Anyway, Loren’s looking for a Web 2.0 fight club.  If you’re looking to hand him some two-fisted justice, give him a ping. :)

Which was all the more shocking when I saw this video, where he essentially does blackface / minstrel – type comedy for about 5 minutes. I mean, wow. He put a lot of effort into that video. Transitions, video clips, the whole 9 yards.

And it was all the more sobering (no pun intended) to find out that Loren went into rehab shortly thereafter.

Which, in turn, was followed by this video that was shortly posted some time ago as he’s returned from rehab. I’m not so cynical to believe that what Loren’s posted was an act. He sure as hell doesn’t look like he’s acting, and as I’m the kind of person who is inclined to believe folks (at least for the first time), my wishes do go out to him and his family.

Addiction — no matter what its form — can be devastating.

Best of luck, man.

And that’s when you actually do … its hard to write about them critically thereafter.

Take Dell’s most recent gaffe, for example.

I was going to write about it one way — but, well, some recent experiences made me almost change my mind.  For example, I’ve found that when you meet bloggers in person they’re all reasonably normal in their sense of humour, outlook on life, and how they like to keep their sense of personal space. Happily, everyone I’ve met seems normal in that regard.

And that’s the problem.

Sort of.

Before, you were happily analyzing what they might say or do with a coldly critical eye, without a care in the world about throw out a jovial remark or three in a blog post, sometimes personal, sometimes not.

Now — you kind of second guess yourself. Wait — they aren’t really thinking that, were they? Hold on, perhaps *this* is what they meant. I was going to write “hackneyed, tired and pedestrian”, but perhaps I should rather substitute “… this was not, actually, their best effort?”

At Mesh, for example, I met Lionel Menchaca, the guy who blogs for Dell at Direct2Dell. A brilliantly humble fellow. To be honest, you can’t help but like the guy. Now, recently there was a dust up around how a former manager at Dell released some thoughts about the purchasing experience at one of those Dell kiosks you might see at a Mall. It was published at the Consumerist, Dell got upset, asked it to be taken down — and voila. Streisand Effect.

[where trying to remove a piece of information causes more backlash and publicity than the initial offending piece of information]

Good ol’ Lionel has a post apologizing for their goof up, titled “23 Confessions”.

Now, I think that there is a lot to learn from Dell, in the way that they’ve engaged their consumer base to try and turn things around. Furthermore, Lionel’s Mea Culpa on behalf of Dell is the right way to do things. Do it quickly, do it honestly, and keep the conversation open on all frequencies.

That’s good.

The post, “23 Confessions”?

The pre-Mesh Tony [who, let's say was in a deliciously foul mood] might have said “this piece is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at damage control, and in the context of their prior efforts, is seriously lacking; moreover, several of these confessions are not “confessions” at all, but unabashedly contrived attempts at selling more of Dell’s stuff.”

The post-Mesh Tony, on the other hand, might say something like “Dell’s making a good attempt at customer relations, and while some of these confessions aren’t quite confessions — its clear that they’re meant to be taken tongue in cheek. Good for Lionel.”

And I suppose what this all *really* means is that its been an epiphany for me as a blogger. Journalists, for example, have had to deal with interpersonal conflicts between what needs to be put down on paper and the relationships they have made with people in industry to get the story — relationships that need to continue to allow a certain degree of access that is critical for their continued success.

Bloggers, on the other hand, particularly ones that blog about topic events, may never get close to the participants or newsmakers in their field of interest. They write “at a distance”, and I think, in some respects, that its a good thing. It keeps the ideas and opinions impartial — or certainly more impartial than if you’re in the thick of things.

Now that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a few interesting individuals in the area that I write about, will that change what I’m going to write? Will it water down my opinions, or cause me to pause as I prepare a particularly acerbic post?

Well, I really, really hope not.

Rather, I’m hoping that as I mature as a blogger, that I’ll be able to divorce my opinions of the people that I meet from their actions, their words and their deeds. You know how it is — hate the sin, love the sinner and all of that. After all, at the end of the day, they are all real people who are trying to make a go of things in their own way. Yes, even Ted Murphy, CEO of PayPerPost, who is vilified in the blogosphere is actually quite affable, honest and transparent about exactly what he intends to do. And Loren Feldman, who can appear brash and abrasive, is actually a really nice guy. Heck, even though he was prepared to hate Mike Arrington, it seems like even he was taken aback by how easy going (and real) Mike Arrington was.

So, will it be a little harder to write some posts about some people? Probably.

But will it stop me from telling it like I see it?

Not a chance. ;)

1. Mike Arrington doesn’t want to be thought of as a guru — he wants to be first to report things. Being outrageous helps him, but why are you paying attention to him or what he’s saying? He’s not a guru or anything.

2. Tom Williams and Austin Hill *are* inspiring.

3. Loren Feldman is a funny guy and has a uniquely sharp talent of cutting through the BS in a funny way. That’s valuable. And funny. But I mentioned that already, didn’t I?

4. Paul Sullivan is a smart guy who knows a lot about journalism — and who is as enthusiastic as hell about it for being in the business as long as he has.

5. Steve Herrman has never been to Toronto or Canada until Mesh. I hope he had a good time. ;)

6. Ethan Kaplan is wicked smart. The way that he talks so smartly and so abstractly about — let’s face it, pirated music — makes it sound like thesis material. And it probably is for someone somewhere.

7. Richard Edelman, in spite of the Wal-mart fiasco, seemed really genuine about a desire for transparency and authenticity in public relations — in a this-guy-isn’t-faking-it kind of way. I mean it.

8. Jim Buckmaster only had one thing to say: “we do what the users want”. In spite of the wonder that is Craigslist, there wasn’t a lot of sophistication to his message. On the other hand, is that any surprise from someone described as a social anarchist or a communist?

9. Jeff Howe seems like a cool dude, and whose message about crowdsourcing was interesting and important: crowdsourcing is good for filtering. Not so much for certain kinds of content creation — like journalism.

10. Will Pate, in spite of his youthful looks, knows a hella lot about creating and maintaining community. How old is this guy anyway? :)

11. Lionel Menchaca was so down-to-earth and self-effacing about Dell’s community initiatives its a wonder that he’s a face of Dell. But he is. Which is amazing.

12. Ted Murphy isn’t the most evil man in the world, and PayPerPost isn’t. Well, probably isn’t. But he’s actually a pretty personable dude who really believes in what he does.

13. Mike Masnick is also wicked smart. I’m not sure who would win in a face off between him and Ethan Kaplan, but one thing’s for sure: *my* brain would explode.

• CB: The nature of broadband providers make it such that things will be open and transparent
• Question: “What advice would you have for the old media institutions re: their conception of authority?”
  • RS: The most important thing is to be right. Mike Arrington said he wants to be first, but I’d rather be right rather than first. It goes to credibility, and the blogosphere / internet is a really democratic place. Credibility does matter, and that’s why if there was a story broke on a blog with a spotty reputation, well, I’d always go to the New York Times. But on the other hand, because I’m a media critic, there are times when I do read something on the NYT that I want to punch a hole in it. Not everyone has time or resources to fact check, so everyone has to find their own balance — including the readers.
  • LF: Digg’s a joke, and Wikipedia’s a joke. The NYT shouldn’t worry about those guys. They need to worry about their own work — the cream / cheese rises towards the top. The minute you worry about the competition you’re dead. Just focus on doing good work and people will find it. For NYT to be worried about Digg? Come on.
  • CB: The newspapers were blindsided because people find as much trust in entities like TechCrunch and the Huffington Post. The hubris was their downfall.
  • LF: The NYT vs. Drudge is a great example. Its one guy. TechCrunch is killing Wired or whatever … he’s just one guy. He doesn’t need infrastructure. He just hustles and gets his story. The hustlers are more dangerous than businesses / entities.
  • RS: And now Mike Arrington doesn’t have to hustle — all he has to do is open his mailbox.
• Question: “How would you encourage old media to move online?”
  • LF: Your family won’t eat if you don’t (laughter)
  • CB: I’m surprised there’s any reluctance from the journalists point of view. I think every …
  • LF: You motivate them by giving them their freedom. When I was Hollywood you have to serve a lot of masters. I write it, I edit it — my videos — and it doesn’t need to be checked by anyone. Its liberating and I don’t know why any writer wouldn’t embrace it.
  • RS: If you want to motivate, teach them how to read their technorati stats — and ego will be a motivator. There is a snobbery that is in print. Its one thing to be online its another thing to be in glossy print. Reach is also a significant motivator

• CB: broadcasters have never relied on on advertising revenues in the same way that traditional print media has; and yet they are loosing their audience to new and diverging media. Physical distribution of content, whether it be newspapers, magazines, or the music industry, will be fatally impacted by “the internet”.
• LF: ” Should big media be afraid of individuals such as yourself? ” The mistake is that the Internet isn’t a “little TV”– its a different medium entirely, and there’s room for both.
• “Google is destroying journalism — what do blogs, rss feeds and GoogleNews do for media?”
  • RS: It complements different forms of news, as if you only have 5 seconds then you’ll choose one thing … if you are in another space and time (like Muskoka) then you’ll need something else. There is something social about the portability of print media
• “Will traditional media go the way of the dinosaur?”
  • CB: My own parents used to subscribe three newspapers, but because of the online consumption of news, that has all changed. My father now reads 20 newspapers a day. It may not be possible *because* of Google — but the newspapers have felt the impact of that, and have felt the competition thereof. The efficiencies of Google is the real danger.
• Question: “What about new forms of entertainment in this kind of world?”
  • LF: uStream.TV is going to be a mechanism for event-based programming, and is a great opportunity for live-based programming.
  • CB: Less professional programming has a special allure, such as Justin.TV .. doing the most mundane things and it seems fascinating. Girls kissing (you had to be here) or watching Cheese age — there’s a niche for everything.
  • RS: The tools at our disposal are amazing, and the barriers to entry have collapsed. Even if there’s little talent, the best stuff will rise to the top.
• Question: “With more tools at your disposal, how will ownership of those pipes affect the content?”
  • LF: I’m not nearly smart enough to answer that — I just want people to watch my stuff
  • CB: Net neutrality, therefore, is the big issue; cable TV providers, it turned out weren’t the villains — rather, it was the telephone companies trying to charge companies like Google. It is too late for broadband providers handpicking content, however. A rational response is to charge as per how much people use.
  • RS: Google, with its buying of dark fibre, shows how far they’re thinking ahead, and that’s why Google’s doing so great.
• Question: “Do you perceive your content or tools being used differently between different age groups?”
  • LF: The attention economy means that the length of content will shorten. Being “damn good and damn short”is important to getting that attention.
  • CB: I have a teenage daughter, and they will be happy to wander in enclosed spaced. First its myspace, then it was xanga, now its facebook. They don’t seem to want to cruise and do what people in their 20’s do. They don’t do email — they do instant messaging. With Facebook’s opening up of its API, it will provide all the more reason never to leave. It seems like their world has shrunk than expanding
  • LF: Its funny because its like AOL
  • RS: I am a huge harry potter fan — and I know that everyone is going to be reading the last Harry Potter novel. Do you think that quality and ingenuity is a factor in holding attention? There’s no reason to sacrifice quality …
  • LF: Newspapers are never going to anywhere — they’re going to still be here 200 years from now. There’s a tactile sense … newspapers have to survive. I can get information from the New York Post faster than the Huffington Post (laughter). Not everyone has a computer yet — I know its hard for us to believe but that’s very much the case. When I’m in a diner I want to read a newspaper — if I get pickles on it, I won’t go crazy (laughter). Newspapers need to change content and go in depth rather than break news. The days of breaking news are done; the days of them analyzing and editorializing is the future
  • CB: Do you think the average 20 year old will want to read it in a diner 20 years from now?
  • LF: They will always be around — they’ve been around since journalism. They need to cut their infrastructure, they’re scared and don’t know how to react. They’re not idiots just old school guys. They’re just blind sided just like the record industry. I think it would be a great disservice if newspapers did go under.