Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Dinner last night with a small group including Howard Rheingold at a Thai restaurant in the Gaslamp District...and a morning spent working in my hotel room. Off now to the E-Tech show.

2:51:30 PM    comment []

Jeff Jarvis has a good post about the lack of conservative participants in yesterday's Teach-In (more from Matt Welch), and the response by Tim O'Reilly and Doc Searls in discussing the problem.

Tim is absolutely right, this technology (any technology) is not ideological, serves no ideology more than others by its nature. Yes, conservatives have talk radio, and all the branches of federal government, and they're, well, conservative, which might extend to institutional adoption of new technologies, but there are a bunch of really interesting right-of-center blogs out there.

As a member of the program committee, I would say we should have tried harder to find conservative voices, especially for the political blogging panel, and my failure to make that happen was my one frustration with an otherwise excellent process.

2:33:25 PM    comment []

Tuesday's Washington Post has a front page story about Joe Trippi's pay package -- "Campaign Ads Enrich Advisers, Raise Questions," reads the headline -- but doesn't mention his remarks at Monday's O'Reilly event, which remarks add context and clarification to the facts in the Post article, and which were documented by weblogs and audio feeds by midday Monday eastern time and by the AP by Monday evening eastern time.

Sloppy? Hostile? Both?

Trippi said today (it's still Monday in California) that Big Media wants to smear him in order to denigrate the whole concept of online campaigning. That sounded a little paranoid or self-serving to some in the audience. Now, maybe less so.

Update: I'm voting for sloppy over hostile. Even though this was a feature story and thus most likely put to bed early, the reporter and/or editor could and should have scanned the web yesterday afternoon for the latest info -- which was out there in abundance, and which would have moved that story forward.

1:12:10 AM    comment []