annfriedman: In my ongoing quest for the perfect framework for understanding haters, I created The Disapproval Matrix**. (With a deep bow to its inspiration.) This is one way to separate haterade from productive feedback. Here’s how the quadrants break down: Critics: These are smart people who know something about your field. They are taking a hard look at your work and are not loving it. You’ll probably want to listen to what they have to say, and make some adjustments to your work based on their thoughtful comments. Lovers: These people are invested in you and are also giving you negative but rational feedback because they want you to improve. Listen to them, too.  Frenemies: Ooooh, this quadrant is tricky. These people really know how to hurt you, because they know you personally or know your work pretty well. But at the end of the day, their criticism is not actually about your work—it’s about you personally. And they aren’t actually interested in a productive conversation that will result in you becoming better at what you do. They just wanna undermine you. Dishonorable mention goes to The Hater Within, aka the irrational voice inside you that says you suck, which usually falls into this quadrant. Tell all of these fools to sit down and shut up. Haters: This is your garden-variety, often anonymous troll who wants to tear down everything about you for no rational reason. Folks in this quadrant are easy to write off because they’re counterproductive and you don’t even know them. Ignore! Engaging won’t make you any better at what you do. And then rest easy, because having haters is proof your work is finding a wide audience and is sparking conversation. Own it. The general rule of thumb? When you receive negative feedback that falls into one of the top two quadrants—from experts or people who care about you who are engaging with and rationally critiquing your work—you should probably take their comments to heart. When you receive negative feedback that falls into the bottom two quadrants, you should just let it roll off your back and just keep doin’ you. If you need to amp yourself up about it, may I suggest this #BYEHATER playlist on Spotify? You’re welcome. ** I presented The Disapproval Matrix to the fine folks at MoxieCon in Chicago yesterday, and they seemed to find it useful, so I figured I’d share with the class. It was originally inspired by a question my friend Channing Kennedy submitted to my #Realtalk column at the Columbia Journalism Review. In case you missed Ann Friedman’s taxonomy of haters.
Zoom

annfriedman:

In my ongoing quest for the perfect framework for understanding haters, I created The Disapproval Matrix**. (With a deep bow to its inspiration.) This is one way to separate haterade from productive feedback. Here’s how the quadrants break down:

Critics: These are smart people who know something about your field. They are taking a hard look at your work and are not loving it. You’ll probably want to listen to what they have to say, and make some adjustments to your work based on their thoughtful comments.

Lovers: These people are invested in you and are also giving you negative but rational feedback because they want you to improve. Listen to them, too. 

Frenemies: Ooooh, this quadrant is tricky. These people really know how to hurt you, because they know you personally or know your work pretty well. But at the end of the day, their criticism is not actually about your work—it’s about you personally. And they aren’t actually interested in a productive conversation that will result in you becoming better at what you do. They just wanna undermine you. Dishonorable mention goes to The Hater Within, aka the irrational voice inside you that says you suck, which usually falls into this quadrant. Tell all of these fools to sit down and shut up.

Haters: This is your garden-variety, often anonymous troll who wants to tear down everything about you for no rational reason. Folks in this quadrant are easy to write off because they’re counterproductive and you don’t even know them. Ignore! Engaging won’t make you any better at what you do. And then rest easy, because having haters is proof your work is finding a wide audience and is sparking conversation. Own it.

The general rule of thumb? When you receive negative feedback that falls into one of the top two quadrants—from experts or people who care about you who are engaging with and rationally critiquing your work—you should probably take their comments to heart. When you receive negative feedback that falls into the bottom two quadrants, you should just let it roll off your back and just keep doin’ you. If you need to amp yourself up about it, may I suggest this #BYEHATER playlist on Spotify? You’re welcome.

** I presented The Disapproval Matrix to the fine folks at MoxieCon in Chicago yesterday, and they seemed to find it useful, so I figured I’d share with the class. It was originally inspired by a question my friend Channing Kennedy submitted to my #Realtalk column at the Columbia Journalism Review.

In case you missed Ann Friedman’s taxonomy of haters.

Discuss

The Impossible Decision

curiosityfuelsthiskat:

newyorker:

Joshua Rothman on “the impossible decision” of whether or not to go to graduate school, and tough decisions in general: “There are too many unknowns…It’s too unclear what happiness is…These bigger mysteries make the grad-school decision harder.” http://nyr.kr/10x9uqf

Grappling with this right now.

Always happy I went to graf school, even though I finished with a master’s instead of a Ph.D. It’s like college without all the lingering insecurities.

(Source: newyorker.com)

Discuss

If you’re doing investigative journalism and the purpose is to have influence, digital is the tip of the sword,” says Andrew Golis, 29, Frontline’s director of digital media. For a scoop to ripple outward, it has to be linked and shared in social media, so Frontline works every angle, before and even after the airdate. Source agnosticism, he argues, is limited to short, immediate news. It’s one thing to click on a link of unknown provenance to read 200 words or watch a quick video; it’s another to commit to an hourlong documentary or a 10,000-word article. “When I see on my Twitter feed that the House voted for Hurricane Sandy relief, I’d be willing to read that from a million different sources,” says Golis. “When it comes to longform storytelling, you’re investing [time] in a serious thing, and you don’t do that without some confidence. Either someone has told you it’s good, or you trust the brand.

My contribution to Ben Adler’s epic survey of digital journalism and the digital youth.  (via golis)

Discuss
The world’s tiniest movie, made with ATOMS!
Zoom

The world’s tiniest movie, made with ATOMS!

(Source: motherboardtv)

Discuss

Me on Viewpoint with John Fugelsang discussing recognition for LGBT families in comprehensive immigration reform. To clarify my answer to the last question: Anti-gay Republicans—not the LGBT community—would be to blame if LGBT protections sink the bill; however, LGBT groups will no doubt get some flack from other progressive groups.

Hop over to The American Prospect if you want to read my related article.

In its favour, if Google Glass didn’t exist, all these Silicon Valley guys would be having affairs or buying unsuitable motorbikes

(via whitemenwearinggoogleglass)

If you don’t know what Google Glass is, it’s amazing. Go here: http://www.google.com/glass/start

Discuss