Comments on: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:47:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Mr Roberto http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/comment-page-1/#comment-374957 Mr Roberto Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:38:15 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/#comment-374957 So the rule is, if you pull a prank then you're above being in bed with dirty corporations? If you say so. But why didn't Gizmodo turn down those press passes? That's what I want to know. If I'm an independent dude surely I wouldn't want to be tainted with junkets and door gifts and free passes for 11 of my staff.<br><br>If I'm really an independent dude, I mean. So the rule is, if you pull a prank then you're above being in bed with dirty corporations? If you say so. But why didn't Gizmodo turn down those press passes? That's what I want to know. If I'm an independent dude surely I wouldn't want to be tainted with junkets and door gifts and free passes for 11 of my staff.

If I'm really an independent dude, I mean.

]]> By: David "Lefty" Schlesinger http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/comment-page-1/#comment-374956 David "Lefty" Schlesinger Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:08:40 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/#comment-374956 Matthew, they didn't make themselves <I>part </i>of the story: they <I>were </i>"the story", in its entirety. This story wouldn't have existed without their efforts to disrupt things.<br><br>How is this different (other than the cowardly anonymity of it) than standing in the back of the crowd during a presentation and shouting out profanities from time to time, or firing off Nerf weapons at the presenter? After all, "no one gets hurt"...<br><br>What exactly do you see the Gizmorons "reporting on" in this particular instance, other than themselves....?</I> Matthew, they didn't make themselves part of the story: they were “the story”, in its entirety. This story wouldn't have existed without their efforts to disrupt things.

How is this different (other than the cowardly anonymity of it) than standing in the back of the crowd during a presentation and shouting out profanities from time to time, or firing off Nerf weapons at the presenter? After all, “no one gets hurt”…

What exactly do you see the Gizmorons “reporting on” in this particular instance, other than themselves….?

]]> By: David "Lefty" Schlesinger http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/comment-page-1/#comment-374955 David "Lefty" Schlesinger Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:02:17 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/#comment-374955 Matthew, I can't find a better word than "sabotage" for what they did at the Motorola presentation. Would you think it as amusing if it were, say, someone from Nokia or Samsung or another of Motorola's direct competitors who repeatedly interfered with Motorola's efforts to present...? Matthew, I can't find a better word than “sabotage” for what they did at the Motorola presentation. Would you think it as amusing if it were, say, someone from Nokia or Samsung or another of Motorola's direct competitors who repeatedly interfered with Motorola's efforts to present…?

]]> By: Mr Roberto http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/comment-page-1/#comment-342529 Mr Roberto Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:38:15 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/#comment-342529 So the rule is, if you pull a prank then you're above being in bed with dirty corporations? If you say so. But why didn't Gizmodo turn down those press passes? That's what I want to know. If I'm an independent dude surely I wouldn't want to be tainted with junkets and door gifts and free passes for 11 of my staff.<br><br>If I'm really an independent dude, I mean. So the rule is, if you pull a prank then you're above being in bed with dirty corporations? If you say so. But why didn't Gizmodo turn down those press passes? That's what I want to know. If I'm an independent dude surely I wouldn't want to be tainted with junkets and door gifts and free passes for 11 of my staff.

If I'm really an independent dude, I mean.

]]> By: David "Lefty" Schlesinger http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/comment-page-1/#comment-341612 David "Lefty" Schlesinger Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:08:40 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/14/gizmodo-wrong-yes-but-also-right/#comment-341612 Matthew, they didn't make themselves <I>part </i>of the story: they <I>were </i>"the story", in its entirety. This story wouldn't have existed without their efforts to disrupt things.<br><br>How is this different (other than the cowardly anonymity of it) than standing in the back of the crowd during a presentation and shouting out profanities from time to time, or firing off Nerf weapons at the presenter? After all, "no one gets hurt"...<br><br>What exactly do you see the Gizmorons "reporting on" in this particular instance, other than themselves....?</I> Matthew, they didn't make themselves part of the story: they were “the story”, in its entirety. This story wouldn't have existed without their efforts to disrupt things.

How is this different (other than the cowardly anonymity of it) than standing in the back of the crowd during a presentation and shouting out profanities from time to time, or firing off Nerf weapons at the presenter? After all, “no one gets hurt”…

What exactly do you see the Gizmorons “reporting on” in this particular instance, other than themselves….?

]]>