links for 2008-11-14

  • CNN's iReport is totally unfiltered — and it shows. This dreck was on the home page today. It's not even reporting. I think there's a lot to be said for the community model where things have to get voted up to become visible to casual visitors.
  • "One lesson may be that community policing of content can help bury bogus reports. The Steve Jobs report was submitted to other websites including Digg, says Arnold Kim of Digg relies on user input to raise or lower the prominence of stories, and it was users who kept this story off the front page, writes Mr. Kim on his blog.

    "By contrast, CNN's iReport is less mediated by human input. The most recently uploaded stories show up on the home page, as well as the "newsiest" stories as determined by an algorithm that factors in user opinions. CNN spokesperson Jennifer Martin says the Jobs story never appeared under "newsiest."

  • "January will usher in a new Democratic Ascendancy in Washington. And here at TPM we believe we are uniquely qualified to chronicle it. So to that end we are hiring two new reporter-bloggers to be based in Washington, DC, one assigned to the White House and one assigned to Capitol Hill. We plan to be there on the ground and and here in New York, covering it in force, fully, critically and down to the minute.

    "Now, the big dailies have dozens of reporters on this story. And the VC-backed internet outlets have not many fewer than that. So we're not going to — and it's never been our plan — to compete on numbers. But we do have you — an audience that is more engaged than that of any other publication covering what we cover. That's not only important in the sense of the general support you've given us over the years that has allowed us to grow to this point. You're also a critical part of our reporting model, our big leg up on everyone else."

  • “People are connecting in different ways and on different devices,” said Ducey. “Radio has done a good job at getting online. Once online, there are new revenue opportunities.”

    Further strategies include planting radio chips into more mobile and consumer electronic devices, and the development of branded online destinations and geodomains. This allows content to be “hyperlocalized” in a way that draws out more of the local flavor that Fratrik argued above.

    It should be a natural transition, given some of the similarities it already shares with the Internet and its audience. These include being a free medium that is consumed at home and work by large audiences and that includes locally relevant content.

    Online efforts can not only create auxiliary outlets and sources of revenues but can also revitalize the core “air” business, added Ducey. Streaming audio is a high-growth area and can be a place to add content such as niche data casting, additional channels and iTunes tagging.

  • Ah, yet another example of bigotry and misinformation re: polyamory… Not worth fighting, but so common it's just sad…
  • Event coming up Dec. 3-5 in Columbia, MO. Looks interesting. I can't go, but I'll follow it online.

    "A senior-level strategy session designed to blueprint the law, ownership, management, marketing and technology of a shared-user network for user-centric demographics, privacy-protected purchasing and advertising exchange and compensation. Come help make the market for digital information."

  • "Our journalism is now fully embracing the experiences of our audiences, sharing their stories, using their knowledge and hosting their opinions; we're acting as a conduit between different parts of our audience; and we're being more open and transparent than we have ever been.

    "And these things are not on the fringes of what we do: they are fundamental. If you're in any doubt, let me take you on a tour of some recent stories…"

  • Twitter advice for journalists, as told by Twitter users. Good stuff! A few tips I especially liked:

    "wnalyd: Accept the medium for what it is. Don’t ask for an interview on Flickr and make the subject do it over the phone"

    "jasonp107 the one thing a journalist CAN NOT do in modern publishing is hide behind a byline. you are out there, so be present."

    "paulbalcerak Be as open on your social networks as you’d want a source to be. People don’t like one-way communication"

    "andrew_dunn @moniguzman I’ll toot my own horn and offer this case study of Twitter during Gustav:"

  • Video journalist Michael Rosenblum explains why a small weekly paper in Yorkshire, England should put video on its site:

    "I think you can do much more, once you have made your staff video literate. You can turn your paper into a machine to produce video and digital content for your community, no matter what the platform.

    "For example, ITN is in the process of contracting its regional news coverage. It is far too expensive for them. But it isn’t for you. You are already there, covering the regional and local news. You can solve ITN’s problem, and yours at the same time. Deliver the video news to them, as well as to your paper. In fact, you could plant ITN’s regional TV news in your own newsroom, allowing them to close down their studios. There is an appetite for what you do."

  • "Star turn at the UK Society of Editors conference yesterday was ‘Video Visionary’ Michael Rosenblum – the only person on stage all day who seemed to realise just what a hole the news industry was in. He talks about his own experiences in creating video journalism for the web, and makes some very strong points about disruptive technologies in history…"
  • "Your network connects you to other Delicious users: friends, family, coworkers, even new people you run across while exploring Delicious. It is a "people aggregator", collecting your favorite users' latest bookmarks in one place for you to view and enjoy. You can view and manage your network by going to your Network."

    Other useful things to know about using delicious as a community tool:

    "A Network Bundle is simply a way to organize the people in your network into groups. For example, you might want to view all your friends bookmarks separately from your coworkers' bookmarks. To create Network Bundles, go to your settings page and click "Edit Network Bundle".

    "A Subscription Bundle is a way to organize your subscriptions into groups. For example, you might want to organize your football, baseball, & auto racing subscriptions into a "sports" bundle. This bundle can then be viewed individually, so you can now see all your sports subscriptions but not anything fr. other subscriptions.

  • Interesting links-post approach. Apparently this stuff comes from Kevin Sablan's Delicious network (people he follows on delicious, kind of like a twitter posse), then gets formatted and edited nicely. Combines the automated aggregation and production with editorial finish. I like it. I wonder if there's any way to make this kind of thing play nice with Twitter, hmmmmmm……

9 thoughts on links for 2008-11-14

  1. Thanks for the mention. I just started editing those link-posts very recently, out of (what I perceive as) necessity. As I’ve add all these great Delicious bookmarkers to my network, the volume of daily links has grown into a list that is simply to long to be useful when presented as a long bulleted list. I’m glad you find the minimal editing useful. By the way, I’ve added you to my network and some of your links from Friday appear in my latest post.

  2. I’m sorry that you dont agree with me or my beliefs, but I am not a bigot. I am an educated female with a full world view and definition of polyamory. But I just dont agree with it. It is between 3 consenting adults, you have every right to engage in whatever you chose. But that doesnt mean that I agree with it or approve of it. Disagreeing or disapproving is not the same as being a bigot. That definition is “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” I’m none of these. But when I’m in a known conservative Christian church, dont pick me up as if I’m going to forego my beliefs for ‘an open lifestyle’. Seriously.

  3. Well, actually yes — your Twitter post did include a flat-out bigoted, ignorant statement.

    You said, in part: “…polyamory (aka cheaters)…”

    That’s a gross and derogatory misrepresentation/stereotyping of polyamorous people. It may have been willful on your part, or perhaps merely reflects your ignorance — but making that statement was indeed an act of bigotry.

    Polyamory — in case you didn’t know — is being open to having more than one intimate relationship at a time which may involve sex, deep emotional commitment, or even life partnership or family structure. Polyamorous relationships demand an extraordinarily high level of honesty and communication.

    That’s not to say that all poly people are perfect, or that polyamory is superior to monogamy. They’re just different approaches. But to characterize poly folk as “cheaters” is to call them dishonest and irresponsible. Which is not merely insulting, but ignorant.

    What you said is no different from saying:
    – “black people (aka thieves)”
    – “Jews (aka greedy shysters)”
    – “gays (aka perverts)”
    – “women (aka bitches)”
    – “Christians (aka morons)”

    Note that I did not malign your character as a person. I simply observed that you made a bigoted statement. There’s a difference. I know nothing about you except what you tweeted and posted above.

    Obviously, you prefer monogamy, that’s fine. And obviously you prefer to only date monogamous people. That’s fine — it’s up to you to draw boundaries and define standards in your own relationships. And it’s up to other people to make their own choices about such personal matters.

    But puh-leeeze: acting offended because someone who doesn’t happen meet your personal criteria happened to express interest in you? Insulting their choices simply because they’re different from yours? Kinda childish.

    FYI, there are a lot of poly people who identify as Christian. So even in a Christian church, it’s naive to assume everyone you meet prefers monogamy.

    If you absolutely insist on associating with or dating only other people who only want monogamy (which is fine), then it’s up to YOU to make your requirement clear up front. Or to at least inquire politely about the other person’s preferences, and then say “no thanks” if they aren’t of interest to you for dating.

    But acting offended that a poly guy would ask you out — especially if he was polite about it? Puh-leeeze…..

    – Amy Gahran

  4. > I am an educated female with a full world view and definition of polyamory.

    Clearly, a WRONG definition. You specifically equate it with, your own words, “cheating.”

    Polyamory is not cheating. If you think it is, you are suffering from a deep, fundamental ignorance.

  5. Oh, and I should have noted: Polyamory specifically emphasizes the full knowledge and consent of all people involved in these relationships. That’s why honesty and communication are the cornerstone of this subculture.

    …So you see, polyamory REALLY doesn’t have anything to do with cheating. Rather, cheating is a violation of agreements and trust that can occur in any relationship (mono, poly, or otherwise).

    – Amy Gahran

  6. It’s an interesting approach, Kevin. I’ve been toying with the idea of using Yahoo Pipes to do something similar, but this might be a simpler approach. That is, *if* I can get wordpress to hold network link posts in draft form. Right now, using the Delicious blog post feature, it publishes automatically. I’ll look into it.

    – Amy

  7. As I have stated, I understand that to the folks involved that it is an open lifestyle that is consented upon by all parties involved. That is what you have stated. That is what I understand it to be. Thus, I have an educated, WORLD VIEW of what polyamory is. But it is a WORLDVIEW. Not my personal Christian view that is a common christian view. If someone has to have multiple partners to be satisfied then I believe that someone is being cheated, whether or not they acknowledge it or agree with it. It’s my opinion, just the the opposite is your opinion.

    But it does not make me a bigot. Once again, look it up, the definition is very clear “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” My statement is no different than a polyamorist stating that monogamy is close-minded or imprisoning. It’s an opinion, not a hate crime.

    PS – my very well known conservative church is of the Christian type that believes in the monogamy gig and that’s it. nothing else. so he should find a church that has a more loosely defined version of a committed relationship.

  8. > I believe that someone is being cheated…

    That’s not what you said. You said “cheater.” That vernacular is used to refer to someone who has relationships WITHOUT the consent or knowledge of his/her other relationships; one who is engaged in lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. You put that word in parenthesis as though it were the definition.

    You also equated his “alt. lifestyle” to mean “swinging.” Did he actually say swinging or are you, again, coming up with your own definitions for things?

    > Thus, I have an educated, WORLD VIEW of what polyamory is

    If you have this “World View” (I really don’t know what you mean by that, but it seems like you are trying to suggest “informed” or “wide” or “deep understanding”), why did you equate polyamory with “cheating”?????

  9. I neglected to comment on this part of your post:

    > My statement is no different than a polyamorist stating that
    > monogamy is close-minded or imprisoning.

    No, I do not believe that is a valid analogy. A more accurate one would be if a polyamorist said “Monogamous people are narrow-minded.”

    It may appear subtle, but the difference is substantial. In your analogy, the polymorist is making a judgment about monogamy. In my analogy, the polyamorist is saying something judgmental about the monogamous PERSON.

    You have made a judgment about a person based on a very wrong definition of “polyamory.” It would be no different than if I said Christians are hypocrites.

    How would you like it if you asked out a perfectly decent, monogamous, intelligent man who rebuffed you with “But you’re a Christian. Christians believe in talking snakes, virgin births and an invisible man in the sky who has a list of things he doesn’t want you to do …. so you’re an idiot!”

    He would have judged you based on a very narrow, bigoted concept of what your religion is. He may or may not be a bigot, but his statement certainly is. I would be just as aggressive in denouncing that kind of behavior as I am in denouncing yours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *