Site’s getting a lot of hits
from an outfit called ”Proximic." If it widens the selection of contextual articles, it might assist me. Take a look, see what you think.
The Economist:
“The New York Times once epitomised all that was great about American newspapers; now it symbolises its industry’s deep malaise ...”
The Economist:
Crooks & Liars:
Too good to pass up. Helen Thomas Confronts Perino On Torture; Perino Denies and Lies. An interview with Ms Thomas, that folks mind find interesting.
What ‘marketing genius’
came up with this idea? CNN T-shirts with latest headline ‘slogans.’ There’s a tiny shirt icon now next to the little video camera on their front page.
Too pooped
to Pope. I’ll leave that news for other blogs.
NY Times Editorial:
Guns and bitter. “… neither senator made a mark questioning the general or the ambassador at the hearings. And they were silent afterward, while Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, talked of victory. The Democrats should have been explaining how they plan to bring American troops safely home and contain Iraq’s chaos.”
Reuters:
What’s keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts. And this, from a serious news source. Sounds like a bad B-movie. Cosmic rays, if you please. The reality sounds campy enough.
Looks like the BBC
redesigned their site. Much easier to read.
Oh, and seen on the site ... Happy Birthday, RAF. Not directly about the RAF, I’d still suggest reading ”Falcons of France”, by Nordhoff & Hall, the two authors who wrote “Mutiny on the Bounty.” If you can find it. Perhaps at a library. Covers WWI aircraft and the war from a first-person perspective (both authors were involved with the Lafayette Escadrille).
NY Times Business:
“The concept of supply-side economics, introduced by Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1980, has made a return in this year’s election campaign, in an amended form. What do you think about trying to use supply-side economics in the United States?” Excuse me, NY Times, but Mr Bush has been using supply-side philosophy throughout his eight years. Your readership is not stupid.
CNN:
Explosives near Capitol go undetected for weeks. Let’s not kid ourselves. WMD’s are nukes or biologicals, not propane tanks. I’m not saying this isn’t disturbing ... but let’s keep the knee-jerk panic reactions for dirty bombs and graver threats.
Washington Post:
“Would you be willing, as a sign of compassion and empathy, to do the unthinkable and broadcast right now, as a Valentine to me, 20 seconds of blessed dead air?” If you’ve ever been a linkblogger, or ever aspired to be one, read this.
NY Times, The Lede:
Bush sings. Execrable in multifarious ways.
Digital Journalist:
The High Price of Ethics. “… he was told to tell the news team to ‘wipe the capital J’s off their sweaters because that’s not the way we do things anymore.’”
Times Online.UK:
Buried alive, Chinese builder survives for two hours using Buddhist meditation. Just ... wow.
SF Gate:
2 editors’ online journal gives new life to literature. Their online magazine is here, and I’ve added it to my own blogroll. On the site, Marvin Bell’s ”What I Do” strikes a distinct chord.
London Review of Books:
Riots, Terrorism, Etc. “So only 12 per cent of what is in the papers consists of a story that a reporter has found out and pursued on her own initiative; and only 12 per cent of key facts are checked. The rest is all rewritten wire copy and PR. This remaining 88 per cent is, in Davies’s stinging coinage, ‘churnalism’. No wonder the papers feel a bit thin. [snip] So we have arrived at a place where ‘the heart of modern journalism’ has become ‘the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked second-hand material, much of it designed to service the political or commercial interests of those who provide it’.” For all they complain about weblogs, they are already us ... without the social self-correcting mechanisms. Most weblogs end up with dozens of amateur editors, to factcheck and add color. Pros had longtime subject-specific editors, but I believe those ranks are dwindling - subject to economy (lower-cost generalists, simply less editorial quality). Whether professional or not, be judicious picking sources to mortgage your opinions from.
NY Times, Public Editor:
What That McCain Article Didn’t Say. I agree with this assessment. This is what ‘investigative journalism’ is for - finding proof. Sans proof, you dance around libel laws and flirt with yellow journalism. To say that the article wasn’t understood in the light for which it was written, is to imply journalists and their editors don’t know their audience. I don’t buy it.
NY Times Media & Advertising:
Blogger, Sans Pajamas, Rakes Muck and a Prize. One strategy for weblog success.
SF New Mexican:
End of the line for The Albuquerque Tribune. I’ve used them pretty much exclusively as my source of news for Albuquerque and environs. The online Albuquerque Journal is very poorly designed, and certain parts are pay-only. It’ll be a ‘net desert without the Trib. I’m sorry to see it go.
NY Times Opinion:
Stifling Online Speech. If you write a weblog, read this.
Reuters:
Reuters photographers describe how they survived the cold at the Green Bay Packers/NY Giants game. I can tell you right now, from my own experience, don’t rely on third-party or consumer-grade lenses. Full on pro lenses, if you want to get anything. Even those may need special lubricants to keep them moving. My thought immediately upon reading this was ... batteries. The weak spot. Have a manual film Nikon in the backup kit, ready to go. No batteries, no problem.
The Economist:
The Democrats’ year. I don’t believe it’s such a shoe-in. Wait until the candidate is chosen; if you lived through the 90’s, you know everyone’s pulling punches at present.
Times Online.UK:
BBC is told to make news more attractive. My italics. I picture a forlorn ostrich in an ill-fitting corset and saggy spandex.
NY Times Opinion:
Revenge of the ‘Citizen Journalist’. Some wish us to suffer the same fate as ”Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick.”
