Mark

I look forward to meeting you in person, and Jay Rosen as well. Blogspats happen all the time and I try to live it through, let go, move on to the real (physical) world. I was not aware of linkbaiting but I live in New York where “Headless Body In Topless Bar” is the sort of headline that gets a story read. I also have clients who complain that the media constantly takes what they say out of context to sensationalize or fulfill their own story agenda. So what else is new? We all approach a story from our own assumptions and prejudices, despite the morally self-righteous veil of objectivity.

To me, this expansive post on the blogspat is just as valid as the earlier, short commentary on Jay’s presentation. Screaming in the town square, juggling a bowling ball, knives and a torch, or delivering a critique at the podium all have the power to educate, entertain, and spur to action. Sometimes it takes an instigator to get things moving, before the philosophers step in to make sense of it.

Mark

I read your original post about Rosen’s speech several days ago. I reread it this morning just to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I don’t really get the big deal. You had an opinion, which you expressed in an entertaining manner. The tone of your post doesn’t appear to me to be all that different from many op-ed pieces that I read in daily papers and magazines.

Professor Rosen had every right to refute your points. In fact, I disagree with you in a couple of areas. However, his calling you a clown, while entertaining, came off as a tad sophomoric.

What really concerns me is any attempt to squelch your opinions. As long as you were making a point and not simply attacking someone, why would you be censored?

Is the tagline for the NY Social Media Club, “If you get it, share it…as long as we agree with you?” It sounds like the issue was resolved correctly, but what a terrible precedent.

I never once said you did not have a right to an opinion - but you took my opinion of the merits of your original piece way too personally, especially for a professional communicator. In that a friend who was there wrote me and said my response on the list seemed harsh, I can understand why you might be upset, but…

You did not quote yourself here - what you said in the emails on the mailing list added no additional perspective - in fact, far from it - you answered my questions with questions instead of answers. When presented with the opportunity to refute the question I posed about your intentions and articulating your point, you chose neither until another round - you chose to be snarky, which is fine in a group of people who knows when you are being snarky, but in a public list where this is unknown…

I personally feel that your assumption that I am the moderator for the NYC list (even after speaking with the NYC lead Howard Greenstein) shows a tendency that you really want to pick a fight - am I wrong? Then don’t attack me personally for my concern, refute it and move on. Using technology troubles with posting to the list to cast me as an evil-doer censor is simply untrue. As far as I know, none of the lists are moderated and I would certainly never run a moderated list myself - against my principles mostly, unless we got a few trolls, in which case I would probably be banning people for being assholes instead of moderating. You are clearly not banned or moderated, despite my opinions on what you previously wrote or how you chose to not answer my sincere questions (which were backed up with a couple of paragrphs explanation of my perspective on why I was asking the question)

As you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I did not (and still do not) believe your misuse of a quote of Jay Rosen completely out of context deserves a link. If what you said here about your concerns was in that post, I would feel very differently about it. Unfortunately, as I also mentioned, I did not think too highly of Jay calling you a clown either - but that was not mentioned above in the selective telling of this tale - which is somewhat understandable because your points about Assignment Zero should be the focus of this clarifying post.

You did a much better job of articulating your point here despite the inaccuracies and half truths about me (obviously you spent some time thinking about the real issues and writing it) I wish I was in NYC this weekend for PodcampNYC as I would enjoy the opportunity to meet you F2F and really discuss this.

My problem here is that this appears to be a classic tactic some people in the blogosphere often use to get links and build an audience. Whether it is or isn’t is not within my control or ability to decide without knowing you really, so it is up to others - all I can do is express my concern that it might be. Even if this is not your intention, it is indeed the appearance of impropriety that is often worse than the actions themselves - this is why I suggested people not link to you - which is different than censorship as anyone who has been censored will tell you.

Linkbaiting is childish. If this was not your intention, I apologize. From your initial response to my questions though, you seemingly confirmed my concerns rather than alleviating them. Talking of yourself in 3rd person and not articulating with any further clarity your point about Assignment Zero was not helping your case. I did not see your post accusing me of censorship until today (too funny IMHO because you clearly don’t know me, or the intentions of Social Media Club and you obviously did not understand my point or reach out to me either). Perhaps you were vulnerable from being called a clown - I certainly would not be in a good state of mind from that myself, so I guess I can understand and forgive somewhat.

Bottom line - I would have preferred to follow your advice and not said anything further here, but your completely false accusations and partial telling of this story required correction and clarification. Double Bottom Line - you are clearly more articulate than my first impression of you and I do not know your intent, but your innacurate painting of me as someone who encourages censorship is wrong and indicative of less than benevolent intentions. Tripple bottom line - with the effort above to explain your real concerns about Assignment Zero, and the valid questions for which you seek answers, I at least understand the concerns you have about the project, though I still object to the way in which you chose to attack Jay’s reputation by misusing his offhanded comment for Yellow Blogging…

Very much looking forward to meeting in person, despite this all.