some cases. But it is also important sometimes to stand your ground. Or you’ll be forced to follow the whims of everyone.
Who’s more credible? Your boss or you roommate when it comes to choosing a movie you would like.
I believe that Journalism, as you are looking at it, is going the way of the buggywhip.
People want credible sources, but that has a lot to do with their point of view and the point of view of the person giving them the info.
In a million channel universe you want to get the views of those that think about things as you.
Tht doesn’t make what they say less valid. Just more palitable for your taste.
That is one of the reasons Om was wrong at WordCamp. Old journalism is only going to get less and less important.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, I do. But what you are doing is not journalism. It is being a columnist. That too is fine as long as that’s the face you put on this.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how the city is surviving with media coverage a year later is journalism.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how bad FEMA and the federal government fucked the effort up and to seize on political opportunism and not get the flip side of the story, is opinion writing.
We agree about Om. We disagree about this.
Blogging is not necessarily journalism because you want it to be called journalism. Blogging can be journalism if a journalistic approach that assumes objectivity is taken.
What the guys are doing with your blessing is not journalism.
Can I call it ‘New Journalism’? :)
Great coversation, we agree to disagree.
Speaking of bad journalist, check this out. It deserves some publicity.
http://www.copyblogger.com/journalistic-superiority-at-work/
I’ll agree on “Fuzzy journalism”. :)
Hey Char–
Thanks for indulging this chat. First my issue was never with you, but I do question the double talk you’re making here.
Secondly, I don’t think the idea is a bad idea. Never did. In fact, in my original post I say, “Okay so first of all I’ll commend for Char and all the folks contributing funds to this adventure.”
There were at least six vocal bloggers who argued against the idea for whatever reason. They made a point that you didn’t want to accept.
Now you say in your first comment here:
and follow it in your second comment with:
So (and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but to be honest I didn’t like this stunt from the get go, but I did keep my mouth shut), why are you at all getting involved at this point? Why did you blog about throwing money at it? If this is journalism, and I feel thats either what it’s intended to be or it’s something that is at least being felt out here, then why do you send these guys with an agenda to prove?
That’s what we call bullshit journalism and that is what I’m calling you folks on. I don’t care about all the other stuff – money, fame. Not so much. Who cares? Why the bullshit journalism though? You have an agenda and that makes this trip INVALID.
Just callin’ ‘em as I see ‘em.
Hey Char–
Thanks for indulging this chat. First my issue was never with you, but I do question the double talk you’re making here.
Secondly, I don’t think the idea is a bad idea. Never did. In fact, in my original post I say, “Okay so first of all I’ll commend for Char and all the folks contributing funds to this adventure.”
There were at least six vocal bloggers who argued against the idea for whatever reason. They made a point that you didn’t want to accept.
Now you say in your first comment here:
and follow it in your second comment with:
So (and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but to be honest I didn’t like this stunt from the get go, but I did keep my mouth shut), why are you at all getting involved at this point? Why did you blog about throwing money at it? If this is journalism, and I feel thats either what it’s intended to be or it’s something that is at least being felt out here, then why do you send these guys with an agenda to prove?
That’s what we call bullshit journalism and that is what I’m calling you folks on. I don’t care about all the other stuff – money, fame. Not so much. Who cares? Why the bullshit journalism though? You have an agenda and that makes this trip INVALID.
Just callin’ ‘em as I see ‘em.
Hey Char–
Thanks for indulging this chat. First my issue was never with you, but I do question the double talk you’re making here.
Secondly, I don’t think the idea is a bad idea. Never did. In fact, in my original post I say, “Okay so first of all I’ll commend for Char and all the folks contributing funds to this adventure.”
There were at least six vocal bloggers who argued against the idea for whatever reason. They made a point that you didn’t want to accept.
Now you say in your first comment here:
and follow it in your second comment with:
So (and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but to be honest I didn’t like this stunt from the get go, but I did keep my mouth shut), why are you at all getting involved at this point? Why did you blog about throwing money at it? If this is journalism, and I feel thats either what it’s intended to be or it’s something that is at least being felt out here, then why do you send these guys with an agenda to prove?
That’s what we call bullshit journalism and that is what I’m calling you folks on. I don’t care about all the other stuff – money, fame. Not so much. Who cares? Why the bullshit journalism though? You have an agenda and that makes this trip INVALID.
Just callin’ ‘em as I see ‘em.
Hey Char–
Thanks for indulging this chat. First my issue was never with you, but I do question the double talk you’re making here.
Secondly, I don’t think the idea is a bad idea. Never did. In fact, in my original post I say, “Okay so first of all I’ll commend for Char and all the folks contributing funds to this adventure.”
There were at least six vocal bloggers who argued against the idea for whatever reason. They made a point that you didn’t want to accept.
Now you say in your first comment here:
and follow it in your second comment with:
So (and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but to be honest I didn’t like this stunt from the get go, but I did keep my mouth shut), why are you at all getting involved at this point? Why did you blog about throwing money at it? If this is journalism, and I feel thats either what it’s intended to be or it’s something that is at least being felt out here, then why do you send these guys with an agenda to prove?
That’s what we call bullshit journalism and that is what I’m calling you folks on. I don’t care about all the other stuff – money, fame. Not so much. Who cares? Why the bullshit journalism though? You have an agenda and that makes this trip INVALID.
Just callin’ ‘em as I see ‘em.
I’m always willing to have a civil debate.
I don’t see the double talk.
I sent them there for one reason. To verify if what was in the email I recieved was true or not.
I don’t think that’s bullshit journalism. Or maybe it is.
Was there a preconceived agenda. Sure.
But that’s modern journalism.
That’s FoxNews and The Huffington Post.
Are you really upset that I use spin?
I’m always willing to have a civil debate.
I don’t see the double talk.
I sent them there for one reason. To verify if what was in the email I recieved was true or not.
I don’t think that’s bullshit journalism. Or maybe it is.
Was there a preconceived agenda. Sure.
But that’s modern journalism.
That’s FoxNews and The Huffington Post.
Are you really upset that I use spin?
I’m always willing to have a civil debate.
I don’t see the double talk.
I sent them there for one reason. To verify if what was in the email I recieved was true or not.
I don’t think that’s bullshit journalism. Or maybe it is.
Was there a preconceived agenda. Sure.
But that’s modern journalism.
That’s FoxNews and The Huffington Post.
Are you really upset that I use spin?
I’m always willing to have a civil debate.
I don’t see the double talk.
I sent them there for one reason. To verify if what was in the email I recieved was true or not.
I don’t think that’s bullshit journalism. Or maybe it is.
Was there a preconceived agenda. Sure.
But that’s modern journalism.
That’s FoxNews and The Huffington Post.
Are you really upset that I use spin?
Which makes you as credible as HuffPost or FoxNews… Come on. Higher standard here?
Which makes you as credible as HuffPost or FoxNews… Come on. Higher standard here?
Which makes you as credible as HuffPost or FoxNews… Come on. Higher standard here?
Which makes you as credible as HuffPost or FoxNews… Come on. Higher standard here?
Who’s more credible? Your boss or you roommate when it comes to choosing a movie you would like.
I believe that Journalism, as you are looking at it, is going the way of the buggywhip.
People want credible sources, but that has a lot to do with their point of view and the point of view of the person giving them the info.
In a million channel universe you want to get the views of those that think about things as you.
Tht doesn’t make what they say less valid. Just more palitable for your taste.
That is one of the reasons Om was wrong at WordCamp. Old journalism is only going to get less and less important.
Who’s more credible? Your boss or you roommate when it comes to choosing a movie you would like.
I believe that Journalism, as you are looking at it, is going the way of the buggywhip.
People want credible sources, but that has a lot to do with their point of view and the point of view of the person giving them the info.
In a million channel universe you want to get the views of those that think about things as you.
Tht doesn’t make what they say less valid. Just more palitable for your taste.
That is one of the reasons Om was wrong at WordCamp. Old journalism is only going to get less and less important.
Who’s more credible? Your boss or you roommate when it comes to choosing a movie you would like.
I believe that Journalism, as you are looking at it, is going the way of the buggywhip.
People want credible sources, but that has a lot to do with their point of view and the point of view of the person giving them the info.
In a million channel universe you want to get the views of those that think about things as you.
Tht doesn’t make what they say less valid. Just more palitable for your taste.
That is one of the reasons Om was wrong at WordCamp. Old journalism is only going to get less and less important.
Who’s more credible? Your boss or you roommate when it comes to choosing a movie you would like.
I believe that Journalism, as you are looking at it, is going the way of the buggywhip.
People want credible sources, but that has a lot to do with their point of view and the point of view of the person giving them the info.
In a million channel universe you want to get the views of those that think about things as you.
Tht doesn’t make what they say less valid. Just more palitable for your taste.
That is one of the reasons Om was wrong at WordCamp. Old journalism is only going to get less and less important.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, I do. But what you are doing is not journalism. It is being a columnist. That too is fine as long as that’s the face you put on this.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how the city is surviving with media coverage a year later is journalism.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how bad FEMA and the federal government fucked the effort up and to seize on political opportunism and not get the flip side of the story, is opinion writing.
We agree about Om. We disagree about this.
Blogging is not necessarily journalism because you want it to be called journalism. Blogging can be journalism if a journalistic approach that assumes objectivity is taken.
What the guys are doing with your blessing is not journalism.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, I do. But what you are doing is not journalism. It is being a columnist. That too is fine as long as that’s the face you put on this.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how the city is surviving with media coverage a year later is journalism.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how bad FEMA and the federal government fucked the effort up and to seize on political opportunism and not get the flip side of the story, is opinion writing.
We agree about Om. We disagree about this.
Blogging is not necessarily journalism because you want it to be called journalism. Blogging can be journalism if a journalistic approach that assumes objectivity is taken.
What the guys are doing with your blessing is not journalism.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, I do. But what you are doing is not journalism. It is being a columnist. That too is fine as long as that’s the face you put on this.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how the city is surviving with media coverage a year later is journalism.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how bad FEMA and the federal government fucked the effort up and to seize on political opportunism and not get the flip side of the story, is opinion writing.
We agree about Om. We disagree about this.
Blogging is not necessarily journalism because you want it to be called journalism. Blogging can be journalism if a journalistic approach that assumes objectivity is taken.
What the guys are doing with your blessing is not journalism.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, I do. But what you are doing is not journalism. It is being a columnist. That too is fine as long as that’s the face you put on this.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how the city is surviving with media coverage a year later is journalism.
Four bloggers going to New Orleans to find out how bad FEMA and the federal government fucked the effort up and to seize on political opportunism and not get the flip side of the story, is opinion writing.
We agree about Om. We disagree about this.
Blogging is not necessarily journalism because you want it to be called journalism. Blogging can be journalism if a journalistic approach that assumes objectivity is taken.
What the guys are doing with your blessing is not journalism.
Can I call it ‘New Journalism’? :)
Great coversation, we agree to disagree.
Speaking of bad journalist, check this out. It deserves some publicity.
http://www.copyblogger.com/journalistic-superio...
Can I call it ‘New Journalism’? :)
Great coversation, we agree to disagree.
Speaking of bad journalist, check this out. It deserves some publicity.
http://www.copyblogger.com/journalistic-superio...
Can I call it ‘New Journalism’? :)
Great coversation, we agree to disagree.
Speaking of bad journalist, check this out. It deserves some publicity.
http://www.copyblogger.com/journalistic-superio...
Can I call it ‘New Journalism’? :)
Great coversation, we agree to disagree.
Speaking of bad journalist, check this out. It deserves some publicity.
http://www.copyblogger.com/journalistic-superio...
I’ll agree on “Fuzzy journalism”. :)
I’ll agree on “Fuzzy journalism”. :)
I’ll agree on “Fuzzy journalism”. :)
I’ll agree on “Fuzzy journalism”. :)