<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/4619</link>
		<description>Comments by Albert Maruggi</description>
<item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Shane&#039;s Prank Proves Nothing and Tinkers with Trust</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21458235</link>
<description>There you go speaking French again.  Regards to the family,  </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 17:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21458235</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Socialmedia : How to use social media in the newsroom</title>
<link>http://socialmedia.biz/2009/03/03/how-to-use-social-media-in-the-newsroom/#IDComment21449946</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;m be interested to know the following   1) how many news organizations use multimedia from others, either sound or video to enhance a story   2) whether journalists really use social media for story ideas or it is still a press kit dominated world pushed by PR people to journalists I cited this recent &lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/www.hitsearchlimited.com\/news\/9992066\/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;study by Cision on journalist sources &lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 14:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://socialmedia.biz/2009/03/03/how-to-use-social-media-in-the-newsroom/#IDComment21449946</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Shane&#039;s Prank Proves Nothing and Tinkers with Trust</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21443887</link>
<description>I think you are missing my point which is this:  If you want to want to test the ability for the Internet and journalists to get facts correct, facts that have significant implications to life, death, and corruption, I think a better example is needed.  My article was not about defending a typo or fact checking of insignificant quote, that is impossible to do, and in this case I am not defending the lack of verification of a quote. I am saying as  a litmus test of journalistic standards it is a poor one, and the issue of quality journalism in more significant stories has deeper roots than a Wikipedia entry.    I will say however, this case is a good one for my kids 6th grade report references, and I&amp;#039;ll put it to good use.   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 13:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21443887</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Shane&#039;s Prank Proves Nothing and Tinkers with Trust</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21442385</link>
<description>I disagree on the point about if you can&amp;#039;t get an obit right what can you get. It wasn&amp;#039;t the obit that was wrong it was a quote that was quite fitting in the obit. And the issue of Tim Geithner is less about what&amp;#039;s accurate, it&amp;#039;s about access in a very close knit society known as the beltway.   In fact, I&amp;#039;d make the case the relationships and fear of never being called on in a press conference contributes to letting a few embarrassing facts slip through the cracks.   The trust is with the people who post. Are they responsible not to screw with the system. That&amp;#039;s the trust I&amp;#039;m talking about. You knew it was wrong and you still posted just to see if I could &amp;quot;getcha&amp;quot;  That&amp;#039;s the initial trust. You might say, hey I&amp;#039;m just testing the process, OK if that&amp;#039;s the case and I&amp;#039;m always on the spotlight, and every inaccuracy is equal in value, then I think this is just another attempt at calling attention to yourself.     </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 12:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/05/shanes-prank-proves-nothing-an.html#IDComment21442385</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Journalists: a habit of verifying information--and here\&#039;s why it matters</title>
<link>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/04/journalists-a-habit-of-verifyi.html#IDComment21350179</link>
<description>Excellent piece of journalism and use of the community known as Twitter.   </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/04/journalists-a-habit-of-verifyi.html#IDComment21350179</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Is Robert Scoble a Jerk, or Should PR Practitioners Look in the Mirror?</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/is-robert-scoble-a-jerk-or-sho.html#IDComment18168822</link>
<description>Think about the paradigm of PR or more specifically, media relations. It&amp;#039;s something like this - I&amp;#039;m going to try to convince you that I have a story that your audience would like.  And my job is to get lots and lots of people to write the same story.  Many of these stories are average, for example on a scale of 1 to 10  Obama fires Wagonner is a 10,  Samsung comes out with new model TV 5, Some company starts new social media site 3.   Sometimes if you hit it right a 3 gets to fill a news hole, or might rise to the level of a 6 if its the right outlet at the right time.   But the paradigm is laced with mediocrity for the typical company, pitching a typical story to the &amp;quot;usual suspects&amp;quot;  That&amp;#039;s why you&amp;#039;ve got to do something different you have to be your own newsroom, focus outward not inward on your company. &amp;amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;http://www.providentpartners.net/newsroompr/&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Think like a journalist,&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;gt; not someone paid to convince a journalist.   This issue was addressed in a fun conversation I had with the Bad Pitch Blog author &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;http://www.providentpartners.net/blog/index.php/2009/01/02/the-single-best-pr-advice-for-2009&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kevin Dugan on the Marketing Edge podcast &lt;/a&gt; enjoy. </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:19:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/is-robert-scoble-a-jerk-or-sho.html#IDComment18168822</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Kindle for the iPhone--why?</title>
<link>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/kindle-for-the-iphone--why.html#IDComment16836816</link>
<description>Everyone here is missing the point, this has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the difference between men and women. That&amp;#039;s right, the Mars Venus, genetic thing. I bet most men want it all in one place, having Kindle on the iPhone is the ultimate in digital swiss army knifes. God I&amp;#039;m getting excited just thinking about it. That right excited, I&amp;#039;m 50 so I&amp;#039;ve crossed the threshold of what excites me. We also don&amp;#039;t like carrying stuff, why, well because we forget most of it. See Chip proved my point. Another reason, we are lazy. That&amp;#039;s right lazy, no I&amp;#039;m wrong make that efficient. We don&amp;#039;t like wasting stuff, space, time, nothing.   Women don&amp;#039;t like forgetting anything, hence the purse, or overnight bag that doubles as a purse. Carrying five things that essentially do the same thing or have a 1 in a million chance of being used is not efficient. Go ahead, dump the contents of your purse on the kitchen table right now. Take the test, let a guy pick out what he would take on a hour commute into the city, then do the same thing and have a women sort it out. There, have I made my case.    Don&amp;rsquo;t knock it, the marketing folks have this all figured out. Now Bluetooth me what you&amp;rsquo;re reading so we can have an intelligent argument over dinner.   :&amp;gt;)   </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/kindle-for-the-iphone--why.html#IDComment16836816</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Sk*ttles proves that Social Media Marketers come in three flavors</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/skttles-proves-that-social-med.html#IDComment16764763</link>
<description>This is like when someone says you&amp;#039;re cute it&amp;#039;s a compliment but you were expecting something more.  I vaguely remember when this used to happen to me, but even that memory is quickly fading.   This is a topic for a longer post, but seriously folks.  We live in the Super Me Generation along with the Super You Generation.  Yeah it&amp;#039;s about the Sk*ttles, but it&amp;#039;s more about me, until you tweet quicker,then it&amp;#039;s about you.   OK so tell me, if my typing teacher in 5th grade knew that she would provide the most important skills of the 21 century she should have got more money.  Now that&amp;#039;s funny! </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/skttles-proves-that-social-med.html#IDComment16764763</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : The Problem with Social Media - Too Many People</title>
<link>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/the-problem-with-social-media.html#IDComment16710863</link>
<description>Oh yes that&amp;#039;s much better, in fact it is beautiful for politicians, now they can keep track of what they promised to which group. :&amp;gt;) </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/the-problem-with-social-media.html#IDComment16710863</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : If You Touch My Stuff, I&#039;ll Kill You</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/02/if-you-touch-my-stuff-ill-kill.html#IDComment15648164</link>
<description>thanks for the compliment, who could go wrong with Murray and Candy.  I like your use of the Twitter balloon on your site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intersectionofonlineandoffline.com/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Intersection of Online and Off line &lt;/a&gt;   All the best, Mark  Albert Maruggi </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/02/if-you-touch-my-stuff-ill-kill.html#IDComment15648164</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : If You Touch My Stuff, I&#039;ll Kill You</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/02/if-you-touch-my-stuff-ill-kill.html#IDComment14841570</link>
<description>You know this line from the post true or false - social media is to free speech as the NRA is to gun control - that would be true.   That answer should be false.  that&amp;#039;s right false, because social media encourages free speech, it wants opinions to proliferate, the NRA however isn&amp;#039;t really big on gun control.   Don&amp;#039;t you love it when you can comment and correct your own stuff.  </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 8 Feb 2009 01:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/02/if-you-touch-my-stuff-ill-kill.html#IDComment14841570</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : New Communications Perspectives for 2009</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/01/new-communications-perspective.html#IDComment13915906</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;ll take a demo the next time you are in the Twin Cities, and come by the Marketing Edge podcast studios. Then we&amp;#039;ll have plenty to talk about. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/01/new-communications-perspective.html#IDComment13915906</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : New Communications Perspectives for 2009</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/01/new-communications-perspective.html#IDComment13915898</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;m am really glad you got the deadpan, it&amp;#039;s more difficult to write deadpan and determine whether the reader interprets what was intended.  thanks  </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/01/new-communications-perspective.html#IDComment13915898</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Welcoming New Columnists</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/12/welcoming-new-columnists.html#IDComment11960413</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;m looking forward to the work of this group.  It&amp;#039;s a combination social media thought leaders providing strategic and practical examples, Charlie Rose style discussion of trends and implications of communications, and a healthy does of reality aka Blue Collar Comedy.  Yeah, that will be interesting won&amp;#039;t it? </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/12/welcoming-new-columnists.html#IDComment11960413</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : You Can&#039;t Ignore Your Boss</title>
<link>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/11/you-cant-ignore-your-boss.html#IDComment11422504</link>
<description>well you are right again Swami.  And if the auto industry gets a piece of the bailout pie, there&amp;#039;ll be a whole lotta folks just waiting to see what issues exist at all three automakers.   Dirty laundry is great for soap operas and reality TV, but things get a bit dicey when every decision is under a microscope.  ____Today for example when Congressman Ackerman took a shot at auto execs taking a corporate jet to DC.  Now the bosses will have 535 more bosses oy vay.  ____Hope all went well with the Mustang launch in LA. and by the way you did stay at a Super 8 and only eat Value Meals on that trip, right? </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/11/you-cant-ignore-your-boss.html#IDComment11422504</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Media Bullseye - A New Media and Communications Magazine : Obama Takes Next Step with Email Supporters - Media Bullseye</title>
<link>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/11/mt-preview-78558a5d9ac221f1785c816350feece7c314d8de.html?061327#IDComment11403482</link>
<description>This my friends is how it should be done.  1) get them early to prevent buyer&amp;#039;s remorse, 2) enlist those that feel strongly to be advocates, neutralize lukewarm supporters to be attracted to the opposition, 3) it is easier to keep a customer than get a new one, oooops did I refer to them as customers, I mean supporters, and 4) It&amp;#039;s important for Republicans to understand, this has huge implications to keep supporters engaged for a long, long, time.  It requires new thinking about policy, communications, and leadership. It&amp;#039;s not about a cheaper way to do direct mail.  If they look at it like that, they will be a non-factor in less than 10 years. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:42:10 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2008/11/mt-preview-78558a5d9ac221f1785c816350feece7c314d8de.html?061327#IDComment11403482</guid>
</item><item>
<title>PRWeek US : Target to reconsider media policies - PRWeek US</title>
<link>http://www.prweekus.com/Target-to-reconsider-media-policies/article/104786/#IDComment88400</link>
<description>From your article...  &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;Von Walter said the statement was meant not to denigrate blogs, but to highlight its policy of not interacting with trade publications, therefore focusing its resources on publications that frame stories specific to their customers.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;What?  I think it&amp;#039;s best to just say we will do our best to address the needs of all types of media that reach our core guests first and other media outlets as resources permit. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.prweekus.com/Target-to-reconsider-media-policies/article/104786/#IDComment88400</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Marshall&#039;s Web Tool Blog : When a Blogger Criticizes Your Company...</title>
<link>http://marshallk.com/when-a-blogger-criticizes-your-company#IDComment71223</link>
<description>You were ahead of your time &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/2qh8l9 &quot;&gt;http://tinyurl.com/2qh8l9 &lt;/a&gt;here&amp;#039;s the summary of the Target PR staffer dising a blogger that occurred a month after your post.  Agreeing to disagree is a fine fall back if necessary.  However, bloggers, meaning objective bloggers covering a story need to be reasonable and flexible.  If they are, I believe they should be treated as journalists or customers.    &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Also, bloggers with a known agenda who are out to do a number on a company or candidate will be treated with less openness.   I think that is a fair approach for a number of reasons including fairness of story and prioritizing time. The sheer number of bloggers will in theory make it impossible to deal with every inquiry the same way by many larger companies.   &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://marshallk.com/when-a-blogger-criticizes-your-company#IDComment71223</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>