Buy Valium Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 03:55:59 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Jan. 14, 2011.] Managing reporting errors in the river of news: Though Saturday's tragic shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was primarily a political story, it created several ripples that quickly spread into the media world. (One of those was the debate over our rather toxic climate of political rhetoric, though I'll leave that to other outlets to focus on.) Another issue, more directly related to the future-of-news discussion, regarded how the news spread in the shooting's immediate aftermath. As Lost Remote's Steve Safran described, several major news organizations, including Reuters, NPR, BBC News, and CNN, wrongly reported soon after the shooting that Giffords had died — reports that were corrected within a half-hour. NPR in particular devoted quite a bit of space to explaining its error, with social media editor Andy Carvin, ombudsman Alicia Shepard, and executive editor Dick Meyer all weighing in. There was plenty of scrutiny from outside, too: Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore called the mishap "understandable, but not excusable," and The Next Web's Chad Catacchio suggested that Twitter use editorial judgment to ensure that inaccurate information isn't highlighted in its Top Tweets. Salon's Dan Gillmor cited the situation as a reminder of Clay Shirky's line that "fact checking is down, but after-the-fact checking is way up." Gillmor also posted an appropriate excerpt from his book, Mediactive, urging all of us to take a "slow news" approach to breaking news stories. Seattle TV journalist Paul Balcerak took the opportunity to remind both journalists and their audiences to ask "How do you know that?" The erroneous tweets launched a parallel discussion on just what exactly to do with them: Leave them there? Delete them? Correct them? The debate began in the comments of Safran's Lost Remote post, with NPR's Carvin explaining why he left his faulty tweet as is. WBUR's Andrew Phelps explained why he made the same decision, and ex-Saloner Scott Rosenberg defended both of them in two posts, suggesting a corrected retweet might offer a good compromise. A couple of other new-media angles to the shooting's coverage: The Lab's Justin Ellis and Lost Remote's Cory Bergman looked at the awkward art of publicly making interview requests on Twitter, and Nieman Storyboard highlighted innovative storytelling approaches amid the shooting's chaotic aftermath. — Twitter's stand against secrecy: The ongoing WikiLeaks saga publicly roped in Twitter this week, as news broke of the U.S. Department of Justice issuing an order requesting the Twitter activity of several people involved with the organization. Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who posted many of the order's details and a copy of the order itself, also wondered, "did other Internet and social network companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) receive similar Orders and then quietly comply?" Remarkably, Twitter didn't just quietly comply. The order originally had a gag order preventing Twitter from telling the targets themselves that it was handing over their data, but Twitter challenged it in court and got a new, unsealed order issued, then told the targets about it. Fast Company looked at the likely role of Twitter's attorney, Alexander Macgillivray, in challenging the order, and Wired's Ryan Singel praised Twitter for standing up for its users against government, something that hasn't really been a norm among online companies. Mashable's Vadim Lavrusik examined the potential implications of the order for journalists doing reporting on Twitter and other social media platforms, and Mathew Ingram of GigaOM noted that the episode illustrates how much we rely on single corporate networks within social media. The traditional news media, meanwhile, remains lukewarm at best toward WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, as McClatchy pointed out. At The Columbia Journalism Review, Craig Silverman broke down one manifestation of that cold shoulder — the way mainstream news organizations continue to incorrectly report that WikiLeaks has released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, when it has actually released just 2,000. Also on the WikiLeaks front, Assange claimed in an interview to have "insurance" files on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp., and WikiLeaks attacked those who have called for Assange to be hunted down or killed. American WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Applebaum tweeted about his being detained by the U.S. while re-entering the country, and was profiled by Rolling Stone. And Evgeny Morozov of Foreign Policy argued that WikiLeaks' cause would be best served if it would shift from leaking information to building a decentralized, open Internet infrastructure. — Quora hits the scene: The sudden growth of the question-and-answer site Quora is a story that's been building for several weeks, but I thought now would be as good a time as any to get you up to speed on it. The buzz started just after Christmas, when tech guru Robert Scoble wondered whether it could be the next evolution of blogging. MG Siegler of the influential tech blog TechCrunch followed up by saying much the same thing, and talked about using Quora as inspiration for many of his TechCrunch posts. That week, it also received praise from Google's head of user interaction, Irene Au. That was the nudge Quora needed to begin some seriously explosive growth, doubling its number of signups twice in about two weeks. Quora, which was founded in 2009 by two Facebook veterans, is a fairly simple site — just questions and answers, not unlike Yahoo Answers and Facebook Questions. But it's managed to keep the quality of questions and answers up, and it's attracted a smart user base heavy on the "cool kids" of the tech world. The next question, though, was how this rapid growth would shape Quora. The Telegraph's Milo Yiannopoulos predicted that it would get bigger than Twitter, though Vadim Lavrusik of Mashable saw it as more suited to niche communities: "Quora feels heavy, which is of course where it excels, providing in-depth commentary to questions. But that heaviness is unlikely to attract a large audience." Mathew Ingram of GigaOM questioned whether Quora will be able to maintain its standard of quality as it grows, and Mary Hamilton wrote about Quora's struggles between what its admins want and what its user want. Meanwhile, Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore explored several of the best ways for journalists to use Quora, including looking for ideas for local content and monitoring the buzz around an issue. — Reading roundup: I haven't given you any iPad updates yet, so you know this review can't quite be finished. Very well then: — We're still talking about the decline of magazine app sales on the iPad, with The Guardian's Jemima Kiss looking at that disappointment and some publishers' efforts to overcome it. Advertising Age's Simon Dumenco called those sales declines meaningless, but designer Khoi Vinh urged those publishers to stop pouring their resources into print-like tablet products. The particular project that everyone's most interested in is Rupert Murdoch's The Daily, which will reportedly be launched next Wednesday with Murdoch and Steve Jobs on stage together. Rex Sorgatz heard that its companion website will have no homepage and be hidden from search engines, and Poynter's Damon Kiesow took a peek at the site's source code for clues. — Wikipedia will turn 10 this weekend, and Pew kicked off the commemoration with a survey finding that 42% of American adults use Wikipedia to look up information. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM explained how Wikipedia set the prototype for modern information flow on the web. — Facebook announced this week that it will allow users to like individual authors and topics within sites. ReadWriteWeb's Marshall Kirkpatrick said it's a step toward Facebook being able to do what RSS feeds couldn't. Meanwhile, the Bivings Group looked at the top newspaper Facebook fan pages. — One great piece I missed last week: Paul Ford conceptualized the web as a customer service medium, organized around the central question, "Why wasn't I consulted?" Ryan Sholin applied the concept to online reporting. — If you're interested in real-time editing and curation, this might be an experiment to watch: Quickish, launched this week by former ESPN-er Dan Shanoff, who is starting by applying that concept to sports commentary and hoping to expand to other areas. — Finally, three bigger pieces to ponder over the weekend: Dan Gillmor's book excerpt at Salon on surviving the tsunami of information; Forbes' Lewis DVorkin's vision for the news site built on personally branded journalists; and the Lab's Ken Doctor on the metrics that will define news in 2011.

Buy Valium Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:46:29 +0000

Buy Valium Without Prescription, After a pretty crazy last couple of weeks in the new-media-and-journalism world, we were probably due for a relatively slow one. Purchase Valium online, There wasn't a ton of breaking news about the news this week, but we still got plenty of good ideas to chew on, online buy Valium without a prescription. Sale Valium, Let's take a look at a few of them. (An explanation of what I'm doing is here.)

— The most passed-around essay of the week was easily NYU undergrad Cody Brown's explanation of journalism's move from a "trustee" model (in which a news org appoints itself a trustee of the public's interests and controls what information is disseminated to that public) to a "direct" model (in which a public produces and shares its own news), buy Valium online with no prescription. Valium discount, News, Brown says, order Valium no prescription, Free Valium samples, is "so important that leaving it to a group of people in an office downtown is and has always been irresponsible."

Brown has demonstrated over the past few months a remarkable knack for explaining fairly abstract ideas in a persuasive, engaging way, cod online Valium. (And, as Tom Van Hout commented, he's probably going to make himself a millionaire at some point.) That's certainly the case again here, as he sharply synthesizes and spins forward the ideas of several thinkers like Clay Shirky, from whom he's probably absorbed a good bit at NYU, Buy Valium Without Prescription. Valium buy, As a big-picture framework for where we've been and we're headed in news, Brown is right on point: The action and authority of journalism are being transferred from the self-appointed "trustees" of news to the people, Valium in japan, Valium medication, and that's the fundamental shift that's driving all of the changes in the news business that we've been talking about.

But as we drill down to the details, buy cheap Valium no rx, Purchase Valium, we can find a few areas in which Brown's analysis is incomplete. (That's entirely excusable, Valium san diego, Where to buy Valium, by the way: It's a blog post, not a book.) Jason Fry has a smart pushback to Brown's essay examining accountability journalism, Valium prices, Valium pills, and I'd echo much of what he has to say — particularly his observation that Brown is probably conflating news production and news dissemination. As Fry argues, buy no prescription Valium online, Valium tablets, the public may now be creating its own "bundle" of news rather than relying on news orgs to do it for them, but that doesn't mean those news orgs can't play a significant role in producing that news, Valium in mexico. Buy Valium Without Prescription, The main piece I saw missing from Brown's piece, though, was the presence of filters to sort through all of that news and information the public is sharing with itself. Buy Valium without prescription, So much of that information is bound to be irrelevant and unhelpful for each individual person within that public, and not many of them are going to have the time to wade through all of the noise to find the signal, buy Valium from canada. Valium to buy, (As Shirky has said, "information overload is filter failure.") In the model of news Brown discusses, Valium craiglist, Valium in us, the people and organizations who do that work for others — who find and organize news and information in a way that makes some sense out of it for a community of similarly interested people — play an even more critical role, because the public now has so much more information within its grasp, Valium in canada. Valium trusted pharmacy reviews, Now, I'm not saying we need the trustees of old to play that role; it's a function that I think the public is very capable of performing for itself, fast shipping Valium, Where to buy Valium, and it should fit very smoothly into Brown's new model of news. It's simply a crucial part of that model — almost even a corollary — and it's something we need to pursue as we learn how to execute this "direct media" system online, order Valium from United States pharmacy.

— This Week in Depressing Newspaper Statistics actually turns out to be one of the week's top stories, too, Buy Valium Without Prescription. Valium in australia, The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported this week that newspaper circulation dropped more than 10 percent over the past six months, a fall that surprised even the industry's more pessimistic observers, buy cheap Valium. Over the counter Valium, The Nieman Journalism Lab has a good survey of the damage, and just in case you were hoping this might be some kind of cyclical thing, where can i order Valium without prescription, Valium in usa, Alan Mutter — the go-to-guy on these newspaper business issues — gives a historical analysis of how newspapers got themselves into this mess. (Penetration, next day Valium, Valium from international pharmacy, he notes, has been down since well before the internet era.)

Mark Potts points out that this circulation plunge is also probably connected to the precipitous drop in quality of daily newspapers in the last few layoff-heavy years, Valium from canadian pharmacy. Buy Valium online without prescription, Ken Doctor makes a similar point and wonders whether these numbers mean the strategy of marketing newspapers as a higher-priced, niche product was a bad idea, delivered overnight Valium. Daniel Gross offers Buy Valium Without Prescription, Slate's customary contrarian piece ("Newspapers aren't doing as badly as you think"), but this graph of the last 20 years of the nation's top papers' circulation sure makes it hard to believe. Buy Valium without a prescription, — We also found out this week that Washington, D.C., Valium paypal, Valium overseas, will be getting a major new local news organization. Robert Allbritton, buying Valium online over the counter, Where can i find Valium online, who owns Politico and two D.C. TV stations, order Valium from mexican pharmacy, Valium for sale, announced that he plans to merge those stations' sites and add 50 new staff members to create a local news site that will compete with the Washington Post.

Politico, Valium in uk, Order Valium online c.o.d, launched in time for the 2008 presidential campaign with two ex-Post guys at the helm, quickly became one of the destinations on the web for political news, where can i buy cheapest Valium online. Now, with ex-Post online editor Jim Brady in charge of this new venture, it's easy to see why this is a lot bigger than your typical local-news startup, Buy Valium Without Prescription. Purchase Valium online no prescription, Brady talks to paidContent about what he wants to do, Washington City Paper warns of skimpy ad revenues, Valium in india, Rx free Valium, and Slate's Jack Shafer tells Brady not to forget about sports.

— In a conference Q&A session last week, buy Valium online cod, Valium over the counter, Google CEO Eric Schmidt opined on what the internet will look like five years from now: Primarily Chinese, and without the traditional distinctions between radio, buy Valium from canada, Where to buy Valium, TV, print and the web, Valium in australia. Where can i buy cheapest Valium online, He also said that learning to rank real-time information is "the great challenge of the age." Andrew Keen, one of internet culture's most prominent iconoclasts, buy cheap Valium, Where can i order Valium without prescription, notes that the real "$150 billion question" is "What will Google look like in 2015?"

Meanwhile, the Online Journalism Review's Robert Niles makes a compelling case against local news sites' involvement in Google News, buy generic Valium, Valium tablets, and tech guru Robert Scoble argues that the new Twitter Lists function makes a great replacement for Google Reader.

— The Columbia Journalism Review's Megan Garber uses a media gaffe earlier this week involving a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a launching point for some insightful thoughts on why the web is better at making corrections than traditional news outlets are, free Valium samples. Valium price, coupon, — On a more personal level, my bosses (or bosses' bosses' bosses), the Omaha World-Herald Co., bought the hyperlocal site WikiCity, which Gina Chen of the Nieman Journalism Lab introduced us to in August. Matt Thompson is skeptical about WikiCity's value and advises the World-Herald to reboot it and create a new one just for Omaha.

— Finally, I had this link all ready to go last week and somehow forgot it, but better late than never: Danny Sullivan has the most devastating evisceration I've seen yet of the silly idea that Google News is hurting news organizations who list on it. Worth saving.