Yay Advice!
Well, it's not like there wasn't advice waiting here for you, patiently, while you were off gallivanting in BBaBB++.
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
Yay Advice!
Well, it's not like there wasn't advice waiting here for you, patiently, while you were off gallivanting in BBaBB++.
t sighs
I certainly hope you've learned your lesson, young lady.
Go! Spend money!
If google doesn't know that shit is available, we have a problem.
No kidding. And blanking an entire organisation (as opposed to a reporter) is a bit tantrumy.
Google is the first one to say that yes, information is out there.
I think it wasn't the fact that it is available, but that they published it in a story.
It's quite another thing to distribute the information in more formal press setting.
I think it wasn't the fact that it is available, but that they published it in a story.
For that you cut off an entire organisation? It still seems petulant to me.
Petulant, yes.
But I'm guessing that many businesses if they, for instance, felt that the New York Times had done them wrong would keep NYT reporters from press conferences for a while. Why would CNET be any different?
I'm not saying it's right, but it happens all the time.
At least that's one of the reasons we were taught to have some restraint in journalism school when I was getting my degree.
I'm guessing that many businesses if they, for instance, felt that the New York Times had done them wrong would keep NYT reporters from press conferences for a while.
The report I read a couple days ago said that banning reporters was standard, banning an organisation was rare.
But I'm not part of the industry, so I can't comment with any authority -- just passing it on.