A couple of longer reads that might be of interest to any newspaper or online news buffs.
- Out of Print (New Yorker): This is a bit older, but I just got around to reading it today. An interesting historical account of the role of a newspaper in democracy and how the Internet is changing all of that.
- Death of Print (Valleywag): A look at some of the ways newspapers tried to innovate online, but “botched.”
Newspapers get a bad rap, but I think their role in researching and reporting (not to mention organizing and funding) the important news of the day is undeniable. Once a majority of Pulitzers start going to bloggers, we’ll know things have really changed.
Ars Technica has been doing some great FCC coverage lately. Here are their latest stories. If you’re into this stuff consider adding them to your feed!
Fox owner Rupert Murdoch “goes candid on reporting” saying:
Stop having people write articles to win Pulitzer Prizes–give readers something they want to read.
I don’t know about you, but even though I don’t read every prize winning story or series, their value is undeniable. The awardees often have done a lot of hard (and thus “expensive”) work to write a top notch story. Here’s a list of this year’s awardees, and a few summaries (Wikipedia, 5/29/08) to consider:
“… for the work of Dana Priest, Anne Hull and photographer Michel du Cille in exposing mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, evoking a national outcry and producing reforms by federal officials.”
“… for its exceptional, multi-faceted coverage of the deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, telling the developing story in print and online.”
“… for their lucid exploration of Vice President Dick Cheney and his powerful yet sometimes disguised influence on national policy.”
JuicyCampus champions free speech, AGs claim it’s a fraud
I have heard of JuicyCampus, but this is the first time I’ve really checked it out.
For those who have not yet had the pleasure of coming across JuicyCampus, the site serves as a public forum for college students to anonymously gossip about others. As you might imagine, this has bred an explosion in malicious, accusatory, and otherwise not-nice postings—often naming gossip victims by full name and school.
The Attorney General of New Jersey is investigating the site, but it might be a tough case. The site’s use policy (which nobody reads) states that personal information and libelous statements cannot be posted, and that all subpoenas will be answered. This, combined with some protection from the CDA, might give them legal protection–but the question here is extra-legal. Would the average person go to the trouble of getting a lawyer to file a libel suit? No.
This leaves us with a system where we rightly need to protect free speech, but because of technological change, push more people to be concerned about the law. Then again, a site that entices the user to “C’mon. Give us the juice” sounds a little like entrapment.
Salon calls out a Time magazine journalist for his factual errors and sloppy journalism. It sounds to me more like an editorial disguised as journalism. The author misses the Time magazine connection to TimeWarner’s telecommunication services. There’s likely no conspiracy here, but the synergy deserves to at least be acknowledged.
