Comments on: What social media revolution?

By: Bartholomew Beswick

Bartholomew Beswick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:30:47 +0000

Or what. Incomprehensible? I followed her reasoning. Sloppy? There is a battle between cold form and warmth, and Helen’s style has always leant more toward rich warmth.

Interestingly, I feel that you are angry about something in the writing, but I can’t figure out what it is, which makes your complaint more incomprehensible than the article.

By: Eric Armageddon

Eric Armageddon — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:33:45 +0000

“More often than not, the use of social media suggests an anguish generally experienced only in watching the work of M. Night Shyamalan. That is to say, it was empty of content, drenched in quick-fix sentiment and a dark misuse of the afternoon. One might feel lost, confused and frankly livid that everyone told you that this really was a must-see.”

That was supposed to be an opening paragraph?

Sloppy, incomprehensible writing from start to finish. Is the author perhaps a victim of the social media that appear to be referred to in her article? Or drugs? Or what?

By: Bartholomew Beswick

Bartholomew Beswick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:07:45 +0000

Hi Helen,

Good to see you on Crikey. Long time fan, via JJJ, Big issue, and now Crikey. Never had cash at the right times to buy the books

The recent MJ passing away drew comment on media frenzies - I commented on your comments on Kurt’s passing as being the most important moment on radio for myself. (Couldn’t find a transcript to show others.)

Social Media are all about the message, and the motivation, and eventually come down to quality - people will come and look at sounds and fury, but if they stay and it signifies nothing, they will eventually move on. Like books, like print, like television, like radio, like email. Twittering often will be just as successful as writing many books - no quality and the audience will disappear to the next thing a bit later.

And I am so with you r.e. Karaoke.