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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
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.
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 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.
1. What do YOU see in [their] place?I'll take them one at a time:
2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?
3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?
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.
Monday, November 23, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
