Month: March 2007

Thursday, 22 March 2007

Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Ad Standards for Newspapers?

by Garrick van Buren Comments Off on Ad Standards for Newspapers?

“Several wondered if the ad met the Star Tribune’s standards for acceptable advertising or if it was a mistake.” – Kate Parry, Star Tribune’s ombudsman

Here’s our panel’s reaction to the issue:

  • Snarky Garrick: “Until readers directly provide the Strib with enough revenue that advertising isn’t needed, their complaints should go in the recycling bin with the paper itself.”
  • Intrigued Garrick: “I doubt either answer will satisfy those that asked.”
  • Media Mogul Garrick: “Send me the names and contact info of the people with complaints, I have a few other brands I’d like to expose them to.”

RELATED:

“What confuses people is that ABC News logo screaming “official journalism!” – Chuck Olsen

Nope. Didn’t confuse me.

Of all the parties involved, the only person I might sometimes expect hard-question-asking “official journalism” from is…not Amanda Congdon, not ABC News, and not DuPont…but Chuck Olsen himself.

Advertising on the other hand is a completely different topic. I expect it from everyone I’ve listed above and I prefer Chuck’s.

Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Still Lusing

by Garrick van Buren Comments Off on Still Lusing

“I’m thinking that there is something inherently subordinate to the term ‘user'” – Prof Mary Wong. via Doc Searls

The term “user” has bugged me since I worked at “HannaHodge: User Experience Architects” 8 years back.

A couple Octobers back, in First Crack #2 [mp3], I declared “There are no users”.

“‘User’ is a term from the system perspective…it most accurately describes someone that has no effect on a media…this may have been accurate for the long slow feedback loops of last century’s media….”

There’s Lots of ‘Un-Interviews’ here ;)

by Garrick van Buren Comments Off on There’s Lots of ‘Un-Interviews’ here ;)

“I listened to a fascinating interview on the radio the other day. What made it fascinating was that the interviewer’s voice, and questions, had been entirely edited out. What you heard was a very eloquent explanation of a difficult topic, in which the questions were tacit, unheard. Compared to most radio articles, op-eds and even interviews, this spot was tight, engaging and informative. I dubbed it (in the spirit of the term Un-Conference) an Un-Interview.” – Dave Pollard, blogs.salon.com

Monday, 19 March 2007