The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #134: May 4, 2006

The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #134: May 4, 2006

Content summary: Show numbering; FIR Listener Survey results posted; Summit on the Future conference; FIR meetup at the IABC Vancouver conference; Kami Huyse podcasts the first 100 Geek Dinners; BL Ochman’s new ethics blog; LA Times suspends journalist for violating ethics guidelines; Online Journalism Review asks can newspapers do blogs right; blogger pseudonyms and anonymity; Creative Commons legal guide for podcasters; David Phillips reports; listeners’ comments discussion; FIR Frappr community update; upcoming FIR interviews; the music, and more.

Show notes for May 4, 2006

download For Immediate Release podcast

Welcome to For Immediate Release: The Hobson & Holtz Report, an 80-minute podcast recorded live from Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Concord, California, USA.

Download the file here (MP3, 32MB), or sign up for the RSS feed to get it and future shows automatically. (For automatic synchronization with your iPod or other digital player, you’ll also need a podcatcher such as Juice, DopplerRadio, iTunes or Yahoo! Podcasts, or an RSS aggregator that supports podcasts such as FeedDemon).

Listen to this podcast now:

In This Edition:

  • Detailed show notes to come.

FIR Show Notes links
Links for the blogs, individuals, companies and organizations we discussed or mentioned in the show are posted to the FIR Show Links pages at The New PR Wiki. You can contribute - see the home page for info. If you have comments or questions about this show, or suggestions for our future shows, email us at fircomments@gmail.com, or call the Comment Line at +1 206 222 2803. You can email your comments, questions and suggestions as MP3 file attachments, if you wish (max. 3 minutes / 5Mb attachment, please!). We’ll be happy to see how we can include your audio contribution in a show.

So, until Monday, May 8…

Posted by neville on 05/04 at 10:41 AM

  1. Listening to today’s show I was gratified to hear that you guys are going to resurrect the Hyperspace Dine-Around concept for FIR but feel compelled to set the record straight.

    The genesis for the Hyperspace Dine-Around begin in 1994 at the Boston IABC conference as an offshoot of an idea I had to host a cocktail party at my booth (LexisNexis) prior to the Dine-Around dinners.  When I was unable to get permission from IABC to open the exhibit hall for my party, several of us decided in discussions in the IABC Hyperspace section to meet for dinner.

    The following year prior to the Toronto conference we again used PRSIG to coordinate a get together and made it a more formal event. Charles Pizzo connected with a chef at a wonderful restaurant for a private dinner that was extraordinary and the Hyperspace Dine-Around concept was born. One memorable aspect of that first dinner was that everyone introduced ourselves by our CompuServe id (Hi, I’m 72350,1409 - gee, it’s amazing that I still vividly remember my CIS id <G>)

    Over the next couple of years the event took on a life of its own, and it became one of those “must attend” events of the IABC conference circuit. I don’t know if was because we coordinated everything online, or that we went to high priced restaurants, but it became very popular and chic to attend this event

    The last Hyperspace Dine-Around occured at the New Orleans conference in ‘97 or ‘98 with us taking over the entire restaurant, Mothers, because so many people signed up to attend.

    I was sad to see them end but it was a great run while it lasted. Hopefully the FIR version will be able to garner an equal amount of interest.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/04  at  12:16 PM

  2. Not so strange, Craig: 76346,627 here.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  05/04  at  01:23 PM

  3. Craig, thanks for setting that record straight. I remember those discussions on CompuServe. And I knew it was related to the ‘94 conference, so I got that bit right at least :)

    Hyperspace Dine-around, that was what Charles developed.

    It really would be great if an FIR Dine-around could become a fixture of IABC conferences. Inherit the mantle, so to speak, if we’re regarded as being worthy enough.

    Let’s see how this one goes.

    Posted by Neville Hobson  on  05/04  at  01:28 PM

  4. Oh, and my CIS ID was 100015,633.

    Posted by Neville Hobson  on  05/04  at  01:29 PM

  5. Gosh, am I glad I was in academia in 1994—at least I got to be sgoetsch @ umich.edu! Though as an undergrad I was stuck with .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). (I don’t think they’d invented the .edu domain yet. There wasn’t a World Wide Web back in the ‘80s.)

    But I digress.

    Ta for the improved schwag. (You just wanted it to sound Yiddish, didn’t you, Shel?) I’m thinking I should order something to give away as a prize at my next presentation, especially as I doubt we’ll have any Podcast Asylum swag ready yet. (I’m still working on a logo, not to mention a couple of articles—and Lee and Donna and I have all these pesky clients keeping us from the fun stuff.) I’d better order right away if I’m going to do that.

    Posting comments to your own blog under a pseudonym should certainly get a raving idiocy prize. I’m not sure you have anything on the FIR schwag site suitable for that. Maybe we need to borrow Miss Snark’s Nitwit of the Day Award.

    The whole idea of B.L. Ochman’s true confessions ethics blog makes me squirm. The anonymity just invites the Strumpettes of the world to come in and make wildly outrageous, utterly false claims. And even if people identified themselves, it sounds way too much like Jerry Springer to me. Is this really going to encourage intelligent discussion about ethics? She can’t be serious.

    On the generation gap in communications media: I do have to agree that the sound of a phone ringing (even if I don’t pick it up) is much more disruptive than the little flag on my Skype tray icon saying that someone has ignored my “Do Not Disturb” sign. But I still have to go check it in case it’s something critically important from someone who matters, because sometimes it is.

    Some preferences for IM over phone might not be generational, but rather result from the differences between auditory and visual dominance. (Read those books I gave you for more details on this, though we’ll have to wait for the next edition before we talk about IM, never mind MySpace.)

    I’m visual enough that I’d prefer a text chat to a phone call in most cases. But my concentration and memory go absolutely to hell when I’m interrupted, whether it’s by a telephone, an instant message, or someone at the door. Maybe I just need a receptionist.

    Posted by Sallie Goetsch (rhymes with "sketch")  on  05/05  at  06:27 AM

  6. I agree 100% with the comment on NOT cutting the length.  I often only get a chance to listen to 80% of the show - no big whoop.  Wouldn’t want you to cut out any of it.  People need to deal with the fact that we live in a post-scarcity information landscape.  RSS is not like email - you don’t have to read every item that comes through your feeds - and for goodness sake you shouldn’t hold off on subscribing to a feed because you can’t read every item that will come through it!  Prioritize already!  The same is true with podcasts.  If listeners feel they can’t miss a minute and an hour and twenty minutes is too long - maybe they should get a dog to walk.  If they already have a dog - they should treat it better and take it on longer walks.

    Sheesh, why on earth would a person say “If I can’t listen to every minute of an episode - I don’t think those minutes should exist!”

    I guess I know at least that I’ve got a competitive advantage over the FIR length-complainers in the I KNOW they aren’t listening to the entire Gilmor Gang!  ;)

    Posted by Marshall Kirkpatrick  on  05/05  at  10:36 AM

  7. Change the show length if you must, but please leave enough time for Neville to continue lobbing words such as “surfeit” into the mix. Outstanding!

    Re: IM vs. Phone. If the phone rings I don’t have to look at it to decide if I should answer it or not. With caller ID, I can if I choose. With IM, I *have* to take action, whether it’s to respond to the ping or to minimize or close the IM window.

    To me, the bottom line is that email, the phone and IM are all an intrusion. It’s how we respond (or not) to them in a particular moment that determines precisely how intusive they really are.

    Posted by Mike McClary (rhymes with McClary)  on  05/05  at  11:41 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #135: May 8, 2006

Previous entry: Podcast survey: FIR listeners are influential, educated, mobile and global

<< Back to main