Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Thu, 05 May 2011 12:42:59 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on April 22, 2011.] Is Flipboard a competitor or collaborator?: Flipboard has quickly become one of the hottest news apps for the iPad, and it continued its streak last week when it announced it had raised $50 million in funding. Flipboard's Mike McCue told All Things Digital's Kara Swisher he'd be using the money to hire more staff and expand onto other devices, including the iPhone and Android platform. But he also talked to TechCrunch about using the money to fend off a rumored competitor in development at Google. (The Houston Chronicle's Dwight Silverman told Google not to bother, because Zite already does the trick for him.) All this prompted a fantastic analysis of Flipboard from French media consultant Frederic Filloux, who explained why Flipboard's distinctive user-directed blend of news media sites, RSS feeds, and social media is so wonderful for users but so threatening to publishers. Filloux argued that every media company should be afraid of Flipboard because they've built a superior news-consumption product for users, and they're doing it on the backs of publishers. But none of those publishers can complain about Flipboard, because any of them could have (and should have) invented it themselves. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram advised media companies to be willing to work with Flipboard for a similar "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" reason: Its app has their apps beat in terms of customizability and usability, so they're better off trying to make money off of it than their own internal options. ReadWriteWeb's Dan Rowinski wrote about the possibility that Flipboard could be a better alternative partner for publishers than Apple, and Marshall Kirkpatrick wondered why publishers are up in arms about Flipboard in the first place. — Traditional media's personalized news move: One of the reasons that media companies might be less than willing to work with Flipboard is that some of them are building their own personalized news aggregation apps, two of which launched this week: The Washington Post Co.'s Trove and Betaworks' News.me, developed with the New York Times. INFOdocket's Gary Price has the best breakdown of what Trove does: It uses your Facebook account and in-app reading habits to give you personalized "channels" of news, determined by an algorithm and editors' picks — a bit of the "Pandora for news" idea, as the Post's Don Graham called it. (It's free, so it's got that going for it, which is nice.) All Things Digital's Peter Kafka suspected that Trove will be most useful on mobile media, as its web interface won't be much different from many people's current personalized home pages, and David Zax of Fast Company emphasized the social aspect of the service. News.me is different from Trove in a number of ways: It costs 99 cents a week, and it's based not on your reading history, but on what other people on Twitter are reading. (Not just what they're tweeting, but what they're reading — Betaworks' John Borthwick called it reading "over other people's shoulders.") It also pays publishers based on the number of people who read their content through the app. That's part of the reason it's gotten the blessing of some media organizations that aren't typically aggregator friendly, like the Associated Press. Since News.me is based so heavily on Twitter, it raises the obvious question of whether you'd be better off just getting your news for free from Twitter itself. That's what Business Insider's Ellis Hamburger wondered, and Gizmodo's Adrian Covert answered a definitive 'no,' though Martin Bryant of The Next Web said it could be helpful in stripping out the chatter of Twitter and adding an algorithmic aspect. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram looked at both services and concluded that they signal a willingness by some traditional media outlets to adjust their longtime broadcasting role to the modern model of the "Daily Me." — A good sign for the Times' pay plan: The overall news from the New York Times Co.'s quarterly earnings report this week wasn't good — net income is down 57% from a year ago — but there was one silver lining for online paid-content advocates: More than 100,000 people have begun paying for the Times' website since it began charging for access last month. (That number doesn't include those who got free subscriptions via Lincoln, but it does include those who are paying though cheaper introductory trials.) As Advertising Age's Nat Ives pointed out, there's a lot that number doesn't tell us about traffic and revenue (particularly, as paidContent's Staci Kramer noted, how many people are paying full price for their subscriptions), but several folks, including Glynnis MacNicol of Business Insider, were surprised at how well the Times' pay plan is doing. (Its goal for the first year was 300,000 subscribers.) She said the figure compares favorably with the Financial Times, which got its 200,000th subscriber this year, nine years into its paywall. Those numbers are particularly critical for the Times given the difficulty its company has had over the past several years — as Katie Feola of Adweek wrote, many analysts believe the pay plan is crucial for the Times' financial viability. "But this means the paper's future rests on an untested model that many experts believe can't work in the oversaturated news market," she wrote. "And the Times has to pray the ad market won’t decline faster than analysts predict." A few other paid-content tidbits: Nine of Slovakia's largest news organizations put up a paywall together this week, and the pope is apparently pro-paywall, too. At the Guardian, Cory Doctorow mused about how companies can (and can't) get people to pay for the content online in an age of piracy. — Google's hammer falls on eHow: When Google applied its algorithm adjustment last month to crack down on content farms, Demand Media's eHow actually came out better off (though others didn't fare so well, like the New York Times Co.'s About.com, as we found out this week). Google made a second round of updates last week, and eHow got nailed this time, losing 66% of their Googlejuice, according to Sistrix. Search Engine Land's Matt McGee speculated that Google might have actually been surprised when eHow benefited the first time, and may have made this tweak in part as an effort to "correct" that. Demand Media, meanwhile, called Sistrix's eHow numbers"significantly overstated," though the company's stock hit a new low on Monday. Mathew Ingram said investors have reason to worry, as Demand's success seems to be at the mercy of Google's every algorithm tweak. — A Pulitzer first: The Pulitzer Prizes were announced this week, and while the awards were spread pretty broadly among several news organizations, there were a couple of themes to note. As Felix Salmon and others pointed out, an abnormally large share of the awards went to business journalism, a trend the Columbia Journalism Review's Dean Starkman opined on in a bit more detail. The biggest prize from a future-of-news perspective may have gone to ProPublica, whose series on some of the machinations that worsened the financial crisis was the first Pulitzer winner to never appear in print. The Lab's Justin Ellis noted that other winners are including significant multimedia components, perhaps signaling a shift in the emphasis of one of journalism's most elite institutions. If you were wondering where WikiLeaks was in all this, well, the New York Times didn't submit its WikiLeaks-based coverage. — Reading roundup: No huge stories this week, but a few little things that are worth noting: — Your weekly AOL/Huffington Post update: Jonathan Tasini came out swinging again regarding his lawsuit on behalf of unpaid HuffPo bloggers, Business Insider's Glynnis MacNicol responded in kind, Eric Snider told the story of getting axed from AOL's now-defunct Cinematical blog, and HuffPo unveiled features allowing readers to follow topics and writers. — Missouri j-school students are chafing against requirements that they buy an iPad (they previously had to buy iPod Touches, and they called that plan a bust). Meanwhile, Ben LaMothe of 10,000 Words had three ideas of social media skills that j-schools should teach. — A weird little fake-URL spoof turned into an interesting discussion about the possibility of libel through fake URLs, in thoughtful posts by both the Lab's Andrew Phelps and TechCrunch's Paul Carr. — Two interesting data points on news innovation: A group led by Daniel Bachhuber put together some fascinating figures about and perspectives from Knight News Challenge grant recipients. And journalism researchers Seth Lewis and Tanja Aitamurto wrote at the Lab about news organizations using open API as a sort of external R&D department.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:01:37 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on March 4, 2011.] Google's surgical strike against content farms: Two weeks after launching its site-blocking Chrome extension, Google made the central move in its fight against content farms by changing its algorithm to de-emphasize them in search results. The New York Times put the change in context, explaining the content farm phenomenon and its connection to Google. Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan explained that Google is saying the changes only affect "scrapers" (sites that pull content from other sources), but that they're actually aimed at content farms, too. And GigaOM's Mathew Ingram talked about why Google may be reluctant to publicly target content farms — because they run a lot of Google advertising. A few early returns were good: TechCrunch approved of the change, and The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal ran a test search comparing the old and new algorithms, finding that the information from the new one was "much, much better." Demand Media, the most prominent of the content farms, said it wasn't affected overall by the new formula, though, as Henry Blodget of Business Insider noted, it's probably trying to wean itself off of Google reliance anyway. In fact, it appears Demand Media may be telling the truth: Aaron Hall of SEO Book used Sistrix's data to point out that many of Demand Media's competitors were among the sites hardest hit by the change, while one of Demand's largest brands, eHow, actually got a boost. Hall implies that politics have played a role, and while there's nothing concrete suggesting that, the way the changes spared eHow does seem ... odd. There's also bound to be plenty of collateral damage from the algorithmic shift, and Wired looked at one Mac blog that's been nailed by the new formula (its Googlejuice was restored after Wired talked to Google about it). Danny Sullivan reported that Google hasn't made any significant changes to its new algorithm since rolling it out last week, though there are outlets to contact Google if you feel your site has been unfairly hurt. Elsewhere in the conversation about search, The Columbia Journalism Review's Karen Stabiner gave an overview of the debate about search engine optimization: The anti-SEO crowd, led by the Washington Post's Gene Weingarten, worries that the SEO mindset will privilege the powerful and eventually kill off creativity in favor of numbingly literal language. The SEO evangelists, on the other hand, say it's just encouraging honesty and straightforwardness, something it's difficult to object to. — Facebook extends comments' reach: Facebook continued its integration with media content across the web this week with the launch of an updated comments system. Essentially, users can simultaneously post their comments on both a site and on Facebook, with subsequent comments under that thread posted to the site straight from Facebook. PBS MediaShift's Mark Glaser talked to Facebook's Justin Osofsky about the ins and outs of the new system, and ReadWriteWeb noted that it has fewer features than the commenting update Facebook previewed last fall. TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld identified the two aspects of the updated system that will be most attractive to publishers. First, it requires commenters to use their real names, thus theoretically cutting down on trolls and spammers (this part, of course, has been available to publishers through Facebook commenting for a while). Second — and this is the new one — it extends the reach of a post, spreading into more Facebook news feeds and making it easier for more people to join in the conversation. This particularly excited Lehigh j-prof Jeremy Littau, who said it could create "a virtuous circle between community and content sharing." There are downsides as well, and while media analyst Alan Mutter was optimistic about the social potential of the new system, he also pointed out that it will give Facebook even more information about its users, which it won't be sharing with publishers. As GigaOM's Mathew Ingram noted, it's the same tradeoff publishers have been dealing with regarding Facebook for several years now: Does the value of tapping into Facebook's social potential outweigh the price of handing over commenting to a notoriously controlling company? — TBD's lessons — more startup, less ad reliance: TBD in its original form may have died last week, but the six-month-old Washington local news site continued to stimulate conversation this week. Its station posted an ad for a new manager to head the site, and TBD's former manager, Jim Brady, talked with The Columbia Journalism Review about the site's model, framing the conflict there as not TV vs. web, but startup vs. legacy: "I think if we could do TBD with a pure startup mentality, and if we could fund it more with a V.C. or an angel kind of way, and if we didn’t have the legacy side to work with, then I think it would actually have a better chance to succeed." Others posited similar reasons for TBD's demise: Web journalist Jane Stevens talked about a few causes centered on a lack of corporate commitment, and The Guardian's Emily Bell pinpointed TBD's inability to have its own ad sales team (an explanation with which Brady concurred). The debate over hyperlocal journalism, stirred by Alan Mutter last week, continued to simmer, with Robert Washburn of The Canadian Journalism Project defending it and Paul Gillin of Newspaper Death Watch saying we need to look at non-advertising-based business models for it, a point media consultant Dan Conover also made in more in-depth form at Xark. Amid all the analyses of what went wrong at TBD, Mandy Jenkins, the social media manager there, took stock of what went right, noting four things other news orgs can take away from its tenure: organizational openness, self-promotion, opening info beyond the newsroom, and hiring for mindset over pedigree. — iPad, part deux: Apple made a few headlines by launching iPad 2, which is apparently kind of like the iPad, only it's the second edition. I'll entrust you to the care of Techmeme for all the details about the product itself and focus instead on what it means for publishers and the larger world of media. The Lab's Joshua Benton pointed out two implications in particular — the mounting evidence of an e-book explosion and the iPad's increasing usefulness for reporting. Damon Kiesow of Poynter examined the latter point in some detail, looking at the iPad 2's specs from a content creation perspective. And Cory Bergman of Lost Remote looked at the device's increased video capability and predicted that it would help fuel a surge in multi-platform video consumption and production. Elsewhere in mobile media, tech blogger John Gruber defended Apple's app subscription program by breaking down the arguments against it one by one. And in a smart counter to Gruber, the Lab's Joshua Benton said that while Apple obviously isn't a charity and the financial difficulties of publishers aren't its problem, the arrangement still isn't ideal. Both posts are among the sharpest takes on the issue I've read, so they're worth taking time to read through. — Reading roundup: What to read this weekend while firming up South by Southwest plans: — In non-commenting Facebook news, Mashable's Vadim Lavrusik put together a great overview of the varied role of Facebook in journalism. And in non-Facebook commenting news, Los Angeles Times media reporter James Rainey made the case for requiring commenters to use their real names, while Mediaite's Alex Alvarez defended anonymous commenting. — Here at the Lab, Lois Beckett wrote two fascinating posts based on a talk by The New York Times' Gerry Marzorati — one on the future of long-form journalism, and the other on the Times' planned paywall. Two other thought-provoking pieces published here this week: One by Joshua Benton on language and viral content, and another by three data journalists on news organizations creating value out of the trust placed in them. — Amy Gahran wrote three awesome primers on mobile media — one on mobile apps, another on the current mobile landscape, and one on mobile media and PR. — Knight fellow Jeremy Adam Smith shared results from a survey on how meaningful journalism is being funded. It's a gold mine of statistics and information about the state of the journalism ecosystem. — It's a pretty well-worn discussion, but Frederic Filloux's analysis of why incremental change isn't enough to rescue the newspaper industry is as succinct a summary of the current situation as I've seen. Even if you've heard it all, his piece is a good refresher.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:10:52 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Feb. 4, 2011.] Al Jazeera, the network, and social activism: For the last week, the eyes of the world have been riveted to the ongoing protests in Egypt, and not surprisingly, the news media themselves have been a big part of that story, too. Many of them have been attacked by President Hosni Mubarak's lackeys, but the crisis has also been a breeding ground for innovative journalism techniques. Mashable put together a roundup of the ways journalists have used Twitter, Facebook, streaming video, Tumblr, and Audioboo, and the Lab highlighted reporting efforts on Facebook, curation by Sulia, and explainers by Mother Jones. Google and Twitter also created Speak to Tweet to allow Egyptians cut off from the Internet to communicate. But the organization that has shined the brightest over the past 10 days is unquestionably Al Jazeera. The Qatar-based TV network has dominated web viewing, and has used web audio updates and Creative Commons to get information out quickly to as many people as possible. Al Jazeera also faced stiff censorship efforts from the Egyptian government, which stripped its Egyptian license and shut down its Cairo bureau, then later stole some of its camera equipment. Through it all, the broadcaster kept up live coverage that online and offline, was considered the most comprehensive of any news organization. As Lost Remote's Cory Bergman pointed, Al Jazeera's coverage showed the continued power of compelling live video in a multimedia world. Salon's Alex Pareene called Al Jazeera's coverage an indictment on the U.S.' cable networks, and CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis and others urged cable companies to carry Al Jazeera English. Tech pioneer Doc Searls used the moment as a call for a more open form of cable TV: "The message cable should be getting is not just 'carry Al Jazeera,' but 'normalize to the Internet.' Open the pipes. Give us à la carte choices. Let us get and pay for what we want, not just what gets force-fed in bundles." The protests also served as fresh fuel for an ongoing debate about the role of social media in social change and global political activism. Several critics — including Wired's David Kravets, The New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell, and SUNY Oswego prof Ulises Mejias— downplayed the role of social media tools such as Twitter in protests like Egypt's. Others, though, countered with a relatively unified theme: It's not really about the media tools per se, but about the decentralized, hyperconnected network in which they are bound up. J-profs Jeremy Littau and Robert Hernandez, along with GigaOM's Mathew Ingram, wrote the most thoughtful versions of this theme, and they're all worth checking out. — Tepid reviews for The Daily: Within the bubble of media geeks, one story dominated the others this week: On Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. released The Daily, the first daily updated news publication produced specifically for the iPad. If you can't get enough coverage of The Daily, go check out Mediagazer's smorgasbord of links. I'll try to offer you a digestible (but still a bit overwhelming, I'll admit) summary of what people are saying about it. Leading up to Wednesday's launch, Poynter's Damon Kiesow found many of the people who are working for the heretofore secretive publication, and media analyst Alan Mutter and All Things Digital's Peter Kafka examined the reasons why it might or might not take off. Once the app was released Wednesday afternoon, the reviews came pouring in. First, the good: The first impressions of most of the digital experts polled by Poynter were positive, with several praising its visual design and one calling it "what I’ve always hoped newspapers would do with their tablet editions." PaidContent's Staci Cramer was generally complimentary, and The Guardian's Ian Betteridge gave it a (not terribly enthusiastic) "buy." Most of the initial reviews, though, were not so kind. Much of the 'meh' was directed at lackluster content, as reviewer after reviewer expressed similar sentiments: "a general-interest publication that is not generally interesting" (The Columbia Journalism Review); "Murdoch’s reinvention of journalism looks a lot like the one before it" (Macworld); "fairly humdrum day-old stories that you might read in, well…a regular old printed newspaper" (Mathew Ingram); "little [of Murdoch's money], it appears, has been invested in editorial talent" (Mashable); "the Etch A Sketch edition of Us Magazine" (Alan Mutter); "barely brings digital journalism into the late 20th century, much less the 21st" (Mark Potts). The bulk of that criticism seemed to be built on two foundational questions, asked by the Lab's Joshua Benton, which The Daily has apparently yet to answer convincingly: "Who is The Daily trying to reach? What problem is it trying to solve?" TechCrunch (and several of the above reviewers) asked similar questions, and GigaOM's Darrell Etherington attempted an answer, arguing that it's not for the obsessively-Twitter-checking news junkies, but iPad users struggling to adjust to life after newspapers. A few other issues surrounding The Daily that drew attention: One was its separation from the web by virtue of its place within the proprietary iTunes Store and iPad, as well as the complete lack of links in or out. (That hasn't stopped an authorized daily index of links to the web versions of articles from springing up, though.) Salon alum Scott Rosenberg and j-prof Dan Kennedy led the charge against the walled garden, while the Lab's Megan Garber pointed out the draconian anti-aggregation language on The Daily's AP content, and Justin Ellis wondered how user engagement will work in that closed environment. Then there were the economics of the publication: Media analyst Ken Doctor had two good sets of questions about what it will take for The Daily to financially succeed (the latter is more number-crunchy). Jeff Jarvis also looked at some possible numbers, and media consultant Amy Gahran chastised Murdoch for investing so much money in the venture. Gahran also looked at the hazards of dealing with Apple, and paidContent's Staci Kramer noted that Murdoch wants Apple to lower its share of the subscription revenue. And on the News Corp. front, Slate's Jack Shafer wrote about the role Murdoch's impatience will play in its fate, and Subhub's Evan Radowski gave us a history lesson on News Corp. initiatives like this one. — Apple strikes against e-publishers: In its ongoing tightening of App Store access and regulations, Apple made a significant move this week by rejecting a Sony iPhone app that would have allowed users to buy e-books from the Sony Reader Store. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram did a great job of putting the decision in the context of Apple's past moves, explaining why they make good business sense: "What’s the point of controlling a platform like the iPhone and the iPad if you can’t force people to pay you a carrying charge for hosting their content and connecting them with their customers?" But others (even at GigaOM) were more skeptical. Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch said the decision underscores the downside of closed content platforms, and posited that it's the first shot in a war between Apple and Amazon's Kindle, and Slate's Farhad Manjoo urged Amazon to pull its Kindle app out of the App Store. In another widely expected move along the same lines, Apple also told publishers that within two months, any app that doesn't take payments through its iTunes Store would be rejected. — AOL follows Demand's content-farming path: We talked last week about Demand Media's explosive IPO and Google's intention to make content farms harder to find in searches, and we have a couple of updates to those issues this week. First, Seamus McCauley of Virtual Economics explained why he's skeptical about Demand's true valuation, not to mention its accounting methods. And while Google's algorithm limiting content farms is not yet live, search engine startup Blekko has banned many content farm domains, including Demand's eHow, from its search results. Meanwhile, the debate over Demand continued, with Adotas' Gavin Dunaway and MinnPost's John Reinan delivering this week's broadsides against the company. AOL hasn't been talked about as a content farm too much as of yet, but that may change after Business Insider's publication this week of a leaked internal document called "The AOL Way," which reads a lot like the textbook content farm strategy guide. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram and Fortune's Dan Mitchell blasted the plan, with Ingram asserting that "the chasing of eyeballs and pageviews is a game of constantly diminishing returns." Martin Bryant of The Next Web, on the other hand, said AOL's model is not a misguided, diabolical plan, but "an inevitable, turbo-powered evolution of what’s happened in the media industry for many years." — Reading roundup: A few things to check out this weekend while you're most likely snowed in somewhere: — This week's WikiLeaks update: Julian Assange sat down with 60 Minutes for an interview (there's also a video on what it took to make that happen), WikiLeaks was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, The Guardian's Alan Rusbridger gave his own account about working with WikiLeaks, and NYU's Adam Penenberg made the case for Assange as a journalist. Reuters also profiled the new WikiLeaks spinoff OpenLeaks. — A few paid-content notes: The New York Times isn't releasing details of its paywall plan just yet, but it is fixing technological glitches with the system right now, while Media Week reported that some industry analysts are skeptical of its chances. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News announced they'll start offering an e-edition to paying subscribers. — GigaOM founder Om Malik wrote a simple but insightful guide to creating a successful consumer Internet service, focusing on three elements: A clear purpose, ease of use, and fun. — Harvard prof David Weinberger has a short, thought-provoking post offering a 21st-century update on Marshall McLuhan's famous "The medium is the message" aphorism: "We are the medium." It's a simple idea, but it has some potentially profound implications, a few of which Weinberger begins to flesh out.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:06:42 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Jan. 28, 2011.] Playing WikiLeaks Whack-a-Mole: Ever since WikiLeaks broke through into the public's consciousness last summer, observers have been predicting that its functions would be replicated by other organizations, both within and outside traditional journalism. We've seen signs of that for a couple of months, but the movement toward leakiness got a few big boosts this week with the launch of a leak submission system by Al Jazeera and the news that The New York Times is considering one of its own. Al Jazeera started off with the release of the Palestine Papers, and the Palestinian Authority responded by blocking the new site. The Times' executive editor, Bill Keller, said his paper's looking at something along the lines of Al Jazeera's system, and a group from the CUNY Graduate School is also launching Localeaks, which allows leakers to submit leaks to any one of more than 1,400 local newspapers in the U.S. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange told the Associated Press that he's up to 20 media partners and is hoping to triple that number in the next few months. A couple of writers weighed in with thoughtful takes on these developments: Mathew Ingram of GigaOM suggested that leakers might still prefer WikiLeaks because it allows them freedom from relying on only one organization's view of the documents, since WikiLeaks works with numerous competing news outlets. In a particularly insightful piece, Raffa Khatchadourian of The New Yorker expounded on the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional media alternative to WikiLeaks, focusing on the two organizations' ties to societal conventions: "accountability limits the Times, but it also offers it protections—protections that WikiLeaks at the moment does not enjoy because, among other things, there is not enough public consensus on what it is and stands for." That chasm between the culture of the Times and WikiLeaks was vividly manifested this week with the Times' publication of an essay by Keller about his paper's dealings with WikiLeaks, painting a less-than-flattering picture of Assange. (The Daily Beast and Yahoo News have good summaries of the piece.) WikiLeaks denounced the article, and Gawker's John Cook found Keller's insults off-putting, especially given the service Assange has done his paper. Cook also pointed out the degree to which the Times worked with the U.S. State Department in releasing the cables, a practice that's probably quite at odds with Assange's theory of radical transparency. — Ongo's paid aggregation plan: Few topics are hotter in the future-of-news world than aggregation, except perhaps for the ongoing quest to find a way to make money off of news online. So when a startup combines both, like Ongo is doing, people are going to pay attention. The service, launched this week by eBay/Skype/PayPal alum Alex Kazim, offers aggregated news from several major news outlets for fees starting at $6.99 a month. Kazim told paidContent that he's targeting users who graze among numerous news sites and value a sharp user experience more highly than the content itself. The instant reviews weren't exactly enthusiastic. Mashable's Lauren Indvik said that Ongo's slim selection of news outlets will likely leave users getting only a fraction of their daily news via Ongo — something they may not be willing to pay for. (Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson of the Financial Times made a similar argument.) Zee Kane of The Next Web said Flipboard, Feedly and Google Reader all provide similar services, and they're all cheaper and better. Lost Remote's Cory Bergman compared Ongo with Hulu's model, but noted that Hulu's product (entertainment TV) is scarcer and more highly demanded than Ongo's product (online news). GigaOM's Mathew Ingram had the harshest criticism, arguing that no one who knows how to use RSS will have any reason to use Ongo."Ongo seems like yet another Hail Mary pass aimed at trying to rewind the clock and impose scarcity on media content, and one that will likely fail just as quickly as others have," he wrote. But there is one group of people who have quite a bit of faith in Ongo — newspaper executives, particularly those from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Gannett, all of whom have invested in the company. The Times, of course, is planning an online paid-content plan of its own, which The Wall Street Journal reported it will begin rolling out next month. According to the Journal, the Times' current plan has an iPad/web bundle costing more than twice as much as a website subscription alone, leading Reuters' Felix Salmon to wonder why the Times seems to be planning on pushing readers away from its iPad app. — Wall Street's warm welcome for Demand Media: Demand Media, the most prominent of the "content farms" that have drawn so much criticism over the past year or so, had an extraordinarily successful initial public offering on Wall Street this week, with first-day trading pushing its valuation to $1.5 billion Wednesday — higher than The New York Times Co. itself. That had to sting quite a bit for the Times, especially considering that, as Rafat Ali reported and The Wall Street Journal confirmed, the Times had almost bought Demand a few years back. Demand's trading was driven by a lot of enthusiasm — exemplified by Keith Richman at Advertising Age — about the efficiency and profitability of its business model, but its detractors are still loud, too. Forbes' Jeff Bercovici mocked some ridiculous Demand articles, and The Columbia Journalism Review's Lauren Kirchner told journalists why they should care: Demand is "a company that works every day to lower the standards of online content, that devalues the skills of reporting and writing, and that removes any incentive for original thought in exchange for quantity and speed." Someone else who signaled its displeasure with companies like Demand this week: Google, on whom much of Demand's business model rests. In a blog post, Google's Matt Cutts explained the shift in the company's antispam efforts toward a content-farm crackdown. Lauren Kirchner called spammers "tapeworms" for Google, but at Business Insider, Ben Elowitz argued that Google and Demand have a mutual (and mutually destructive) advertising-based relationship. Demand's Richard Rosenblatt, meanwhile, insisted that Cutts' post wasn't about Demand, and that the two companies have a healthy, "synergistic" relationship. Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan imagined what a Demand Media edition of The New York Times' website might look like, then urged news companies to both news coverage and "answers coverage" like the content farms — only a bit smarter. — Olbermann's exit: When MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann ended his eight-year run hosting Countdown on Friday, it wasn't entirely unexpected — MSNBC suspended Olbermann in November for his contributions to Democratic candidates, touching off a simmering debate about objectivity and journalism. As The New York Times reported, Olbermann's exit was weeks in the making. Though its exact cause wasn't clear, Yahoo's Michael Calderone threw out a few possible reasons why Olbermann might have left. In the wake of his departure, there was a bit of talk about Olbermann's place within the past decade of journalism: Lehigh j-prof Jeremy Littau said Olbermann's angry voice didn't fit the times anymore, though the Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch made a similar point in a more positive vein, suggesting Olbermann left because he had accomplished his mission giving voice to the appalled journalist and citizen. And Dave Winer urged Olbermann to now go directly to his audience, using the web to circumvent the traditional he just left. — Apple's subscription struggle: Apple's clampdown on publishers' hopes for subscriptions for the iPhone and iPad continues to ripple through the media world. French analyst Frederic Filloux has a fantastic breakdown of the situation, explaining why publishers (especially smaller ones) are so upset and why they could take their app development elsewhere. ReadWriteWeb's Richard MacManus said the subscription plans would be good for consumers and publishers, but cautioned that it would put much of the business under Apple's control. A few individual publishers' iPad developments: PaidContent gave us details of The Guardian's evolving plans for an iPad app, new publisher Nomad Editions launched four tablet-only magazines, and oh yeah, apparently Rupert Murdoch's coming out with some daily tablet-based news publication next week. — Reading roundup: A lot of big stories this week, so I'll go light on the ephemera: — Last week's conversation (summarized nicely by David Cohn) about journalism education spilled over into this week. Tech pioneer Dave Winer provided this week's big idea with a great post on educating the "journo-programmer" (published in condensed form at the Lab). Among his ideas: Teach aggregation, get away from the hackathon model, and just start doing it. PBS MediaShift profiled a innovative journalism program with which Winer is affiliated — Jay Rosen's Studio 20 at NYU. — Your deep thought on the web for the week: Tech luminary John Battelle on the need for a new, revealed identity online. — On the media literacy front, Paul Bradshaw, a j-prof at City University London and Birmingham City University, wrote a fantastic guide to verifying information online, focusing on content, context, and code. — And in case you were wondering just what the heck is going on with the web right now, uh, The Oatmeal has you more than covered.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:29:41 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription, on July 30, 2010.]

WikiLeaks, data journalism and radical transparency: I'll be covering two weeks in this review because of the Lab's time off last week, but there really was only one story this week: WikiLeaks' release of The War Logs, a set of 90,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan. Buy Ampicillin online no prescription, There are about 32 angles to this story and I'll try to hit most of them, but if you're pressed for time, Ampicillin in us, Ampicillin prices, the essential reads on the situation are Steve Myers, C.W. Anderson, Ampicillin medication, Fast shipping Ampicillin, Clint Hendler and Janine Wedel and Linda Keenan.

WikiLeaks released the documents on its site on Sunday, cooperating with three news organizations — The New York Times, Ampicillin over the counter, Where can i order Ampicillin without prescription, The Guardian and Der Spiegel — to allow them to produce special reports on the documents as they were released, purchase Ampicillin online. Ampicillin discount, The Nation's Greg Mitchell ably rounded up commentary on the documents' political implications (one tidbit from the documents for newsies: Evidence of the U.S. military paying Afghan journalists to write favorable stories), buy Ampicillin no prescription, Ampicillin in india, as the White House slammed the leaks and the Times for running them, and the Times defended its decision in the press and to its readers, Ampicillin paypal.

The comparison that immediately came to many people's minds was the publication of the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War in 1971, and two Washington Post articles examined the connection, Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription. Order Ampicillin from mexican pharmacy, (The Wall Street Journal took a look at both cases' First Amendment angles, too.) But several people, buy Ampicillin from canada, Purchase Ampicillin online no prescription, most notably ProPublica's Richard Tofel and Slate's Fred Kaplan, quickly countered that the War Logs don't come close to the Pentagon Papers' historical impact, Ampicillin san diego. Ampicillin trusted pharmacy reviews, They led a collective yawn that emerged from numerous political observers after the documents' publication, with ho-hums coming from Foreign Policy, over the counter Ampicillin, Buy no prescription Ampicillin online, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, buy Ampicillin online without a prescription, Online buying Ampicillin hcl, and even the op-ed page of the Times itself. Slate media critic Jack Shafer suggested ways WikiLeaks could have planned its leak better to avoid such ennui, Ampicillin tablets. Ordering Ampicillin online, But plenty of other folks found a lot that was interesting about the entire situation. Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription, (That, of course, is why I'm writing about it.) The Columbia Journalism Review's Joel Meares argued that the military pundits dismissing the War Logs as old news are forgetting that this information is still putting an often-forgotten war back squarely in the public's consciousness. But the most fascinating angle of this story to many of us future-of-news nerds was that this leak represents the entry of an entirely new kind of editorial process into mainstream news, where can i buy Ampicillin online. Ampicillin gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, That's what the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal sensed early on, and several others sussed out as the week moved along, buy Ampicillin without a prescription. Buy Ampicillin online without prescription, The Times' David Carr called WikiLeaks' quasi-publisher role both a new kind of hybrid journalism and an affirmation of the need for traditional reporting to provide context. Poynter's Steve Myers made some astute observations about this new kind of journalism, Ampicillin to buy, Ampicillin to buy online, including the rise of the source advocate and WikiLeaks' trading information for credibility. NYU j-prof Jay Rosen noted thatWikiLeaks is the first "stateless news organization," able to shed light on the secrets of the powerful because of freedom provided not by law, but by the web.

Both John McQuaid and Slate's Anne Applebaum emphasized the need for data to be, as McQuaid put it, "marshaled in service to a story, an argument," with McQuaid citing that as reason for excitement about journalism and Applebaum calling it a case for traditional reporting, Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription. Here at the Lab, delivered overnight Ampicillin, Where to buy Ampicillin, CUNY j-prof C.W. Anderson put a lot this discussion into perspective with two perceptive postson WikiLeaks as the coming-out party for data journalism, online buy Ampicillin without a prescription. Where can i find Ampicillin online, He described its value well: "In these recent stories, its not the presence of something new, Ampicillin overseas, Order Ampicillin from United States pharmacy, but the ability to tease a pattern out of a lot of little things we already know that’s the big deal."

As for WikiLeaks itself, the Columbia Journalism Review's Clint Hendler provided a fascinating account of how its scoop ended up in three of the world's major newspapers, order Ampicillin no prescription, Buy Ampicillin online with no prescription, including differences in WikiLeaks' and the papers' characterization of WikiLeaks' involvement, which might help explain its public post-publication falling-out with the Times, Ampicillin price, coupon. Rx free Ampicillin, The Times profiled WikiLeaks and its enigmatic founder, Julian Assange, cod online Ampicillin, Buy generic Ampicillin, and several others trained their criticism on WikiLeaks itself — specifically, on the group's insistence on radical transparency from others but extreme secrecy from itself, Ampicillin buy. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said WikiLeaks is "a global power unto itself Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription, ," not subject to any checks and balances, and former military reporter Jamie McIntyre called WikiLeaks "anti-privacy terrorists."

Several others were skeptical of Assange's motives and secrecy, and Slate's Farhad Manjoo wondered how we could square public trust with such a commitment to anonymity. Order Ampicillin online c.o.d, In a smart Huffington Post analysis of that issue, Janine Wedel and Linda Keenan presented this new type of news organization as a natural consequence of the new cultural architecture (the "adhocracy, real brand Ampicillin online, Buy Ampicillin from mexico, " as they call it) of the web: "These technologies lend themselves to new forms of power and influence that are neither bureaucratic nor centralized in traditional ways, nor are they generally responsive to traditional means of accountability."

—

Keeping readers out with a paywall: The Times and Sunday Times of London put up their online paywall earlier this month, purchase Ampicillin, Sale Ampicillin, the first of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers to set off on his paid-content mission (though some other properties, like The Wall Street Journal, order Ampicillin online overnight delivery no prescription, Buy cheap Ampicillin, have long charged for online access). Last week, buy cheap Ampicillin no rx, Next day Ampicillin, we got some preliminary figures indicating how life behind the wall is going so far: Former Times media reporter Dan Sabbagh said that 150,000 of the Times' online readers (12 percent of its pre-wall visitors) had registered for free trials during the paywall's first two weeks, Ampicillin in japan, Ampicillin in mexico, with 15,000 signing on as paying subscribers and 12, where to buy Ampicillin, Ampicillin pills, 500 subscribing to the iPad app. PaidContent also noted that the Times' overall web traffic is down about 67 percent, free Ampicillin samples, Ampicillin prescriptions, adding that the Times will probably tout these types of numbers as a success.

The Guardian did its own math and found that the Times' online readership is actually down about 90 percent — exactly in line with what the paper's leaders and industry analysts were expecting, Ampicillin craiglist. Everyone noted that this is exactly what Murdoch and the Times wanted out of their paywall — to cut down on drive-by readers and wring more revenue out of the core of loyal ones, Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription. Ampicillin from international pharmacy, GigaOM's Mathew Ingram explained that rationale well, then ripped it apart, Ampicillin in usa, Buy Ampicillin online cod, calling it "fundamentally a resignation from the open web" because it keeps readers from sharing (or marketing) it with others. SEOmoz's Tom Critchlow looked at the Times' paywall interface and gave it a tepid review.

Meanwhile, another British newspaper that charges for online access, the Financial Times, is boasting strong growth in online revenue. The FT's CEO, John Ridding, credited the paper's metered paid-content system and offered a moral argument for paid access online, drawing on Time founder Henry Luce's idea that an exclusively advertising-reliant model weakens the bond between a publication and its readers.

—

Flipboard and the future of mobile media Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription, : In just four months, we've already seen quite a few attention-grabbing iPad apps, but probably none have gotten techies' hearts racing quite like Flipboard, which was launched last week amid an ocean of hype. As Mashable explained, Flipboard combines social media and news sources of the user's choosing to create what's essentially a socially edited magazine for the iPad. The app got rave reviews from tech titans like Robert Scoble and ReadWriteWeb, which helped build up enough demand that it spent most of its first few post-release days crashed from being over capacity.

Jen McFadden marveled at Flipboard's potential for mobile advertising, given its ability to merge the rich advertising experience of the iPad with the targeted advertising possibilities through social media, though Martin Belam wondered whether the app might end up being "yet another layer of disintermediation that took away some of my abilities to understand how and when my content was being used, or to monetise my work." Tech pioneer Dave Winer saw Flipboard as one half of a brilliant innovation for mobile media and challenged Flipboard to encourage developers to create the other half.

At the tech blog Gizmodo, Joel Johnson broke in to ask a pertinent question: Is Flipboard legal. The app scrapes content directly from other sites, rather than through RSS, like the Pulse Reader, Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription. Flipboard's defense is that it only offers previews (if you want to read the whole thing, you have to click on "Read on Web"), but Johnson delved into some of the less black-and-white scenarios and legal issues, too. (Flipboard, for example, takes full images, and though it is free for now, its executives plan to sell their own ads around the content under revenue-sharing agreements.) Stowe Boyd took those questions a step further and looked at possible challenges down the road from social media providers like Facebook.

—

A new perspective on content farms: Few people had heard of the term "content farms" about a year ago, but by now there are few issues that get blood boiling in future-of-journalism circles quite like that one. PBS MediaShift's eight-part series on content farms, published starting last week, is an ideal resource to catch you up on what those companies are, why people are so worked up about them, and what they might mean for journalism. Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription, (MediaShift defines "content farm" as a company that produces online content on a massive scale; I, like Jay Rosen, would define it more narrowly, based on algorithm- and revenue-driven editing.)

The series includes an overview of some of the major players on the online content scene, pictures of what writing for and training at a content farm is like, and two posts on the world of large-scale hyperlocal news. It also features an interesting defense of content farms by Dorian Benkoil, who argues that large-scale online content creators are merely disrupting an inefficient, expensive industry (traditional media) that was ripe for a kick in the pants.

Demand Media's Jeremy Reed responded to the series with a note to the company's writers that "You are not a nameless, faceless, soul-less group of people on a 'farm.' We are not a robotic organization that’s only concerned about numbers and data. We are a media company. We work together to tell stories," and Yahoo Media's Jimmy Pitaro defended the algorithm-as-editor model in an interview with Forbes. Outspoken content-farm critic Jason Fry softened his views, too, urging news organizations to learn from their algorithm-driven approach and let their audiences play a greater role in determining their coverage, Buy Ampicillin Without Prescription.

—

Reading roundup: A few developments and ideas to take a look at before the weekend:

— We've written about the FTC's upcoming report on journalism and public policy earlier this summer, and Google added its own comments to the public record last week, urging the FTC to move away from "protectionist barriers." Google-watcher Jeff Jarvis gave the statement a hearty amen, and the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby chimed in against a government subsidy for journalism.

— Former equity analyst Henry Blodget celebrated The Business Insider's third birthday with a very pessimistic forecast of The New York Times' future, and, by extension, the traditional media's as well. Meanwhile, Judy Sims targeted a failure to focus on ROI as a cause of newspapers' demise.

— The Columbia Journalism Review devoted a feature to the rise of private news, in which news organizations are devoted to a niche topic for an intentionally limited audience.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:51:10 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Amikacin Without Prescription, on July 9, 2010.]

Time's non-pay paywall: Thanks to some collaborative online sleuthing — OK, basically just wandering around on a website and asking some simple questions — we found out that Time magazine is planning an online paywall. Amikacin gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Reuters' Felix Salmon ran into the wall first a few weeks ago, but saw that it had disappeared by the next day, buy Amikacin from mexico. Amikacin in canada, Then on Tuesday, the Lab's Josh Benton noticed it again, where can i find Amikacin online, Rx free Amikacin, pointing out that this was an odd kind of paywall — one without any sort of way to pay online ("a paywall without a door," in his words), Amikacin in usa. Amikacin in mexico, All Things Digital's Peter Kafka got word the next day that the paywall is part of a company-wide strategy at Time Inc. to separate its print and iPad content from its online material, Amikacin buy. The Lab found out that Time does indeed have a plan to give that paywall a door and provide a way to purchase articles online, and The New York Times reported that this non-pay wall is part of a gradual effort to retrain readers to pay for content online and noted that not everything from the magazine is gone from the website, Buy Amikacin Without Prescription. Amikacin to buy, PaidContent's Staci Kramer called the move not a paywall, but "the magazine equivalent of a condom" — a way to separate online readers from its print content, next day Amikacin. Online buy Amikacin without a prescription, She noted that the move limits non-print access to Time to a very select group of people — namely, iPad owners. Essentially, Amikacin pills, Real brand Amikacin online, it's a hardware requirement to read Time magazine, something Publish2's Scott Karp asked whether we're going to start to seeing more of, Amikacin gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Amikacin in us, All Things Digital's Kafka wondered why Time wouldn't just offer its print articles for free if the magazine's print and online audiences were as separate as they're typically said to be. New York's Chris Rovsar posited that the new wall is about protecting its $4.99 iPad app: If all your print stuff is available through the iPad browser for free, Amikacin in canada, Amikacin from international pharmacy, why buy the app. DailyFinance media critic Jeff Bercovici made the same point Buy Amikacin Without Prescription, and argued that while Time may appear forward-thinking here, this move is really a regression. Newsweek's Mark Coatney, fast shipping Amikacin, Order Amikacin online c.o.d, a former Time staffer, was ruthless in his assessment of the strategy, cod online Amikacin, Amikacin san diego, saying that it all comes back to value, and Time hasn't articulated why it's print content is worth paying for, where can i order Amikacin without prescription, Amikacin paypal, but its online stuff isn't.

—

Pay vs, buying Amikacin online over the counter. Where can i buy cheapest Amikacin online, free in Britain: Time was far from the only paywall news this past week: Three relatively small Gannett papers put up a $9.95-a-month paywall last Thursday, and the most important new paywall may have been at The Times of London and The Sunday Times, where can i find Amikacin online, Buy Amikacin without a prescription, two of Britain's oldest and most respected publications, which began charging for everything on their site last Friday, rx free Amikacin. Buy cheap Amikacin, That development is particularly important because it's the first move in the paid-content crusade that Rupert Murdoch has been gearing up for since last summer.

Steve Outing and Poynter's Bill Mitchell noted that the Times' paywall is among the most impenetrable we've seen yet in newspapers: All non-subscribers can see is the homepage, and even the headlines are blocked from online news aggregators, Buy Amikacin Without Prescription. New York's Chris Rovsar took stock of what The New York Times (planning its own paid-content system next year) could learn from how the Times rolled out its paywall, buy Amikacin online without a prescription, Amikacin in india, and basically, it boils down to, purchase Amikacin online, Amikacin prices, "Whatever they did, just don't do it." He and the Press Gazette's Dominic Ponsford ripped the Times' paid-content strategy, free Amikacin samples, Amikacin overseas, criticizing it for not being RSS-compatible, not linking, buy Amikacin from canada, Order Amikacin online overnight delivery no prescription, and giving away desperate-looking freebies. (Rovsar and Ponsford do acknowledge that the site is cheap and pretty, Amikacin medication, Amikacin from canadian pharmacy, respectively.) British journalist Kevin Anderson used the Times' paywall as an opportunity to light into the thinking that leads newspapers to charge for content online in the first place.

Meanwhile, buy generic Amikacin, Purchase Amikacin online no prescription, the Guardian, another prominent British paper which is staunchly in favor of free online content, Amikacin for sale, Where to buy Amikacin, released a Wordpress plugin that allows blogs and websites to embed the full text of Guardian stories for free. (Steve Outing demonstrated with a post on the iPad.) It's an unprecedented move, over the counter Amikacin, Buy no prescription Amikacin online, and one that made for a pretty easy contrast with the Times' protectionist strategy online. Outing did it most explicitly in two posts Buy Amikacin Without Prescription, , arguing that the Guardian's strategy taps into a worldwide revenue potential, while the Times relies on its brand-loyal British readers. Murdoch "apparently still doesn’t understand that this whole pay-for-news-online thing is not about the needs of publishers like him. It’s about what the audience for news is willing to do and willing to pay for, saturday delivery Amikacin, Order Amikacin from United States pharmacy, " he wrote.

—

Learning from (and fighting with) content farms: Since acquiring the online content provider Associated Content in May, buy Amikacin from mexico, Amikacin tablets, Yahoo has become the latest online media company to begin producing articles based on a calculation of search terms, including for its new news blog, buy Amikacin online cod, Sale Amikacin, The Upshot. The Wrap's Dylan Stableford took a look at these "content farms, order Amikacin from mexican pharmacy, Amikacin to buy online, " focusing on why journalists hate them and what news organizations might be able to learn from them. (On the latter point, buy cheap Amikacin no rx, Ordering Amikacin online, Stableford's sources said content farms' acute attentiveness to what people are interested in reading could be particularly instructive.)

One of the people Stableford quotes, NYU professor Jay Rosen, Amikacin over the counter, Buy Amikacin no prescription, gets some extended time on the subject, and another, buy Amikacin online without prescription, Buy Amikacin online no prescription, Jason Fry, posted some additional thoughts, delivered overnight Amikacin, Buy Amikacin online with no prescription, too. Fry, who is quoted in the article as saying, "If you want to know how our profession ends, look at Demand Media," clarified his stance a bit, saying that what bugs him is not the low pay, but the lack of quality, Buy Amikacin Without Prescription. Still, Amikacin prescriptions, Where to buy Amikacin, he acknowledged that because of cost-cutting, many small- and medium-sized newspapers' content is just as mediocre, Amikacin craiglist. Amikacin in japan, Peter Berger, a CEO of Suite101.com, one of those content generators, said the concern from news organizations is a red herring, and his industry really presents the biggest threat to non-fiction books.

Canadian writer Liz Metcalfe voiced some similar thoughts, arguing that the problem with the "demand content" model isn't the model itself, but the poor quality of what gets produced. Newspapers should find a way to incorporate the model while producing high-quality material, and beat the content farms at their own game, she said. On the other hand, Harvard prof Ethan Zuckerman said dictating content based on search would be a bad way to run a newspaper: "You’d give up the critical ability to push topics and parts of the world that readers might not be interested in, but need to know about to be an engaged, informed citizen."

A private group called the Internet Content Syndication Council wants to do something about these dastardly villains, and they're exploring a few options, including drafting a set of content-quality guidelines, licensing content syndicators and asking Google to tweak its search formula. CNET's Caroline McCarthy wondered Buy Amikacin Without Prescription, what a guideline or licensing system would do with bloggers.

—

Chronicling a growing shift to mobile: The Pew Internet & American Life Project released a couple of fascinating studies in the past week, the first on the future of social relations online and the second a survey of Americans' mobile use. The latter study in particular turned up a raft of interesting statistics, led by the finding that 59 percent of adults go online wirelessly, including 47 percent of Americans with their laptops and 40 percent with their cell phones.

Poynter's Mobile Media focused on the rise in "non-voice" uses for cell phones over the past year (Silicon Alley Insider has it in graphical form). The New York Times and Washington Post centered on the survey's finding that African-Americans, Hispanics, young people and poorer Americans are among the heaviest mobile media users, with the Times stating that "the image of the affluent and white cellphone owner as the prototypical mobile Web user seems to be a mistaken one."

Here at the Lab, Laura McGann seized on another tidbit from the study indicating that about a fifth of young adults have made a donation via their cell phone. She tied that finding to the public radio station WBUR's attempt to find a way to allow users to donate via an iPhone app, something Apple doesn't allow, asking how nonprofit news orgs might be able to find a way to tap into that willingness to give through their cell phones.

—

Reading roundup: Lots of really thoughtful stuff this week that's well worth your time (I assume it is, anyway — maybe your time's much more valuable than mine):

— The debate over objectivity and journalism raged on this week, fueled by the firing of CNN's Octavia Nasr over a remark she made on Twitter, Buy Amikacin Without Prescription. Many of the arguments circled around to the same ground we've covered with the Gen. McChrystal and Dave Weigel flare-ups, but I wanted to highlight three takes that stand out: Salon's Dan Gillmor on America's "technically good subservient press," Jay Rosen on "objectivity as a form of persuasion," and Mediaite's Philip Bump on a journalism of individuals.

— Many new media folks have been following the fate of the nonprofit Texas Tribune, and the Columbia Journalism Review has apretty definitive account of where they stand.

— ReadWriteWeb has a handy resource for zooming out and taking a look at the big picture — a summary of five key web trends so far at 2010's halfway point.

— Spot.Us' David Cohn takes a look at the short-lived journalism startup NewsTilt and comes away with some helpful lessons.

— Finally, Google researcher Paul Adams has a presentation on the problems with the way social media is designed that's been making its way around the web. It's a whopping 216 slides, but it's a simple yet insightful glance at what feels just a little bit wrong about our social interactions online and why.

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:50:16 +0000

[This review was initially posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Claritin Without Prescription, on Feb. Delivered overnight Claritin, 12, 2010.]

Google Buzzes social media: For the second week in a row, buy Claritin online without a prescription, Buy Claritin without a prescription, the biggest story at the intersection of journalism and new media is an innovation by Google: This week, the talk was about Google Buzz, online buying Claritin hcl, Online buy Claritin without a prescription, a real-time program for sharing status updates, links and media through Gmail’s platform, next day Claritin. Order Claritin no prescription, You can find helpful summaries of how Buzz works at The Official Google Blog, O’Reilly Answers, buy Claritin from canada, Where can i order Claritin without prescription, Mashable and Search Engine Land. A theme that’s clear especially from the Google blog and Search Engine Land: Google sees Buzz as a big part of its effort to organize the “torrent” that is the web’s social information with the help of the same algorithms that gave Google its search primacy.

The most important stuff first: As for Buzz’s implications for journalism, Claritin over the counter, Buying Claritin online over the counter, the two best quick guides are by Will Sullivan at Poynter and Google-watcher Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine. Jarvis sees Buzz as a major step toward the “hyperpersonal news stream” that Google’s been visualizing and magnifies the value of voice and local news, Claritin trusted pharmacy reviews. Sullivan focuses largely on Buzz’s impact on adding the element of location to news and advertising, Buy Claritin Without Prescription. Order Claritin from mexican pharmacy, (The local media site Lost Remote touches on this, too.) By the way, Claritin from international pharmacy, Sale Claritin, I’m with Sullivan on this — I think Buzz’s greatest impact on journalism may be as an incremental step in the development of mobile news, a sort of early bud in the ecosystem of location-based news.

The initial response from the tech crowd tended to be negative, buy Claritin no prescription. Claritin in australia, RSS and blogging pioneer Dave Winer declared it a dud, and PR exec Steve Rubel called it “Google Wave light, Claritin overseas, Claritin in japan, a non-starter.” Others saw major privacy issues with Buzz revealing your email contacts to the world, though Google gave us a fix Thursday afternoon.

Much of the discussion around Buzz, Claritin tablets, Claritin gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, though, was about which social network it will or won’t tear into, Claritin in india. Where can i buy cheapest Claritin online, Before it launched, it was called a “Twitter-killer, Claritin in mexico, Claritin discount, ” and DigitalBeat countered that it wouldn’t kill Twitter, while telling us what role itwould play, saturday delivery Claritin. Ordering Claritin online, (Meanwhile, Dave Winer opined on what a social-media platform would have to have in order to kill Twitter.) Several others noticed its similarity to Facebook, Claritin craiglist, Buy cheap Claritin no rx, and in a smart post at The Big Money, Chris Thompson explained where it might have an advantage, Claritin price, coupon. Buy Claritin Without Prescription, And at the tech blog ReadWriteWeb, Frederic Lardinois has a great list of improvements Buzz could make.

—

Demand’s plan for publishers: Four months after Wired brought the business model of online content producer Demand Media to light, the conversation about the company remains on a slow burn. Claritin prices, We’ve been hearing lately from several Demand execs; most newsworthy is the revelation that Demand is experimenting with several major publishers and plans to move into the business of selling their original content to supplement publishers’ websites.

Why does this have people worried, over the counter Claritin. Free Claritin samples, Because Demand Media is being held up as the poster child for so-called “content farms” that flood the web with content of dubious quality and pay their freelance writers a pittance to do it. (Last week, rx free Claritin, Purchase Claritin online no prescription, news business expert Alan Mutter stirred the pot by telling freelance journalists to refuse to work for so little, and j-prof C.W, Claritin san diego. Anderson noted that just because someone will work for that kind of money doesn’t make it right.

Demand Media’s Richard Rosenblatt and Steven Kydd both defended themselves against those charges in interviews with GigaOM and Beet.TV, respectively, Buy Claritin Without Prescription. Where to buy Claritin, A bit more surprisingly, they got some support from New York Times media columnist David Carr, where can i buy Claritin online, Cod online Claritin, who quoted several Demand Media freelancers who said, among other things, Claritin paypal, Claritin price, coupon, “Demand has been as close to a safety net as anyone gets in this business.” As for consumers who are frustrated by the lack of quality content, Carr says, fast shipping Claritin, Order Claritin no prescription, “ignore the loudmouth and ask someone else.”

—

Are people paying for news — or relationships?: There was no single major news item on the paid-content front this week, but we did get a handful of interesting pieces of news and conversation on the subject, Claritin prescriptions. Claritin craiglist, First, on the newsier side: An exec with the recently bankrupt newspaper chain MediaNews told Poynter’s Steve Myers they plan on rolling out their new paywall at two papers in the next few months, order Claritin online c.o.d, Over the counter Claritin, and gave him a loose description of what it will look like. (Summary: A metered model, buy cheap Claritin, Buy Claritin online without prescription, like the Financial Times or The New York Times’ plans; breaking news and multimedia will be free; enterprise reporting, columns and reviews will be behind the paywall.) Another exec in the paid-content business, where can i buy cheapest Claritin online, Claritin buy, Journalism Online’s Gordon Crovitz, says the unnamed publishers they’re working with are also leaning toward metered models, where can i order Claritin without prescription. Purchase Claritin online no prescription,

On the discussion side, two sharp pieces were written this week about what will sell online, Claritin in mexico. Buy Claritin Without Prescription, First, CUNY j-prof and web guru Jeff Jarvis tells us what won’t sell: Scarcity. Buy Claritin without prescription, In media, Jarvis says, Claritin in australia, Claritin overseas, that means content and information aren’t scarce and can’t be sold as such. Instead, Claritin in canada, Claritin in india, he advises news orgs to base their business on relationships with readers and marketers, saying, order Claritin online overnight delivery no prescription, Buy Claritin online cod, “We must also align our interests with those of the community … helping them do what they want to do, adding value and recognizing it that way.”

Second, where can i buy Claritin online, Claritin pills, PBS MediaShift’s Chris O’Brien notes that quite a few people are spending $1 to buy each other virtual beers on Facebook and wonders what it might mean for news. He theorizes that it indicates that true value lies “not in the thing itself, Claritin for sale, Buy Claritin online without a prescription, but in something adjacent to the thing, some feeling you have about it, or something you can do with it in terms of expressing yourself.” In a brilliant post, former McClatchy exec Howard Weaver takes the idea a step further, arguing that what people value is the community that they’re helping enrich and sustain by buying the virtual good. News orgs, he says, need to nurture the consumption of news as a social act, to create “an ecology where caring about the news becomes satisfying and rewarding social behavior.”

—

Gauging Facebook’s expansion: Last week’s discussion about Facebook’s potential power as a news and information source spilled over into this week, spurred on by reminders of Facebook’s furious rate of expansion: Sharing on it has quintupled in the last six months; it’s developing webmail to compete with Gmail; it’s creating its own targeted display ad system; and it’s hoping that Facebook Connect will become the web’s universal login. (As an added bonus, the latter article also has a wildly entertaining comment thread of people who thought they were logging into Facebook instead of commenting on a tech blog.)

Steve Rubel gives a vision of where Facebook might be headed next — business networking, helping developers build mini-sites within its networks, and ramping up search — and sums it up with a sweeping statement: “Facebook is becoming the web for millions and millions of people, Buy Claritin Without Prescription. … Facebook is unstoppable. They aren’t just the next Google. They’re the next web.”

—

Reading roundup: We’ve got quite a few (mostly short) miscellaneous items that are well worth a read this week. I’ll give them to you in no particular order:

— Here at the Lab, Martin Langeveld breaks down the 2009 fourth-quarter results from several of the nation’s largest newspaper companies, discerning a few interesting trends (advertising revenue and total revenue are down, but profits are generally up).

— Missouri j-prof Clyde Bentley lays out a step-by-step three-year plan for newspapers to prepare for a world in which mobile Internet access is the modus operandi, rather than PCs. It’s a great jumping-off point for newsroom innovation.

— The new director of BBC Global News challenged the network’s reporters and editors to deepen their engagement with social media and other web tools. Meanwhile, USC j-prof Robert Hernandez advises journalism students that the most essential 21st-century journalism skills are still the basics.

— Two interesting studies: A Penn study of The New York Times’ most-emailed list provides some clues to what kind of news people most like to share online, and research by social media consultant Jamie Beckland hints that in Portland, at least, policy-oriented journalism is thriving more in the local blogosphere than traditional media.

— Finally, UT-Dallas j-prof David Parry turns some keen observations of his students’ media habits into an insightful argument that “new media” aren’t all that new — in fact, they’re now “a fundamental part of our cultural, legal, and social institutions. It is time we started treating them as such.”

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:36:30 +0000

Buy Neurontin Without Prescription, I started this post thinking it had been a slow week, but by the time I was done, I had the longest week in review yet. Where to buy Neurontin, Enjoy it over a nice, tall glass of egg nog, buy Neurontin online cod. Neurontin to buy, (Want to know what I'm doing. It's here.)

— The discussion about Demand Media has been simmering since NYU's Jay Rosen made it (or, buy Neurontin from mexico, Neurontin san diego, more specifically, calling attention to how "demonic" it is) his cause du jour following the publication of this Wired profile of the online content factory, purchase Neurontin online. Neurontin buy, Early this week it reached a boil after both TechCrunch and ReadWriteWeb sounded the alarm about the coming onslaught of cheap, superficial "content farms" or "fast food content" like Demand Media, buy cheap Neurontin. Here are the highlights, the miscellaneous commentary and my take, Buy Neurontin Without Prescription. Buying Neurontin online over the counter, The highlights: Pioneering tech thinker Doc Searls tells TechCrunch to stop hyperventilating, arguing that "Nothing with real real value is dead, Neurontin gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Where can i buy Neurontin online, so long as it can be found on the Web and there are links to it." Rosen interviews Demand's founder and CEO, Richard Rosenblatt, buy Neurontin no prescription, Neurontin prices, and while Rosenblatt makes things sounds a lot less scary than Rosen does, his statements are so filled with corporate platitudes and empty CEO-speak that they're tough to take at face value, buy Neurontin online no prescription. Neurontin trusted pharmacy reviews, Two people with experience working for Demand Media weigh in: Andria Krewson says the work is low-paying but well done, and in a thoughtful post, Neurontin from international pharmacy, Where can i order Neurontin without prescription, John Zhu says companies like Demand Media might be the inevitable outgrowth of all media's marginalization of quality.

The other commentary: And common (and very salient) point among much of the commentary was best put by Fred Wilson, Neurontin overseas, Order Neurontin online overnight delivery no prescription, who wrote that our friends and other trusted sources will play a big role in helping us separate the good stuff from the crap. Cody Brown and others noted that it's tougher to "game" social networks like Twitter than search algorithms, Neurontin prescriptions. Buy Neurontin Without Prescription, In a related point, a few others noted that Google seems to be losing its battle against SEO-gaming spammers. Buy Neurontin online cod, Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis says news orgs might have something to learn from Demand, Neurontin in australia. Where can i order Neurontin without prescription, My (very quick) take: I'm with Doc Searls on this one. The best way to keep crappy content from choking out good content, buy Neurontin no prescription. Buy Neurontin from mexico, Keep creating and linking to good content. Google's search dominance depends (at least in part) on its ability to lead users to the good stuff; makes sense to just produce quality stuff, link to it and pass it around, where can i find Neurontin online, Buy cheap Neurontin no rx, and let Google's engineers do their jobs. As Scott Rosenberg points out, it's not like people actually want to read empty, cynically produced search-bot fodder, anyway.

— We've talked about this "transparency is the new objectivity" idea a bit here before, and this week Paul Bradshaw at Poynter provided us with us an intriguing example of the clash between the old and new philosophies in this area, Buy Neurontin Without Prescription. After an email interview with a reporter for a story, Neurontin san diego, Buy Neurontin online with no prescription, Bradshaw asked for permission to publish the exchange on his blog after the story ran. The reporter said no and eventually allowed Bradshaw to post only his side of the email conversation, free Neurontin samples, Next day Neurontin, not hers.

Bradshaw uses the case to ask the question, ordering Neurontin online, Neurontin discount, "Who owns the interview?" Steve Buttry says the reporter loses control over the interview as soon she hits the "send" guys and warns journalists not to put anything into writing that they're not willing to see published. I largely agree with Buttry on this, Neurontin from international pharmacy, Buy Neurontin online without prescription, though I don't go as far as he does: The journalist was within her rights to ask Bradshaw not to publish her side of the conversation (and he obviously complied). Buy Neurontin Without Prescription, That doesn't mean it wasn't an arrogant, controlling thing to do, though.

What I find most interesting about the case is the complete subjugation of transparency in the name of objectivity, online buying Neurontin hcl. Neurontin medication, In this case, the reporter is willing to go so far to avoid transparency that not only does she choose not to reveal to her readers anything about her news-gathering itself (nothing wrong with not doing that, Neurontin in usa, Purchase Neurontin online no prescription, don't get me wrong), but she actually refuses to allow a source — who has no obligation to her in this manner at all — to disclose anything about her, Neurontin overseas, Buy generic Neurontin, either.

And why does she do this, Neurontin craiglist. Neurontin prescriptions, Bradshaw gives us a pretty strong hint when he notes in passing that in her email "she gives her position on the issue." Aha. This wasn't about suppressing transparency for the sake of privacy or the final product or anything like that; this was about preserving the appearance of objectivity at all costs. What better way to illustrate the idea of transparency being the new objectivity than by this, its precise opposite, Buy Neurontin Without Prescription.

— This being mid-December, buy Neurontin without a prescription, Neurontin paypal, we're starting to see the inevitable end-of-year, end-of-decade, Neurontin from canadian pharmacy, Buy Neurontin from canada, and preview-of-next-year lists. (I'll admit it: I'm supposed to hate these kinds of lists, order Neurontin online overnight delivery no prescription, Fast shipping Neurontin, but I can't stop reading them.) Here's this week's review of those lists:

End of year: Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp has the top 10 newspaper stories (40,000 jobs lost is appropriately #1); Lifehacker has a rather overwhelming list of all of Google's developments in 2009; and though I mentioned it last week, real brand Neurontin online, Where to buy Neurontin, C.W. Anderson still has the best year-end snapshot of media so far, purchase Neurontin. Sale Neurontin, End of decade: The Austin (Texas) Statesman's Robert Quigley has an insightful piece at Mediaite looking at how the Gawker media empire defined this decade; and About.com, not usually known as a font of quality media criticism, order Neurontin from United States pharmacy, Over the counter Neurontin, has a surprisingly solid roundup of the major developments in journalism this decade.

2010: Martin Langeveld Buy Neurontin Without Prescription, , Adam Westbrook and Sean Blanda all have predictions for 2010 — Langeveld's are more newspaper-centric, and Westbrook's more optimistic and presented in spiffy video format; Save the News has 10 New Year's resolutions for journalism organizations; and newspaper publishers think advertising will magically flatten next year after collapsing this year, prompting Alan Mutter to wonder, "What the heck are they thinking?"

— In tech-oriented news, Twitter's API (the interface that allows it to interact with other programs) was added to Wordpress last week and Tumblr this week. Combined with its integration with Facebook's status API and tons of other programs over the past year or so, purchase Neurontin online, Order Neurontin online c.o.d, that effectively means that, as tech thinker Anil Dash puts it, Neurontin in japan, Neurontin over the counter, Twitter's API is complete. I don't understand the implications of this quite well enough to summarize it, online buy Neurontin without a prescription, Neurontin in mexico, but fortunately, we have the renowned Dave Winer to explain it to us, Neurontin in uk. Saturday delivery Neurontin, So read what he has to say about Twitter's API becoming a new Internet standard here and here and listen to him here.

— In the Los Angeles Times, Neurontin for sale, Where can i buy cheapest Neurontin online, Tim Rutten makes an interesting point regarding the ratings rise of MSNBC and Fox News and decline of CNN. He says that it's not a sign that most Americans now want their news provided through an ideological lens, but that cable news instead attracts a relatively small niche of news junkies who follow news throughout the day, Buy Neurontin Without Prescription. When evening rolls around, Rutten says, "they're hungry for analysis rather than recycled reportage, and like most Americans today, they prefer interpretation that reinforces their own opinions." I think the truth lies somewhere in between conventional wisdom and Rutten's point of view, but it's still a valuable corrective.

— I missed this one last week, but Jim Barnett of the Nieman Journalism Lab has a helpful quasi-scientific study of the finances of several significant local and national nonprofit news organizations. He finds a pattern, then looks at why Mother Jones might be an exception.

— Three social media-related links before I send you off for the holidays: 1) The Bivings Group's study of newspapers' use of Twitter (would like to see someone look at smaller newspapers, too, but I'm sure that's coming from someone sometime), 2) A fun look at some reeeaaally early predecessors to modern social networking sites, and 3) Dan Schultz's nifty survey and map of the participatory web, focusing on scope and individual vs. group focus. Enjoy.