What's After Google?

It all made me think, though, that storage and searchability are huge battlefronts in the future of 'net culture. In the world of search, Google is inadequate and even if it were adequate it doesn't make sense to give it so much power. My guess is that there will be, there should be eventual search engine models that work in different ways. Maybe even search engines that mirror our various perspectives a little bit. Either that, or materials will be grouped and archived in places that make them easier to search in a more specific and nuanced and efficient way than the Google page-rank system.

Over the course of the semester, we've spent a great deal of time looking at Google, its model and its implications. However, in the end, we only really scratched the surface of what Google is and what it could be. The above quote, from one of Colin's posts earlier this week, made me wonder what exactly is going to challenge Google to really innovate? Is anything going to or will Google become the next Microsoft, become complacent, put out second rate products content to only change minor issues until they really drop a true bomb and are forced to reassess?

It's fairly obvious that Google has figured out how to maximize the internet better than just about anyone else. If you think this isn't true, I'd like for you to explain to me how Google continues to put out products that people flock to (i.e. Gmail, Wave, Earth, Maps, etc.) almost compulsively. Watching the fervor over Google Wave invites has become almost comical. As soon as someone lets others know that they have an allotment, people immediately jump at the opportunity. I'm not even sure if these people who want a Wave invite even know what they're getting into or what they'll use Wave for. They just want to be a part of the excitement of the new cutting edge Google product. I'm probably as guilty as others when it comes to this but in my defense, I've been spending some serious time figuring out what Wave can do to help make my life easier.

I remember the craziness that followed the release of Windows 95. Midnight openings, lines out the store, general insanity. That was for an OS, something that a lower end computer user might not be able to fully understand the differences between A and B. For the cool concept programs that Google is slinging around, it's no wonder that the nerds and techies are losing their shits. The question is whether Google can keep it up.

If not, what happens? Ultimately, someone or something is going to have to come along and light a fire under Google by putting out a superior product that excites users. Microsoft is trying this with Bing with mixed results. Alexa has got it as the 20th most popular site on the web right now, which given it short lifespan thus far, is pretty impressive. Yet, who are these people that use it? Outside of it's initial release, during which commercials were everywhere, I haven't had a single conversation with someone where they've even mentioned Bing, much less suggested I use it. Microsoft advertises Bing as being the first "decision engine", suggesting that Bing can make choices for you. It's an interesting idea but I don't really see how it's being implemented on the site. Bing's searches are roughly the same as Google's and their search results pages are alittle more cluttered. I'm not sure whether it's just my being used to Google or what, but I'd much rather continue to use that as opposed to making the jump.

Still, the idea of a "decision engine" seems like a step in the right direction. Even the most adept Google searchers have moments of frustration trying to find the info you desire. There is a lot of stuff out there and it can be tough going at times. With a search that helps to point you towards sites that it'll think you'll like, it could eliminate a number of headaches. However, given the uproar earlier this year about cookies, how that site would know your browsing habits is a tough question, one that I don't have the answer to. I suppose that a search engine could link into a social network, given the user's permission, and determine interests that way but once again, I'm not sure I want to be searching for information and only being given what I already have an interest in, back.

This is why I'm not a computer programmer and it's why I would have failed during the .com boom. I don't have enough foresight to predict the future or think of the next biggest thing. I'd like to think that when something comes down the pipe, I can identify them but to think it up from scratch, that's a different story.

What do you think comes after Google (something will)? Maybe that isn't the best way to phrase the question since nothing has come "after" Microsoft seeing as how the big M is still rocking. Perhaps the better way to ask it is, what will out-Google Google? Who'll one up the kings of the internet as this still relatively young technology continues to grow?

Quick Twitter Thought

Avatar, James Cameron's first film since Titanic, had initial screenings last night. However, since the film has what is known as a review embargo, no critic is supposed to post or release his/her initial reviews until a specified day, which for Avatar is the day of release. As a result, true "reviews" are few and far between with most writers attempting to stay on the studio's (20th Century Fox) good side. Twitter messages, however, are abundant and it seems as if one of the larger news services, Reuters, is picking that up as their story:

"If initial reviews and Twitter buzz are any indication, it may be money well spent for film studio 20th Century Fox."

"Twitter lit up with comments from journalists leaving the tightly guarded premiere. "James Cameron is a freakin' genius! I can't say much but wow, I loved it," wrote Alex Billington of the movie website FirstShowing.net.

The London Guardian's Mark Brown wrote on Thursday that "Avatar" was "really much, much better than expected, (it) looked amazing and the story was gripping -- if cheesy in many places."

"The terrible film that some had been anticipating had not materialized. It was good," Brown wrote."

I was struck by this line. Since Reuters isn't able to report on enough true reviews to make their story worthwhile, they went to the next best thing Twitter. It is them openly acknowledging that Twitter is the place to go for news. Does this also mean that Tweets will open a new avenue for critics to get their voices unofficially heard prior to the the lifting of the release embargo? If so, this is an important and interesting development for the film community to see how studios come down on writers breaking embargo on via Twitter in the future.

EDIT: The embargo has been lifted. Does it have anything to do with the Tweets?

Tweeting Groom

I'm not sure if the Tweeting and Facebooking Groom is falling under the criticism of McLuhan. If nothing else, it seems as if his doing this was done with a sense of humor and even satire. When watching the video, never did it cross my mind that he was doing this seriously or that he honestly really felt the need to update his status. Doesn't this actually signify a critical view of these uses of these technologies? In doing this, the groom is satirizing the people who feel the need to update their feeds endlessly on Facebook with such useless and inane information such as their relationship status. It's gotten to a point where your status on Facebook is nearly as important as your status in the real world. The groom seems to recognize this and at the opportune moment, decides to poke alittle fun. Would I have done something like this at my wedding? Hell no. Do I think it is a sign of the Twitter/Facebook apocalypse? Absolutely not.

What Would MM Think?

Colin posed the question, "What would McLuhan think about our class?" Honestly, I think it would be a mix of excitement and anxiety. As Matt D. points out in the comments to Colin's post, there are increasing number of students using laptops during class time. During a media class, this could be both a positive and negative. When studying media, having the tools that you're discussing right in front of you could be a good thing, assuming that the said laptop is utilized correctly. However, at the same point, it seems to be McLuhan's exact fear of users blindly utilizing technology without thinking about it. In fact, it couldn't be a better example for it. Instead of paying attention in a class designed to talk about the intersections of old and new media types, people are absorbed into a piece of technology. It seems to be McLuhan times 10!

However, at the same point, McLuhan might be pleasantly surprised to see the increasing number of upper level classes that have media and the way it affects our lives on the syllabus. Let's face it, over the past 10 years, talking about emerging media in an academic environment has broadened tremendously. No longing does a student have to be in a Computer Science course to be able to seriously discuss technology. We all sit in an English class and have covered such topics as Twitter and Facebook, two technologies that have barely/not existed for 5 years. Forget about a history of scholarship, Trinity is offering a course on topics literally as they are taking hold. Rather than sitting back and allowing these new techs to blindly take over our lives, we've spent the better half of the semester critically engaging with alot of ideas and themes that many mainstream American's take for granted or even worse, don't even think about.

We now live in a time period where emerging tech takes significantly less time to reach a wide usage. For McLuhan, the speed in which computer and user interaction is moving would have to be worrisome. Rather than saying stop and think, people are flying into these new ideas without considering their impact. I'm not sure that McLuhan could have imagined the speed in which we now consume information, not to mention the number of ways that we can. However, the very fact that our class exists is proof enough that we need not be worried about these technologies, but must merely more carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages that they offer. I'm throwing it out there that McLuhan would be happy with our class, some minor quibbles aside. At the very least, he'd be happier with ours than with other classes, in which the same type of laptop use is permitted despite nothing on the syllabus that warrants their being there.

Google Wave

I got myself an invite to Google Wave but I'm not exactly sure where to start? Suggestions?

Comcast and Hulu

Just as I was talking about the future of internet TV, here this comes.

Reddit Vs. Digg

I was looking over Reddit today, a site that I had heard of but never really utilized, primarily because I'm typically at Digg for this type of thing. It seems as if both sites accomplish roughly the same task of allowing users to vote for news/articles that are deemed most newsworthy. Without having an in-depth view of everything that Reddit offers, Digg initially strikes me as the more efficient option of the two. While Digg is certainly not flawless, it's design and execution seems more carefully considered, resulting in a cleaner, easier to pick up and use site. Reddit's homepage is so overloaded with text that it is a bit daunting. In fact, I think the style of the site may limit whatever substance is behind it.

I love the idea behind both. I like the idea of a news source aggregating stories based on how other users like myself feel about them, as opposed to an editor high in the structure of a newspaper. Its a Journalistic socialism. But, if pushed, I'd much rather head to Digg than Reddit.

FourSquare

I'm pretty intrigued by FourSquare. Seems to be a blending of Yelp and Twitter with special awards. I love me some awards! Issue may be that my friends aren't on it. Can I use it and get reviews and thoughts from people who I'm not "friends" with in real-life, i.e. Yelp? If so, it's awfully interesting.

What Now? My Role?

3. What role do I see MYSELF playing, possibly even as a content creator?

Once again, I'm not sure. Will I continue to contribute to social networks like Twitter and Facebook? Sure, because I like to think that I'm at least an infinitesimal portion of the conversation. Does that make me a content creator? In a sense, I guess it does. Does it make me an important content creator? Absolutely not. I'm psyched if 20 people read something I post or write. Kevin Rose's tweets are read by 1.1 million people. Not bad for a guy who helped create a website.

I think I get Twitter and how to use it. Does that mean that I use it to my best ability? Probably not. I'm willing and excited to learn how to, which is something I think people need to realize. Some of these apps and services are fairly innovative and original. We're not all going to pick them up instantly with a full understanding on how to use them to maximize our life. Does that learning curve mean that we should just shut them all out and ignore them? I'd like to hope not. Written text was once a foreign, even ridiculous concept. I'm glad that some of the more intelligent people in society decided to take the time to master it and subsequently, teach that mastery to others. People have scoffed at new technologies throughout time. The people who don't are those who end up making a difference. I don't mean to place myself in the latter group, far from it. I'm as much of a follower as anyone else. Twitter was founded in 2006. I joined in late 2008, making me two years late to the party, well past the fashionable limit. But I'd rather be late than not attending.

Who am I looking towards to lead the way? Leo Laporte and friends aren't a bad place to start. Neither are the folks at Revision 3 (there is a great deal of overlap between the two). They present accessible information while also discussing the most cutting edge techs. Most of them were on Twitter, with a solid understanding of what it is and it's potential well before much of the population. Laporte's crew is a huge group of industry insiders, journalists and up and coming developers. The discussions are informative and entertaining, if you're into that type of thing. Many of them have utilized UStream well before people knew what it was. These guys have been and continue to be on the cutting edge of content produced specifically for the 'net. There is no reason to think that they'll stop. While the live broadcasts leave a bit to be desired from a visual standpoint, the content is excellent.

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

5 Potential Uses of Twitter

Here's my list of 5 potential uses of Twitter:

1. Crowd-Sourcing: A quick search for a hashtag or trending topic will give one a pretty good idea as to what the masses are saying about it. This was initially more difficult without the use of a client desktop application but since Twitter has implemented a viable search on their own site, this is a quick and easy process. Let's say I wanted to see what Eagles fans thought about Sunday Night Football. Search for "Iggles" and there you go.

2. News Source: One can get breaking news information quicker on Twitter than any place else on the 'net. Whether you choose to follow news organizations such as the NY Times or rely strictly on the idea of citizen journalism, a Twitter user can get to the point info fast and easy.

3. Blogging Platform: Tired of writing longer blog entries? Twitter alleviates that with it's 140 character restriction. When a Twitter user is efficient and up to date (Adam Schefter), you can get the information you want without having to sift through a longer blog entry. Twitter forces the user to boil down his/her post to the bare minimum, a blast of information without the (sometimes) needless opinion.

4. Keeping up with Friends: An offshoot of #3 and an intrusion on Facebook's (which has essentially adopted Twitter's format for their news feed) territory, one could use Twitter for what doubters hate Twitter for. If you want to tweet that you're sitting watching TV while eating Cheetos, have at it. Just don't expect anyone other than your friends to follow you.

5. Meeting New People: While Facebook is designed for keeping track of people you know, Twitter is much easier to find people with similar interests and seeing what they have to say. Utilize the excellent WeFollow and you can find Twitterers for just about any topic you want to learn about.

Twitter Handle

Just so it's out there, my Twitter handle is kevinsimpson. Follow me @ twitter.com/kevinsimpson

TweetDeck and Other Twitter Apps

As someone who regularly uses Twitter (yet doesn't actually tweet all that much), some may find it odd that I rarely, if ever, actually visit Twitter.com. While I have nothing against Twitter's website per say, I do find that user an application for my Twitter viewing is much better. I've tried many (and given them a fair shake) desktop apps ranging from Tweetie to twhirl to Twitterrific to TweetDeck and on the iPhone, I've tried TweetDeck and TwitterFon.

By far, my favorite, on both platforms, is TweetDeck. The layout is simple and user-friendly. It's a full featured app that is powerful yet accessible. It's easy to navigate, easy to pick up yet easy to utilize to its full potential.

I do find it interesting that there is such a proliferation of Twitter Apps readily available for free use. Unlike the other major social networks, such as Facebook or MySpace, Twitter Apps have thrived to the point that I'm not sure I know of any of my friends who actually utilize Twitter by going to the service's actual website. The app experience allows your feed to be open all the time, running in the background, allowing quick access for checking Twitter whenever you want without having to visit the site. I guess I've become the de-facto app guy for the class so it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I support and use an app for this but in this case, the app geniunely makes a Twitter experience easier and more effective.

Best Way to Use Twitter?

Just as a start to my week's posts (I'm a Twitter believer), I think the easiest way to look at the difference between the Facebook Status Update Feed vs. Twitter's feed is that Facebook's is designed to keep track of people you know. The beauty of Twitter lies in it's ability to follow people you don't. As a result, where Facebook is a way to keep tabs on your friends and their activities, Twitter is much more a true news feed from around the world. It is entirely user-generated and operated.

Some people were complaining last night that they didn't have enough people to follow to make Twitter worthwhile. I'm not sure Twitter is meant to just check in on friends. It is easy, however, for people you want to hear more from (sports figures/writers, movie/music critics, industry leaders, stars) to broadcast their thoughts. I don't necessarily "know" or need to know ESPN's Adam Schefter but I "know" the Twitter Adam Schefter, who has the best breaking news on the NFL around.

Sports Coverage

Colin raises an interesting question in regards to sports coverage: Does it belong in our hypothetical website? I'm not entirely sure that I know the answer but if Pazniokas is looking to cover everything that has to do/go through the Capitol, it surely must include The University of Connecticut, the largest state funded collegiate level university in CT. With that comes the Huskies sports programs. After all, as tax-payers, some of our money goes towards funding these programs.

In regards to the Krayeske/Calhoun incident earlier this year, here are my thoughts:

1) It was the wrong environment to raise the question and reeks of self-promotion and importance.
2) It's a valid question to ask.

I, for one, have no issue with what Calhoun is paid. The amount of prestige/money that he has brought to UConn (and also the State of Connecticut) can not, quite frankly, be measured in any concrete way. What the Huskies mean, not only to the school's ability to draw students there but also to the state's moral, is incalculable. What was once a down and out program now stands as one of the pinnacles of collegiate sports and for the most part, Calhoun seems to turn out good people from the program. Figures such as Emeka Okafor, Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Kevin Ollie (still in the NBA, god bless 'em) not only shine in a basketball standpoint but as role models as well. While there are some issues that the program has to deal with, let's not forget that the kids playing for the Huskies are exactly that, kids. God knows that we all make stupid decisions in college. These are just magnified specifically because these 18 and 19 year olds mean so much to the state. Those who gripe about UConn's graduation rate are sorely misguided in so much that that problem does not solely exist here but as a larger issue with the college basketball world. Calhoun has done so much and continues to do good to not only the program but to the state that his pay is ok with me.

Calhoun's claim seems to have less significance than some want to assign to it strictly due to the situation in which it was stated. Calhoun was clearly upset and while he may not have handled himself in the best way, he's human and is allowed to make mistakes. After all, I'd be willing to guess that many people would react in a similar fashion when your pay vs. worth was questioned in an inappropriate forum in front of the press.

I'll give Krayeske credit for knowing when to ask an explosive question to achieve maximum effect and I agree with Colin's assertion that people like Krayeske are necessary from time to time. However, from what I understand from close friends, Krayeske's penchant for self-promotion outweighs almost any good that he may present. He seemingly exists to make people appear like jerks. A glance at his website, which he has the hubris to proclaim as "visionary movement", is self-promoting to the point in which is outweighs much of his content.

Is the topic of UConn Athletics worth covering? Potentially. However, it seems to sway from the stated political goal. I'm feeling that, at launch, the site should be as concise and concentrated on one goal as possible with the mind of achieving that goal as being tantamount to the site's survival. If the site is able to draw a dedicated following from the initial coverage, the site can then expand out to focus on broader issues relating to the state but I'm not sure that UConn athletics should be the first place to start.

Mobile Options

I was thinking that either an app or mobile site would be a must, although I lean more in the direction of a mobile site. Most phones are still without Flash support for their browsers, although it is supposedly coming to the Mobile Windows, Android, etc. based phones (Pre, Blackberry) but not the iPhone, which has posited Apple as the fastest growing company in terms of market share in the mobile phone industry. The lack of Flash support renders an increasing number of websites nearly unusable, formatting aside. While we discussed that its possible to scale and scroll through a site, it's undeniable that a website designed for viewing on a larger screen has a dramatically different experience on a mobile device without a mobile option.

Take ESPN.com, which according to Alexa, is the 61st most visited site worldwide, 16th in the US. ESPN's site is loaded with Flash video and without the mobile option, it loses much of its appeal. However, that mobile option streamlines the site significantly without removing much content. It's formatted for a smartphone's screen, not a lap or desktop's. As more and more people buy into the smartphone idea (7m iPhones were sold in 3Q 2009 alone), we need to somehow acknowledge and cater to this growing segment. While the browsers on these devices are becoming increasingly powerful and are less of a limitation, the size of the device and more specifically, it's screen is. Links are unusable without sizing and scrolling and only the most dexterous of users can click on a small hyperlink without a zoom. The mobile option (or app) eliminates the step of zooming, scrolling, etc. While it may only be my own laziness, I much prefer visiting sites with mobile options than ones without.

Almost every major site on the web has one. I'm thinking we should have that option as well if the user so desires it.

Death of Journalism?

I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment of this article and want to ask why so many people seem to equate the death of the newspaper with the death of journalism? Newspapers might go away in their print form, but why does that mean that good journalism will die off as well? Can't we see that these journalists, if they are enterprising and talented enough, will figure out a way to make things work? Look no further than Hollywood Elsewhere or Thompson on Hollywood as examples of what talented and legitimate journalists can do with their skills after they have left print.

Jeffrey Wells, the writer behind Elsewhere, is a long time film critic and writer who has worked for major publications such as Entertainment Weekly among others. When he left the print world (granted this was a while ago), he launched his highly successful blog, which is truly one of the best on the internet. Not only is it a reliable source for film news (having worked in the traditional print media for a long time, Wells has a vast number of contacts in the industry), it's a vital source of criticism and opinion from a trusted, intelligent film viewer. The second half of this is something that people seem to overlook. While some regard opinion and it's influx into journalism as being a tragic turn, the blogosphere allows writers to lend their work a bit more of personal touch. Rather than answer to an editor who might curb their creativity, writers like Wells, who take their blogs and writing seriously, are able to discuss what they want, when they want and how they want to. All this leads to Hollywood Elsewhere not only being an immensely personal creation but also one that exists as a wonderful source of news.

Thompson on Hollywood is no different. Anne Thompson, who worked at Variety (THE most trusted trade paper in the entertainment industry) for a number of years as a columnist and editor, was laid off earlier this year, went over to Indiewire and now has free reign over her blog. Like Wells, Thompson's blog is one of the best on the 'net, chock full of interesting, topical news. The writing is professional and worthwhile, obviously coming from someone who takes great care in their work and product. In class, we seem to fall into a habit of decrying all bloggers as somehow being less than journalists, when many bloggers are/were journalists and take their work as seriously as anyone in the newspaper industry. While there will always be exceptions to the rule, just because someone is a blogger doesn't mean that they will turn into this. Blogs like Hilton's have single-handily set back what it means to blog. We need to remember that not all bloggers are immature and irresponsible. After all, there are immature and irresponsible newspaper journalists as well, but we give other journalists a pass. Perhaps we should do the same for some bloggers as well.

Election Day

Colin asked us to post a diary of sorts for our Election Day experiences. Sorry it's alittle late but here goes:

My designated voting spot is at a local elementary school so around 6:00, prior to picking up some dinner, I headed over to cast my vote in the (rather/sorta/kinda meaningless) local election. Upon arriving, a few people were standing holding campaign signs for different candidates. There was one (rather surly) man standing with a series of Republican signs and a couple harping for the Dems. The Republican rep gave me a gruff hello as I walked by, while the Democrats, who were too involved in a conversation, didn't acknowledge my walking by. As a proudly register Democrat, I felt a warm stirring of brotherhood.

I entered the building and headed down a long hallway, decorated with art from the students. As I neared the gym (where the voting was held), there were a series of large standing racks lining the wall, with a raffle sign up near by. Having attended this elementary school as a kid, I knew the deal with this (it's something of a ritual) and past by without checking out the goods. I was on a mission! The gym was nearly empty, save for the poll workers and a straggling voter who seemed confused by the ballot system (what else is new). I went to my designated table (organized by the first letter of your street address), gave my address and name to the older lady behind the table, flashed my ID and was ordered to another table to pick up my ballot.

I picked up the paper ballot and headed to the designated voting spot, which reminded me of a Jeopardy set-up with dividers between each voter. I was slightly disappointed that A) I couldn't cheat off the elderly woman next to me; B) it wasn't the massive voting machine I used to crowd in with my parents when I was younger when they went to vote (the ones where you pulled the massive lever to shut the curtain, almost giving the sensation of playing the slots?). The past 4 or 5 times that I've voted, I've had to use the paper ballots and it's never been quite as satisfying. I cast my (rather predictable) votes and headed to hand in my ballot. The teenager sitting next to the machine, who seemed really pissed off that she was there, instructed me that it didn't matter which side was up. I slid the ballot in, the machine made a whirring sound, followed by a harmless thud and it was done. I quickly exited the building, excited to pick up my pizza and headed home.

Not the most exciting experience in the world but I have trouble getting pumped for the Town Council and Board of Ed. elections. Don't quite have the same nerve-rattling tension of a good Presidential race.

The iPhone Experience

Colin asked in a post how many people in class have iPhones so I'll weigh in with an emphatic yes. Why so emphatic? Because it's literally changed my life and my ability to consume information. Prior to the iPhone, smart phone (more or less the Blackberry) users were left to surf the net with a pseudo-browser that butchered whatever website you would be reading, reducing whatever carefully designed thoughts that existed within into a mess of text blurbs and bad pictures. One would have to scroll down through page link by link until you'd get to what you wanted. The connection was typically slow and some websites would be rendered useless by the butchered format.

However the iPhone launched with the same (more or less) version of Safari that Mac users had grown accustomed to. It allowed for websites to be viewed in their intended format (minus Flash) and gave the iPhone user a similar experience to browsing on a full-sized computer. Still, the iPhone was more or less an advanced phone. However, with the launch of the iPhone 3G and the App store, it became increasingly obvious that the iPhone no longer was a jazzed up phone, but a small, fully featured computer in your palm. One could play games, pay bills, etc. while keeping all the features of the phone and browser. It allowed an iPhone user to literally do whatever they wanted to do on their desktop while remaining wherever they happened to be.

Thus, if you want to read the news, pull out the iPhone. If you need a map, pull out the iPhone. Email? Texting? Internet? Banking? Gaming? Check, check, check, check, check. The way you consume information totally changes. Need to check a score? Screw going to a computer or TV, pull out the iPhone. Need to check stocks? iPhone. Need to read a book? Write a blog entry? You get the idea.

Now, do I think that the iPhone renders old-school journalism obsolete? Absolutely not. Does it mean that old-school journalists need to stop dragging their feet and get moving? Absolutely. Just because I have an iPhone does not make me immediately want to turn to TMZ or, quite frankly, trust anything they say. Far from it. But it does make me want my information faster. Do I still want it from a reliable, intelligent source? Without a doubt. Initially, this may make journalists have to worker harder and faster but every job is speeding up in the new century. It doesn't mean that it has to be done with shoddy workmanship. Other industries have learned to streamline and efficiently their processes and products. Those that haven't (American automakers, I'm looking at you), are failing. People can sit around lamenting the past all they want. It won't change where we're going and it doesn't mean that where we are going is a bad, destructive place. It can be a great, glorious place but only if people want to embrace it and use it effectively.

Print Vs. Online

I've always found the argument in regards to newspapers going online a bit perplexing. However, the idea that a entrenched culture is helping to prohibit (or at least delay) the seemingly obvious and inevitable move is something that I tend to agree with. There is a great deal of stress and anxiety generated by this topic but it seems quite simple to me. If a newspaper wants to survive, they have to successfully navigate the changing times (like every other industry) and redesign their product to fit into the rapidly changing 21st century. The easiest way to do so is to bring it online.

Too many newspaper types seem to be antiquated in their views and beliefs. I enjoy the medium of print as much as the next guy but as times change, so too must a medium. Most major media have made the jump to the 21st century, with the music industry leading the way with the now pervasive MP3 existing as the industry's vehicle of choice. The film industry made the jump from film to video to digital as necessary. Why can't newspapers (and their readers) relinquish some of their nostalgia for how things were and realize they need to change their product to fit how things are now? People decry the death of newspapers constantly. Why can't their be a slight concession to the ways in which you consume your news?

Let's take, for example, my father who had previously been a subscriber to 3 newspapers: The Hartford Courant, The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. He would spend hours (especially on Sundays) with the paper scattered about the room, reading each section as he felt necessary. However, my sister and I purchased him a Kindle for his birthday. Almost immediately (literally within a week), he had subscribed to the Kindle's free trial of the NY Times, found almost no difference to his ability to consume the content within and canceled his print copy. Not only does the Kindle's edition allow for easier transport and less mess, it's cheaper to boot. There are a few subtractions from the Kindle edition (most notably the crossword) but the difference in price is significant. Surely a crossword isn't worth the additional 3 dollars or so on Sundays.

My point is that if the newspapers are failing because their product is antiquated and waning in popularity, people should spend less time gnashing their teeth about the death of journalism and spend more time determining how to take the product and move it into the next generation. If they can't, then the publisher and newspaper deserve to fail to other groups that have determined a better way of doing things.

The Wikipedia Experience

I, too, like Courtney had some initial skepticism about editing Wikipedia. I stuck to an uber-basic edit to Michael Mann's page in regards to Christian Bale's character in this past summer's Public Enemies. Although my edit was so minor that it's addition could be easily counted by characters, I felt a nervous tinge as I was pressing the submit button.

I recognize the issues with Wikipedia in regards to it's accuracy and truthfulness. Yet, I still rely on it almost daily as a base source of information and more often than not, the site does not lead me wrong. As Colin mentioned in class, I wouldn't use the information on Wikipedia as any sort of medical reference but for the topics I'm interested in (Film, Music), Wikipedia has been overwhelmingly helpful in broadening my horizons and tastes, in rather accurate fashion. I understand Colin's point about how the genius function of iTunes might actually be restricting tastes versus broadening them but I'm not sure I agree with them since to a certain extent, a browse through a musical genre's page on Wikipedia isn't all that much different. Even just in the most briefest of manners, a mention of another band introduces the listener to that band's existence, the same purpose that Genius does. Genius does not necessarily cull only singles or mainstream tracks for the process, but looks at deeper album cuts as a possible source as well.

How does this tie back into Wikipedia? Let me explain through example.

Let's assume that I am someone with blossoming musical tastes, a wandering ear eager to escape from the confines of Clear Channel's radio monopoly. I love the band Coldplay because of their epic sounding stadium rock/pop. I decide to hit their Wikipedia page to see what's up. A quick browse through the introductory paragraphs points me to the following bands:

Radiohead- Argubly the most cutting edge, business altering band currently releasing music that a large number of people will hear. Alt./Indie Rock. Also British.

Jeff Buckley- Mid 90's Alt. Singer/Songwriter/Male Diva who enjoys a large cult following. Achieved some mainstream success with his rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". Son of Tim Buckley, influential singer/songwriter in 1960's. American.

Kate Bush- Influential and respected female singer/songwriter. Considered by many as the best female singer/songwriter of the last 30 years. Known for her ethereal, arty songs. Brit.

Kraftwerk- Ultra-influential German electronic group. Sampled by Coldplay for their song "Talk". Genres such as Techno, Industrial, Synth Pop and Electro all stem from Kraftwerk. Argubly the most important German musical export of the 20th century.

My Bloody Valentine- Shoegaze band led by Kevin Shields from late 80's, early 90's known for their densely layered studio albums and deafening live shows. Bankrupted label making "Loveless" considered by some as the greatest album of the 1990's. Recently reunited. British.

So, in the first 3 paragraphs, the reader has been introduced to 5 highly important bands, ranging in popularity, but nearly unequaled in importance and influence. The reader from those bands webpages will find The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., R.E.M., Miles Davis, Zeppelin, The Who, Neu!, Can, Joy Division, New Order, U2 and Afrika Bambaataa, not to mention the suggestions of genre: Shoegaze, Noise Pop, Dream Pop, Punk, Post-Punk, Jazz, Fusion, Jangle Pop, Space Rock, American Underground, Hardcore, Krautrock and Electro, from all of which most of modern music stems.

Once again, my point may be lost. As an introduction to things, Wikipedia is invaluable. As a detailed source of flawless information, perhaps not so much. Still, I worried that I would somehow mess this up. Why? Because, despite my academic learnings otherwise, I more or less trust Wikipedia in all its social goodness. I wouldn't want to destroy that for someone else, so even the smallest addition, despite it's flawless accuracy, is stressful. My worry now becomes that other people take it as seriously as I do. My real worry is that I know they don't.

What Exactly Happens When You Do the Google (from my perspective)?

I could be entirely wrong but here goes:

When a user accesses Google, during the initial transfer between the site and your machine, a cookie is loaded through the browser (assuming cookies are enabled) onto your HDD. This cookie contains information about both your browsing habits, your machines settings and any unique settings you want the website to load when you access it.

After the initial transfer, you sit at the Google homepage. When you type in your search term and hit search, the phrase is run through a database that Google maintains and updates regularly (not sure exactly how regularly, but I'm guessing hourly). The phrase is cross-referenced with phrases in websites around the internet. When the phrase hits a match, the match is added to your list of search results. I'm assuming the most popular websites on the internet are searched first and most often, thus allow Google to provide those websites near the top of their list. After the list is completed (at an insane speed, the site will list the time taken to complete the search), it is displayed to the user, after which they can continue on.

Probably totally wrong, but that's my guess.

Google's "Don't Be Evil" Motto

I have to admit, the motto "Don't Be Evil" is one of the strangest I've ever heard strictly for the fact that it actually doesn't say anything. If one reads the Google Code of Conduct, there isn't much surprise there. However, the actual motto itself is odd.

What exactly does "Don't Be Evil" mean (Google's explanation aside)? It certainly doesn't mean "Be Good". It doesn't mean "Don't be really bad". What exactly would qualify as an "evil" act? Aren't the ideas of good and evil ultimately subjective? One man's good is another's evil. A tax hike for some is good because it pays for social programs. It's evil to others because it causes them to lose their hard-earned dollars. Evil is a shifty term, one that will mean different things to different people, thus leaving a motto that doesn't actually say anything.

Is the invasion of privacy evil? If so, are cookies evil? Or are they a benefit that allows easier access to the web?

Is an attempt to control ideology and create hegemony evil? If so, is the specific manipulation of search results to promote certain ideas evil? Or is it a way to show more popular results over more obscure sites so you don't waste your time sifting through trash?

Are monopolies evil? If so, is the total control of a marketplace evil? Or is it just a result of Google consistently innovating and producing better products?

These are questions that will receive different answers from just about everyone you ask. So, how do we expect every Google employee to understand the meaning of a term that is so shift to us? Is it possible that the company keeps its employees so well informed and educated that there is not the gray area here? I would be surprised if that is the case.

Google, Cookies and Privacy

The privacy debate that continues on ad infinitum is certainly an interesting and timely one. In fact, I believe that the problem of privacy invasion will become one of the major mainstream discussion points of the early 21th century as more and more people educate themselves on some of the practices that websites use.

As to where I fall on the subject, more often than not, I side with the people here. I'm a believer that people should be able to what they chose, within the confines of the law, in private. It should not necessarily be public knowledge that your 45 year-old neighbor spends his evenings in a pink dress while watching Teletubbies, nor if your 15 year-old neighbor spends her time watching explicit videos. I disagree with large sections of the Patriot Act. I'm a firm believer in the freedom of speech and expression People should be free to act however they want in their own private space (and in most instances, in the public space as well). They should not be judged or labeled as a result. Yet, I'm not sure how I feel about cookies, as I believe, for the most part, that this is a privacy issue that gets too much attention.

While some may find it invasive that a company could potentially be looking at your browsing habits and as a result, catering their website to better fit your needs and desires, I find it convenient that the next time that I access the site, parts of it will be pre-loaded as I want it. Some worry that ESPN.com (or for the purposes of our discussion, Google) takes down some info about you to better serve you (and sell to you) the next time you visit the site. I don't. People often think that their actions are more important to massive companies than they actually are. Chances are, that if a cookie is placed on your machine by Amazon, Jeff Bezos isn't looking to use you to take over the world. It's probably so Amazon can give you those nifty recommendations the next time you stop by to check out the daily Gold Box sales. They may use some basic info about you to conduct some marketing. They probably aren't looking over your entire browsing history in order to see if you frequent adult oriented sites. Bezos could care less.

Still, I recognize the fear, the big brother mentality that accompanies this type of "harmless" cookie. I just don't buy it. It's something when a town places cameras at every intersection in town (hello, West Hartford!) and could feasibly track your cars every move (although once again, I'm thinking West Hartford has bigger issues on their mind than whether the white Prius driven by Kevin Simpson has passed over South Main Street yet. Is there a potential cause for concern here? Could cookies feasibly be manipulated to track your every move? Absolutely. Yet, my issues with privacy generally come with their inhibition of your everyday activities, when they get in the way of being able to live a normal life. But, when the "invasion of privacy" comes with faster load times, better website experiences and catered ads? I'll take my chances.

Who Exactly is Google's Client?

Colin posed this question last night and the more I think about it, the less I seem sure of an answer. Let's take a look at some possibilities:

1) The User- Google provides the search according to what you, the internet user, ask for.
2) The Sites Being Searched- Google provides the sites with an easy way for users to find it.
3) Advertisers- Google provides the platform for advertisers to get their message across.

I'm not even sure that these are all of the possible clients. Each have their own argument to go with them and each seem equally valid. What are some of the other clients that Google is invested in? Do they favor one over the other? Is the user really the main concern for Google or are they siding in a different way? I've got to admit that this question is really fascinating me. Previously, I had always thought that their primary client was me, the user. However, the sites that I'm searching for are being helped nearly as much, if not more so than I am. How else would I find obscure sites around the web? I'm really not sure.

Google: The New Microsoft?

This idea has been a long lingering one but if we're going to be discussing Google, it deserves a mention and a look. I think it's been more or less established and agreed upon that when Microsoft achieved total market domination, the quality of their operating systems (and products in general) took a hit. Rather than not resting on their laurels and continuing to push the products that made the company what it was then, Microsoft sat back and lost most of its steam. Windows XP ended up a decent product, but it took many service packs to get there. Vista was an unmitigated disaster, nearly destroying the Windows name in the process. Now, with Windows 7, which I haven't used (a converted-Mac user) but have heard very good things about, Microsoft may have started to feel the heat again and push out a quality product during its initial release, not 2 years down the road.

Where's the heat coming from? As far as I can tell, two places: the fine folks at Apple and our study for the week, Google. First, Apple is as innovative a company that exists today (yes, even more so than Google). In roughly the past decade, Apple has completed the following:

1) The creation of the iMac in 1998, which almost single-handedly helped the company survive.
2) Threw total game-changer #1 into the mix with the iPod in 2001, the same year they opened their first retail store.
3) Threw total game-changer #2 into the mix with the iPhone in 2007, which has revolutionized the cell phone industry and even made people question what is possible for a hand-held computer.
4) Launched the iTunes Music Store, legitimizing digital downloads in the process and creating what-is-now the largest music retailer in the United States and potentially putting traditional record stores out of business.
5)Has continually improved and perfected upon their own OS, Mac OS X, now in it's 7th iteration, Snow Leopard.

Google, on the other hand, has seemingly revolutionized everything we think about the internet. With their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, Google News, etc, internet computing has been Google's bread and butter. In terms of software, very few companies can hold a candle to what Google has done since it's creation in late 1998. However, their story is eerily similar to Microsoft's. Apple is relatively safe from this as most of their innovation this decade has come from the creation of game-changing hardware and their acceptance of being a specialty producer, in which their users pay a premium for the product. Microsoft and Google on the other hand exist much more strongly on the software side of the equation, which leaves the question. Can Google continue to innovate for the mass-market when there is no one else really innovating alongside them? Microsoft launched Bing this year and while it has enjoyed a good dose of popularity, I believe that there are very few that believe it will unseat Google as the de-facto search engine of choice.

Is there anyone else out there producing a quality, innovative product that will appeal to the mass market and cut into Google's dominance? I'm not sure. While there are many highly qualified companies producing exciting and innovative work, few, if any, are achieving mainstream popularity and success. While that may seem like a good thing for Google now, it may seem like a bad thing for the users in another couple of years, when Google launches Google Vista, to the world's horror.

Facebook, Malls and Greens

I like Matt's thoughts on Facebook, especially his comparison of Facebook being most like a mall. I had never really thought of the site in this manner but given the time and consideration, I'm surprised at how much those ads seem to grab my attention. Now, I don't necessarily click on them but they certainly divert my eye at times when I'm clicking through the site. However, I'm not sure that the mall and town green need to be mutually exclusive or in some respects, if they are even inseperable today.

As society has become increasingly materialistic, the mall has become the defacto meeting place for people of all ages for all reasons. Some get together specifically to shop for a certain item. Others, to shop for the sake of shopping. Others (I'm thinking teens here) seem to get together at malls just because it's a place to get together and hang out. My friends and I did it as teens as the prospect and idea of walking around a mall seemed far better than sitting in a basement.

I can't remember the last time, if ever, my friends have ever decided to get together at a town green (and I lived in Boston for a couple of years, decidedly underutilizing the Common). This wasn't due to any aversion to the outdoors (as a group, we're fairly adventurous) or really, anything specific. However, we would go to the mall in order to shop, eat, get out of the house. My question is then, has the mall become the new town green? Does the Facebook-as-mall idea change the site's intent or potential at all? I'm not so sure. If people are now using the the more capitalistic mall instead of the town green to meet, who's to say that Facebook can't do the same?

Facebook and Profit

While I agree with mostly everything that Courtney asserts here, my question lies with the last sentence, the comment that Facebook is now about profit. Hasn't it always, to an extent, been about profit, from the first time it took money from an individual or a venture capital firm? Surely these companies were not throwing Zuckerberg money out of the goodness of their hearts but out of the promise of future funds returning to their wallet.

Journalists and Social Networking

While reading the Nieman Reports piece on the role of journalism in social networking, I was struck by the idea that the social networks are not mere tools that we now use, but they are the world in which we use additional tools. As more and more internet users turn to networks like Facebook and Twitter for their breaking news tidbits, these sites are quickly changing the game.

In the past, one would have to wait for the media source to digest and then spit back out the information. Even with so called "breaking news", TV and radio networks were forced to first turn inward and decide how exactly they should at least begin covering the story. This is not to suggest that they would have to understand the end point of their coverage, but at least the beginning with which to take the air with. However, with the social networks continuing their rise in power and popularity, they are, in a way, cutting out the middle man that was the major media outlets in the days of yore.

Nowadays, users can turn to their feeds and see instantaneous updates about a situation. Hell, even the major networks utilize Twitter as a source of information. Take the Iranian election protests earlier this year, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. These were events that were largely being reported on by the participants, literally as the events were occuring, allowing the citizens of the world to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the events as they were unfolding. No longer were people forced to turn to the major corporate networks in order to gleam information. The trade off here was that the users (and the consumers of the news) were forced to understand and decide what to trust, on their own. Ultimately, however, that's what we trust our news organizations to do. This process just cuts out that middle man.

This is both an exciting and disconcerting notion. While in the right hands of responsible intelligent consumers of the news, this is a huge boost in access and power. No longer are we forced to listen to Reporter X drone on about an event that happened hours ago. Now, we're able to (hypothetically) hear from the person who started said event. That's the beauty of Twitter. Where Facebook is best (and most efficiently) used as a means of keeping in touch with people whom you know, Twitter doesn't necessarily provide that same service. Rather, Twitter allows you to follow people you've never met yet trust as a source of news (Hello, Bill Simmons!). It allows me to track down the participants in the controversies in Iran rather than having to hear Brian Williams tell me about those participants. Exciting stuff.

On the other hand, in the wrong hands (read: unintelligent and irresponsible news consumers), this leads to a dangerous means of spreading rumors. The situation with Michael Jackson, mentioned in the Nieman article, is just such an event. While many of the early people reporting his death turned out to be correct, this is the type of Tweeting that starts rumor riots. If one listens or follows a single feed, they will be misinformed (although one could also argue, fairly easily, that if one only watches/listens to a single news channel, they'll be just as misinformed). If one takes the time to broaden and listen to many feeds, Twitter opens a new realm of news coverage, one that ultimately leads to the question: Do we still need professional journalists or will citizen journalism emerge as the de facto means of receiving and reporting on news (I only half kid)?

Blogger Question

More of a question than any sort of observation or answer: Are people who write blogs specifically for newspapers (i.e. Colin) bloggers? Or are they journalists? I was thinking about this while reading Aldon Hynes' piece on what bloggers should be doing to fill in the gaps that the closing of newspapers are leaving. Aldon suggests that they act more like journalists would i.e. covering the news, going to events and writing about them.

Essentially, what differentiates bloggers who are paid by a newspaper to do it vs. someone who does it for free? Does a blogger just need to attend and cover said current events to become a "journalist"?

Courant Criticisms Pt. 2

When reading the Columbia Journalism Review's article of the Hartford Courant's coverage of a local hostage situation, I was immediately struck by how similar the dilemma that the Courant faced was to the one facing the writers of the San Francisco Chronicle, Vallejo Times-Herald and San Francisco Examiner in the Zodiac killings (memorably portrayed in David Fincher's best-of-the-decade masterpiece Zodiac). In Hartford, the hostage-taker demanded that if the Courant didn't un-publish a story about the situation, he would blow up the house in which both he and the hostage were holed up. In San Francisco, the Zodiac demanded the papers publish his letter to the respective editors or risk a killing spree. The Courant declined to remove the story and the Bay Area papers chose to publish the letters.

Now, there are obvious differences here but the dilemma that the papers faced are remarkably similar. The CJR points out that "there is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish", a point which I agree with. However, a commented, "John P." makes a interesting point under the story:

Let's say I'm a sleazy businessman and I get word that the local paper is printing a damaging article about me tomorrow. I just need to get someone to call the paper and threaten to blow something up unless they cease publication. Sounds like fun.

The papers face a true conundrum here. Do they relent to a criminal, thus setting a dangerous precedent that their journalistic integrity can be compromised by what may be an idle threat? Or, do they stick to their story and see what happens? I tend to think that the second option is a better one, as I don't like where the first option leads to. If the papers are supposed to be spots of true journalism, they need to be willing to report the facts without fear of a backlash. They need to publish what they have discovered and stick by them. In both cases, the papers, to an extent, stood their ground. While Bay Area papers published the Zodiac letters, they initially buried them deeper in the paper until it became clear that the writer of the letters was a legitimate threat to public safety.

I'm not sure there is a true right or wrong answer here but it surely asks an interesting question. For those of you that haven't seen Zodiac, its absolutely worth seeking out, if for nothing else, a cinematic portrayal of the events described above.

Courant Criticisms

The question of the week is to take a look at the Hartford Courant, the one of the true mainstay major newspaper of the CT region. Since I don't read the print edition (not sure it's worth the money nowadays), I'll limit my concerns to the online edition.

I think the one thing that the Courant does a good job with is their bloggers (no, really!). Finding those blogs, however, is a different story. The blogger section of the front page is buried past the screen cut, forcing a user to scroll down even to discover the roll of Courant bloggers, past a few news boxes, a rather uninspired photo section and the weather. Even here, it only lists the past few posts from across the paper. Prior to the recent website redesign, the Courant had a drop down menu for all their bloggers as a quick hit spot to get to the writer you wanted to read. Now, you're forced to wade through the different sections of the paper to get to the blog you want to read. That aside, once you get to the blogs, most are rather robust with a good selection of regionally important material. I tend to skew to Entertainment related news (music, movies and TV), so let's (briefly) look at the two major entertainment blogs the Courant offers.

I routinely read Eric Danton's Sound Check, which, for local music news, is as good as it gets. Danton wisely focuses on the region's music scene as opposed to cover national news. I frequently notice him out at concerts in Hartford, Northampton and the like and his blog reflects it. Updated frequently with notable information, it's a solid read for Hartford music fans who actually want to engage with interesting, worthwhile tunes.

Roger Catlin's TV Eye is generally pretty good as well. While it focuses more on actual television shows, which leans away from local coverage, Catlin's insights and opinions generally enrich a viewing experience. While I'm not a regular reader, I do actively seek it out fairly often.

The remaining bloggers (Colin McEnroe, the Sports crew) are all solid. For the most part, the Courant's beat blog on Huskies basketball is as good of coverage as one can find for all your UConn basketball needs. The bloggers all cover the local scene with a great deal more efficiency than the actual Courant, which was leading me to consider what the coverage would look like if every reporter was blogging rather than writing columns.

It would obviously lead to the demise of the print edition as the blogs just wouldn't translate into a printed page. However, it'd give the readers of the online Courant up-to-date bursts of information from the writers that they have come to know and trust. Equally so, the reporters wouldn't have to strictly focus on a single story. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but writing a blog offers a great deal more of freedom and speed. The problem with the blogs are that they allow for a great deal of self-publishing. That said, adjust the editors to focus more heavily on the blogs and go online exclusively. You'll have adjusted the paper for the coming generation and would have beat most other regional papers to the punch. While it'd be sad to see the Courant printed edition go away, the paper does a good job with their bloggers, I'd like to see more focus swing in that direction.

Michael Moore on the Death of Old Media

From a Q&A session following a screening of his most recent, Capitalism: A Love Story. From Hollywood Elsewhere.

Moore makes an interesting argument here in regards to people vs. advertising. Plus, anyone who consults David Simon, creator/writer of the best TV show ever, The Wire, deserves to be heard.

Obama Backs Newspapers

An interesting story this morning about President Obama backing the newspaper industry.

"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."

My question is what difference does it make whether a newspaper is published in print versus only on the internet, ala the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? How does that change the newspapers ability to publish worthy, accurate news? The printed word is the printed word, regardless of whether its on newsprint or in hypertext. It may be more difficult to sell the news on the internet but it's not impossible. Facebook is starting to show signs of being able to turn a profit. A reputable newspaper should be able to do so also.

The Impact of Social Networking on Annie Le

"Maybe it is the legal system, and not the Internet, that should be adjusting to the new order of things."

The above quote, taken from the MediaLite article by Robert Quigley, strikes me as being the most adept moment of the piece. It's easy for people to complain about the new obstacles that Web 2.0 presents to tried and true institutions. It's another for them to actually attempt to change and adapt with the changing times. Technology has always and will continue to frighten people who don't understand it. History is littered with people who struck against what they felt was the unstoppable wave of change. However, I can't help but feel that the struggle that these people feel is all for not. Technology is moving forward. Ultimately, one has to as well.

Does the advent of new social networking systems change a great deal of our society? Absolutely. Is it for the worse? I'm not so sure. While there are some definite issues that have arisen from the rise of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., these aren't necessarily issues with the services themselves but rather with the people who use them. I find that people spend their time blaming the problems they may have with these services on the service themselves. They feel their privacy is violated, that it can lead to an all-too-quick spread of false information. Yet, these people typically use these apps in a way that adds to the problem. I suppose my point here is that as technology changes with the coming times, it's ultimately up to the people to change with the technology as past generations have. It's not the technology's job to change with the people, but to push the people forward.

The Annie Le case is certainly more high profile than some small town killing. That is undeniable. Still, it comes down to individual restraint as to how people act in regards to the use of technology. Does this mean that it will be impossible to find a juror who hasn't heard of the internet rumors regarding the case? Absolutely not. Quigley says that "If this past week’s coverage is any indication, whatever trial springs out of the Le case will be a media circus, and the temptations will be even greater." Once again, that may be true. But it's foolish to blame the internet for a juror's inability to follow the simple, straightforward rules set forth before him. It comes down to personal responsibility and tact. Decry the lack of that in our society but don't blame a budding technology as the reason for it. Society hasn't started it's media downfall since the popularization of Facebook began. It was happening well before that, without any help from Twitter.

Facebook, Twitter and Profitability

Much has been made over the past week about Facebook's supposed even running when it comes to cash flow and for the most part, it's big news. Some of the big internet startups at the end of the tech bubble were having issues with monetizing their site, i.e. creating a way for it to turn a profit for investors. Facebook went the way of advertising, hoping that enough traffic plus enough ads would provide them with enough money to offset their operating cost, thus providing their investors with some sort of return on their investment.

However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.

Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.

Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.