Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:30:32 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Dec. 9, 2011.] Do institutions have a place in news innovation?: About three weeks after Dean Starkman's indictment of future-of-news thinkers was posted online by the Columbia Journalism Review, NYU professor Clay Shirky — one of the primary targets of the piece — delivered a response late last week in the form of a thoughtful essay on the nature of institutions and the news industry. Shirky explained the process by which institutions can lapse into rigidity and blindness to their threats, and he argued that there's no way to preserve newspapers' most important institutional qualities in the digital age, so the only option left is radical innovation. Several observers — of a future-of-news orientation themselves — jumped in to echo Shirky's point. The Journal Register Co.'s Steve Buttry praised Shirky for waiting and reflecting rather than responding immediately, and media consultant Steve Yelvington seconded Shirky's point that all this talk about traditional journalistic models being overwhelmed by a decentralized, audience-focused digital tidal wave is descriptive, not prescriptive — not necessarily the way things should be, but simply the way they are. Howard Owens of the Batavian took the middle ground, declaring that evolution, not revolution, is the standard vehicle for change in journalism and laying a model for sustainable local journalism that focuses on local ownership, startups, and innovation. In the end, Owens wrote, online journalism will evolve and survive. "It will find ways to make more and more money to pay for more and more journalism. The audience is there for it, local businesses will always want to connect with that audience, and entrepreneurial minded people will find ways to put the pieces together." The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal raised a good point in the discussion about how to preserve serious journalism: He argued that the primary obstacle won't be so much about paying for journalists to cover important public-affairs issues, but about finding a way for that news to reach a substantial percentage of the population in a given area. That "amplification" problem may be tough to solve, but could be relatively easy to scale once that initial solution is found. — Paywalls picking up steam among smaller papers: Now that the New York Times has bravely served as a paywall guinea pig for the rest of America's newspapers (apparently successfully, judging from the indicators we have so far), we're starting to see more of the nation's mid-sized papers announce online pay plans of their own. This week, Gannett, the U.S.' largest newspaper chain, revealed that it would be expanding its paywalls to more of its papers sometime next year. According to the Gannett Blog, the company began experimenting with paywalls at three newspapers last year, and while we don't know much of anything about those projects, it appears Gannett is pleased enough with them to build out on that model. The Chicago Sun-Times also announced a paywall to begin this week: It'll follow the increasingly popular metered model employed by the Financial Times and New York Times, allowing 20 page views per 30-day period before asking for $6.99 a month ($1.99 for print subscribers). PaidContent noted that the plan is being run by Press+ (the system created by Steve Brill's former Journalism Online) and that Roger Ebert has been exempted from the paywall. We also got a couple of updates from existing newspaper paywalls: MinnPost reported that the Minneapolis Star Tribune has come out ahead so far in its new paywall, generating an estimated $800,000 in subscriptions while losing a five-figure total of advertising dollars. And PaidContent reported that three paywalled MediaNews Group papers (now run by John Paton of the Journal Register Co.) have killed their Monday print editions, with a corresponding drop of their online paywall on those days. — Is this blogger a journalist?: Just when you thought the "Are bloggers journalists?" discussion was completely played out, it got some new life this week when an Oregon judge ruled that a blogger being sued for $2.5 million in a defamation case wasn't protected by the state's media shield law because she wasn't a journalist. As Seattle Weekly initially reported, the judge reasoned that she wasn't a journalist because she wasn't affiliated with any "newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system." This type of ruling typically gets bloggers (and a lot of journalists) riled up, and rightly so. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM gave some great context regarding state-by-state shield laws, noting that several other recent rulings have defined who's a journalist much more broadly than this judge did. These types of distinctions based on institutional affiliation are attempts to hold back a steadily rising tide, he argued. On the other hand, Forbes' Kashmir Hill described some of the case's background that seemed to indicate that this particular blogger was much more intent on defamation than performing journalism, creating dozens of sites to dominate the search results for the company she was attacking, then emailing the company to offer $2,500/mo. online reputation management. Hill concluded, "Yes, bloggers are journalists. But just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that what you do is journalism." Libertarian writer Julian Sanchez agreed, saying that while the judge's ruling wasn't well worded, this blogger was not a journalist. — Facebook's new tools: A few Facebook-related notes: The social network began rolling out Timeline, the graphical life-illustration feature it announced back in September this week, starting in New Zealand. It also briefly, vaguely announced plans to extend its Twitter-like Subscribe button into a plugin for websites, a move that TechCrunch said signifies that "the company is directly attacking the entire Twitter model head-on." Cory Bergman of Lost Remote urged news orgs to get on the Subscribe bandwagon as soon as they can, as a way to extend their journalists' brands. Meanwhile, news business consultant Alan Mutter laid out a basic plan for publishers to not just gain audience on Facebook, but make money there, too. The key element of that plan may be a surprising one: "The most intriguing and perhaps most productive approach for making money off Facebook, however, is for newspapers to take over the social media marketing and advertising campaigns for businesses in their markets." — Reading roundup: Pretty slow week this week, but there were a few smaller stories worth keeping an eye on: — As a sort of sequel to the Huffington Post's OffTheBus effort in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Jay Rosen and NYU's Studio 20 are partnering with the Guardian to determine and cover "the citizens' agenda" in the 2012 election. Rosen and NYU will also be working with MediaNews and the Journal Register Co. on the local and regional level. At the Lab, Megan Garber explained what's behind the initiative. — The American Journalism Review published a piece on the journalistic ethics of retweeting that included news that the Oregonian is telling its reporters to consider all retweets as endorsements. The Journal Register Co.'s Steve Buttry rounded up (appalled) reaction and argued that editors should consider each case individually. — Ten NBC-owned TV stations in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles will work with nonprofit news orgs (public radio in LA and Philly, and the Chicago Reporter and ProPublica) in a new initiative first reported by the LA Times. — The popular iPad news aggregation app Flipboard launched for iPhone this week, and Poynter's Jeff Sonderman drew lessons on mobile design for news orgs from it. — The New York Times reported that most of the pack of would-be iPad competitors in the tablet market have fizzled out, though the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet have gotten off to promising starts. — Here at the Lab, longtime newspaper editor Tom Stites is in the midst of an interesting three-part series on the state of web journalism. Part one is a good overview of where we are and where we want to go, and part two looks at the wide-ranging effects of layoffs and cuts into local journalism.

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:30:10 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on July 8, 2011.] Google's biggest social effort yet: This is a two-week edition of This Week in Review, so most of our news comes from last week, rather than this week. The biggest of those stories was the launch of Google+, Google's latest and most substantial foray into the social media landscape. TechCrunch had one of the first and best explanations of what Google+ is all about, and Wired's Steven Levy wrote the most comprehensive account of the thinking at Google behind Plus: It's the product of a fundamental philosophical shift from the web as information to the web as people. Of course, the force to be reckoned with in any big social media venture is Facebook, and even though Google told Search Engine Land it's not made to be a Facebook competitor, Google+ was seen by many (including the New York Times) as Google's most ambitious attempt yet to take on Facebook. The design looks a lot like Facebook, and pages for businesses (like Facebook's Fan Pages) are on their way. Longtime tech blogger Dave Winer was unimpressed at the effort to challenge Facebook, and Om Malik of GigaOM said Facebook has nothing to be afraid of in Google+, though All Facebook's Nick O'Neill said Google+'s ubiquity across the web should present a threat to Facebook. But the biggest contrast people drew between Google+ and Facebook was the more intuitive privacy controls built into its Circles feature. Ex-Salon editor Scott Rosenberg wrote a particularly thoughtful post arguing that Google+ more accurately reflects social life than Facebook: "In truth, Facebook started out with an oversimplified conception of social life, modeled on the artificial hothouse community of a college campus, and it has never succeeded in providing a usable or convenient method for dividing or organizing your life into its different contexts." His thought was echoed by j-prof Jeremy Littau (in two posts) and the Guardian's Dan Gillmor. Google's other ventures into social media — Buzz, Wave, Orkut — have fallen flat, so it's somewhat surprising to see that the initial reviews for Google+ were generally positive. Among those enamored with it were TechCrunch's MG Siegler, ReadWriteWeb's Marshall Kirkpatrick, social media guru Robert Scoble, and the Huffington Post's Craig Kanalley (though he wondered about Google's timing). It quickly began sending TechCrunch loads of traffic, and social media marketer Chris Brogan brainstormed 50 ways Google+ could influence the rest of the web. At the same time, there was some skepticism about its Circles function: TechCrunch's Siegler wondered whether people would use it as intended, and ReadWriteWeb's Sarah Perez said they might not be equipped to handle complicated, changing relationships. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram, meanwhile, said Circles look great, but they aren't going to be much use until there's a critical mass of people to put in them. — Google+ and the news: This being a journalism blog, we're most interested in Google+ for what it means for news. As Poynter's Jeff Sonderman pointed out, the aspect of Google+ that seems to have the most potential is its Sparks feature, which allows users to collect recommended news around a specific term or phrase. Former New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee said Sparks could fill a valuable niche for news organizations in between Facebook and Twitter — sort of a more customizable, less awkward RSS. The University of Missouri’s KOMU-TV has already used it in a live broadcast, and Breaking News’ Cory Bergman gave a few valuable lessons from that organization’s first week on Google+. CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis gave his thoughts on a few potential uses for news: It could be very useful for collaboration and promotion, but not so much for live coverage. Journalism.co.uk's Sarah Marshall listed several of the same uses, plus interviewing and "as a Facebook for your tweeps." Sonderman suggested a few changes to Google+ to make it even more news-friendly, including allowing news org pages and improving the Sparks search and filtering. Still, he saw it as a valuable addition to the online news consumption landscape: "It’s a serendipity engine, and if executed well it could make Google+ an addictive source of news discovery." A bit of Google+-related miscellany before we move on: Social media marketer Christopher Penn gave some tips on measuring Google+, author Neil Strauss condemned the growing culture of Facebook "Likes" (and now Google +1s), and GigaOM's Mathew Ingram offered a rebuttal. — Murdoch kills News of the World: In one of the most surprising media-related moves of the year, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. suddenly shut down one of its most prominent properties, the 168-year-old British tabloid News of the World, on Thursday. The decision stemmed from a long-running scandal involving NotW investigators who illegally hacked into the phones of celebrities. This week, the Guardian reported that the hacking extended to the voicemail of a murdered 13-year-old girl and possibly the families of dead soldiers, and that the paper's editor, Rebekah Brooks (now the head of News Corp. in Britain) was informed of some of the hacking. Facing an advertising boycott and Parliamentary opposition, Murdoch's son, James, announced News of the World will close this weekend. (The Guardian has the definitive blow-by-blow of Thursday's events.) It was a desperate move, and as the New York Times, paidContent, and many on Twitter noted, it was almost certainly an attempt to keep the scandal's collateral damage away from Murdoch's proposed BSkyB merger, which was put on hold and possible in jeopardy this week. Though the closing left hundreds of suddenly out-of-work employees, it may prove less damaging in the big picture for News Corp. than you might expect. NotW only published on Sundays, and it's widely suspected that its sister tabloid, the Sun, will simply expand to include a Sunday edition to cover for its absence. As one Guardian editor stated, the move may simply allow News Corp. to streamline its operation and save cash, and Poynter’s Rick Edmonds called it a smart business move. (Its stock actually went up after the announcement.) There's plenty that has yet to play out: The Guardian pointed out how evasive James Murdoch's closing letter was, and Brooks, the one that many thought would take the fall for the scandal, is still around. And the investigation is ongoing, with more arrests being made today. According to the New Yorker's Ken Auletta and CUNY's Jeff Jarvis, though, the buck stops with Rupert himself and the culture he created. — Making journalism easier on Twitter: Twitter has been reaching out to journalists for quite some time now through a media blog, but last week it took things a step further and launched Twitter for Newsrooms, a journalist's guide to using Twitter, with tips on reporting, making conversation, and promoting content. The Lab's Justin Ellis gave a quick glimpse into the rationale behind the project. A few people were skeptical: TechCrunch's Alexia Tsotsis suspected that Twitter's preaching to the choir, arguing that for the journalists who come across Twitter for Newsrooms, Twitter already is a newsroom. The Journal Register's Steve Buttry called it "more promotional than helpful," and suggested some other Twitter primers for journalists. Ad Age's Matthew Creamer added a tongue-in-cheek guide to releasing your anger on Twitter. Meanwhile, the Lab's Megan Garber reported on the ideas of NPR and Andy Carvin for improving Twitter's functionality for reporting, including a kind of real-time influence and credibility score for Twitter sources, and a journalism-oriented meme-tracking tool for developing stories. — Mobile media and tablet users, profiled: There were several studies released in the past two weeks that are worth noting, starting with Pew's report on e-reader and tablet users. Pew found that e-reader ownership is booming, having doubled in six months. The Knight Digital Media Center's Amy Gahran reasoned that e-readers are ahead of tablets right now primarily because they're so much cheaper, and offered ideas for news organizations to take advantage of the explosion of e-reader users. Three other studies related to tablets and mobile media: One study found that a third of tablet users said it's leading them to read print newspapers and magazines less often; another showed that people are reading more on digital media than we think, and mostly in browsers; and a third gave us more evidence that games are still king among mobile apps. — Reading roundup: Bunches of good stuff to look through from the past two weeks. I'll go through it quickly: — Turns out the "digital first" move announced last month by the Guardian also includes the closing of the international editions of the Guardian and Observer. Jeff Jarvis explained what digital first means, but Suw Charman-Anderson questioned the wisdom the Guardian's strategy. The Lab's Ken Doctor analyzed the economics of the Guardian's situation, as well as the Mail and the BBC's. — This week in AOL/Huffington Post news: Business Insider revealed some leaked lackluster traffic numbers for Patch sites, and reported that Patch is undergoing a HuffPo-ization. That prompted Judy Sims and Slate's Jack Shafer to be the latest to rip into Patch's business model, and Shafer followed up to address rebuttals about non-Patch hyperlocal news. — Google+ was the only interesting Google-related news over the past two weeks: The Lab's Megan Garber wrote about Google's bid to transform mobile ads, potential new directions for Google News, and Google highlighting individual authors in search returns. The New York Times' Virginia Heffernan also wrote on Google's ongoing war on "nonsense" content. — A couple of paywall notes: The Times of London reported that it has 100,000 subscribers a year after its paywall went up, and Dorian Benkoil said the New York Times' plan is working well, the Lab's Megan Garber wrote about the Times adding a "share your access" offer to print subscribers. — Three practical posts for journalists: Poynter's Jeff Sonderman has tips for successful news aggregation and personalized news delivery, and British j-prof Paul Bradshaw reported on his experience running his blog through a Facebook Page for a month. — And three bigger-picture pieces to think on: Wetpaint's Ben Elowitz on the shrinking of the non-Facebook web, former Guardian digital editor Emily Bell on the U.S.' place within the global media ecosystem, and the Economist on the role of news organizations in a citizen-driven media world.

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:53:58 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on April 1, 2011.] Putting the Times' pay plan in place: If you read last week's review, the first half of this week's should feel like déjà vu — lots of back-and-forth about the wisdom of The New York Times' new online pay plan, and some more hand-wringing about getting around that plan. If you want to skip that and get to the best stuff, I recommend Staci Kramer, David Cohn, and Megan Garber. The Times launched its pay system Monday with a letter to its readers (snarkier version courtesy of Danny Sullivan), along with a 99-cent trial offer for the first four weeks and free access for people who subscribe to the Times on Kindle. Times digital chief Martin Nisenholtz gave a launch-day talk to newspaper execs, highlighted by his assertion that the link economy is not a win-win for content producers and aggregators. Meanwhile, the discussion about the paywall's worth rolled on. You can find a good cross-section of opinions in this On Point conversation with Ken Doctor, the Journal Register's John Paton, The Times' David Carr, and NYTClean creator David Hayes. The plan continues to draw support from some corners, including The Onion (in its typically ironic style, of course) and PC Magazine's Lance Ulanoff. Former Financial Times reporter Tom Foremski and Advertising Age columnist Simon Dumenco both made similar arguments about the value of the plan, with Foremski urging us to support the Times as a moral duty to quality journalism and Dumenco ripping the blogosphere's paywall-bashers for not doing original reporting like the Times. And though the opposition was expressed much more strongly the past two weeks, there was a smattering of dissent about the plan this week, too — some from the Times' mobile users. One theme among the criticism was the cost of developing the plan: Philip Greenspun wondered how the heck the Times spent $40 million on planning and implementation, and former Guardian digital head Emily Bell wrote about the opportunity cost of that kind of investment. BNET's Erik Sherman proposed that the Times should have invested the money in innovation instead. A few other interesting thoughts about the Times' pay plan before we get to the wall-jumping debate: Media consultant Judy Sims said the plan might actually make the Times more social by providing an incentive for subscribers to share articles on social networks to their non-subscribing friends. Spot.Us' David Cohn argued that the plan is much closer to a donation model than a paywall and argued for the Times to offer membership incentives. And Reuters' Felix Salmon talked about how the proposal is changing blogging at the Times. PaidContent's Staci Kramer said the Times is fighting an uphill battle in the realm of public perception, but that struggle is the Times' own fault, created by its way-too-complicated pay system. — The ethics of paywall jumping: With the Times' "pay fence" going into effect, all the talk about ways to get around that fence turned into a practical reality. Business Insider compiled seven of the methods that have been suggested: A browser extension, Twitter feeds, using different computers, NYTClean and a User Script's coding magic, Google (for five articles a day), and browser-switching or cookie-deleting. Mashable came up with an even simpler one: delete "?gwh=numbers" from the Times page's URL. Despite such easy workarounds, the Times is still cracking down in other areas: As Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan noted, it blocks links from all Google sites after the five-articles-per-day limit is reached. The Times also quickly (and successfully) requested a shutdown of one of the more brazen free-riding schemes yet concocted — NYT for a Nickel, which charged to access Times articles without paywall restrictions. (It did, however, let up on unauthorized Twitter aggregators of Times content.) So we all obviously can crawl through the Times' loopholes, but should we? A few folks made efforts to hack through the ethical thicket of the Times' intentional and unintentional loopholes: Times media critic James Poniewozik didn't come down anywhere solid, but said the Times' leaky strategy "makes the paywall something like a glorified tip jar, on a massive scale—something you choose to contribute to without compulsion because it is the right thing" — except unlike those enterprises, it's for-profit. In a more philosophical take, the Lab's Megan Garber said the ethical conundrum shows the difficulty of trying to graft the physical world's ethical assumptions onto the digital world. — A possible +1 for publishers: Google made a big step in the direction of socially driven search this week with the introduction of +1, a new feature that allows users to vote up certain search results in actions that are visible to their social network. Here are two good explainers of the feature from TechCrunch and Search Engine Land, both of whom note that +1's gold mine is in allowing Google to personalize ads more closely, and that it's starting on search results and eventually moving to sites across the web. The feature was immediately compared to Facebook's "Like" and Twitter's retweets, though it functions a bit differently from either. As GigaOM's Mathew Ingram noted, because it's Google, it's intrinsically tied to search, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. As Ingram said, it's smart to add more of a social component to search, but Google's search-centricity makes the "social network" aspect of +1 awkward, just as Buzz and Wave were. To paraphrase the argument of Frederic Lardinois of NewsGrange: if your +1's go into your Google Profile and no one sees them, do they really make a sound? All this seems to be good news for media sites. Lost Remote's Cory Bergman said that if they essentially become "improve the SEO of this site" buttons, media companies will be pretty motivated to add them to their sites. Likewise, Poynter's Damon Kiesow reasoned that +1 could be a great way for media sites to more deeply involve visitors who arrive via Google, who have typically been less engaged than visitors from Facebook and Twitter. — Shrinking innovation to spur it: This month's Carnival of Journalism focuses on how to drive innovation, specifically through the Knight News Challenge and Reynolds Journalism Institute. Most of the posts rolled in yesterday, and they contain a litany of quick, smart ideas of new directions for news innovation and how to encourage it. A quick sampling: City University London and Birmingham City University j-prof Paul Bradshaw proposed a much broader, smaller-scale News Challenge fund, with a second fund aimed at making those initiatives scale. J-Lab Jan Schaffer said we need to quit looking at innovation so much solely in terms of tools and more in terms of processes and relationships. British journalist Mary Hamilton and Drury j-prof Jonathan Groves both focused on innovation in training, with Groves proposing "innovation change agents" funded by groups like Knight and the RJI to train and transform newsrooms. Also, University of British Columbia j-prof Alfred Hermida opined on the role of theory in innovation, Lisa Williams of Placeblogger advocated a small-scale approach to innovation, and the University of Colorado's Steve Outing had some suggestions for the RJI fellowship program. — The mechanics of Twitter's information flow: Four researchers from Yahoo and Cornell released a study this week analyzing, as they called it, "who says what to whom on Twitter." One of their major findings was that half the information consumed on Twitter comes from a group of 20,000 "elite" users — media companies, celebrities, organizations and bloggers. As Mathew Ingram of GigaOM observed, that indicates that the power law that governs the blogosphere is also in effect on Twitter, and big brands are still important even on a user-directed platform. The Lab's Megan Garber noted a few other interesting implications of the study, delving into Twitter's two-step flow from media to a layer of influential sources to the masses, as well as the social media longevity of multimedia and list-oriented articles. A couple of other research-oriented items about Twitter: A Lab post on Dan Zarrella's data regarding timing and Twitter posts, and Maryland prof Zeynep Tufekci wrote a more theoretical post on NPR's Andy Carvin and the process of news production on Twitter. — Reading roundup: Plenty of other bits and pieces around the future-of-news world this week: — New York Times editor Bill Keller wrote a second column, and like his anti-aggregation piece a couple of weeks ago, this piece — about the value of the Times' impartiality and fact-based reporting — didn't go over well. Reuters' Felix Salmon called him intellectually dishonest, Scott Rosenberg called him defensive, and the Huffington Post's Peter Goodman (a former Times reporter) said Keller misrepresented him. — A few notes on The Daily: Forbes' Jeff Bercovici said it was downloaded 500,000 times during its trial period and has 70,000 regular users, and a study was conducted finding that it's more popular with less tech-savvy, less content-concerned users. — Journal Register Co. CEO John Paton talked about transforming newspapers at the Newspaper Association of America convention; he summarized what he had to say in 10 tweets, and Alan Mutter wrote a post about the panel. The moderator, Ken Doctor, wrote a Lab post looking at how long newspapers have left. — I'll send you off with Jonathan Stray's thoughtful post on rethinking journalism as a system for informing people, rather than just a series of stories. It's a lot to chew on, but a key piece to add to the future-of-news puzzle.

Buy Lexapro 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 Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:53:22 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Jan. 7, 2011.] A net neutrality compromise: The Review might have taken two weeks off for the holidays, but the rest of the future-of-news world kept on humming. Consider this more your "Holidays in Review" than your "Week in Review." Let's get to it. The biggest news development of the past few weeks came just before Christmas, when the FCC passed a set of Internet regulations that were widely characterized as a compromise between net neutrality advocates and big Internet service providers. In essence, the rules will keep ISPs from blocking or slowing services on the traditional wired Internet, but leave the future of wireless regulation more unclear. (Here's a copy of the order and a helpful explainer from GigaOM.) In the political realm, the order drew predictable responses from both sides of the aisle: Conservatives (including at least one Republican FCC commissioner) were skeptical of a move toward net neutrality, while liberals (like Democratic Sen. Al Franken) fervently argued for it. In the media-tech world, it was greeted — as compromises usually are — with near-universal disdain. The Economist ran down the list of concerns for net neutrality proponents, led by the worry that the FCC "has handed the wireless carriers a free pass." This was especially troubling to j-prof Dan Kennedy, who argued that wireless networks will be far more important to the Internet's future than wired ones. Salon's Dan Gillmor said the FCC paid lip service to net neutrality, paving the way for a future more like cable TV than the open web we have now. Newsweek's Dan Lyons compressed his problems with the order into one statement: "There will soon be a fast Internet for the rich and a slow Internet for the poor." From the other side, Slate media critic Jack Shafer, a libertarian, questioned whether the FCC had the power to regulate the Internet at all, and imagined what the early Internet would have been like if the FCC had regulated it then. The Los Angeles Times' James Rainey told both sides to calm down, and at the Knight Digital Media Center, Amy Gahran used the story as an object lesson for news organizations in getting and linking to the source documents in question. — WikiLeaks and the media's awkward dance: The long tail of this fall's WikiLeaks story continues to run on, meandering into several different areas over the holidays. There are, of course, ongoing efforts to silence WikiLeaks, both corporate (Apple pulled the WikiLeaks app from its store) and governmental (a bill to punish circulation of similar classified information was introduced, and criticized by law prof Geoffrey Stone). In addition, Vanity Fair published a long piece examining the relationship between WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and The Guardian, the first newspaper to partner with him. Based on the story, Slate's Jack Shafer marveled at Assange's shrewdness and gamesmanship ("unequaled in the history of journalism"), Reuters' Felix Salmon questioned Assange's mental health, and The Atlantic's Nicholas Jackson wondered why The Guardian still seems to be playing by Assange's rules. We also saw the blowup of Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald's feud with Wired over some chat logs between alleged WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning and the man who turned him in. It's a complicated fight I'm not going to delve into here, but if you'd like to know more, here are two good blow-by-blows, one more partial to Wired, and another more sympathetic to Greenwald. Greenwald has also continued to be one of the people leading the inquiries into the traditional media's lack of support for WikiLeaks. Alternet rebutted several media misconceptions about WikiLeaks, and Newsweek attempted to explain why the American press is so lukewarm on WikiLeaks — they aren't into advocacy, and they don't like Assange's purpose or methods. One of the central questions to that media cold-shoulder might be whether Assange is considered a journalist, something GigaOM's Mathew Ingram tried to tackle. Other, more open critiques of WikiLeaks continue to trickle out, including ones from author Jaron Lanier and Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who argued for The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. Abrams' argument prompted rebuttals from Jack Shafer and NYU prof Clay Shirky. Shirky in particular offered a nuanced comparison of the Pentagon Papers-era Times and the globally oriented WikiLeaks, concluding that "the old rules will not produce the old outcomes." If you're still hungry for WikiLeaks analysis, John Bracken's rounded up the best of the year here. — Looking back, and looking forward: We rang in the new year last week, and that, of course, always means two things in the media world: year-end retrospectives, and previews of the year to come. The Lab wrapped up its own year in review/preview before Christmas with a review of Martin Langeveld's predictions for 2010. PBS' MediaShift also put together a good set of year-end reviews, including ones on self-publishing, the rapidly shifting magazine industry, a top-ten list of media stories (led by WikiLeaks, Facebook, and the iPad). You can also get a pretty good snapshot of the media year that was by taking a look at AOL's list of the top tech writing of 2010. Poynter's Rick Edmonds examined the year in newspaper stock prices (not great, but could've been worse), while media consultant Alan Mutter explained that investors tended to stay away from debt-laden newspaper companies in particular. As for the year to come, the Lab's readers weighed in — you like ProPublica, The Huffington Post, and Clay Shirky, and you're split on paywalls — and several others chimed in with their predictions, too. Among the more interesting prognostications: New York Times media critic David Carr sees tablets accelerating our ongoing media convergence, The Next Web forecasts a lot of blogs making the Gawker-esque beyond the blog format, Mashable's Vadim Lavrusik predicts the death of the foreign correspondent, TBD's Steve Buttry sees many journalism trade organizations merging, and the Lab's Martin Langeveld thinks we'll see John Paton's innovative measures at the Journal Register Co. slowly begin to be emulated elsewhere in the newspaper industry. Two other folks went outside the predictions mold for their 2011 previews: media analyst Ken Doctor looked at 11 pieces of conventional wisdom the media industry will test this year, and the University of Colorado's Steve Outing outlined his wishes for the new year. Specifically, he wants to see News Corp. and The New York Times' paid-content plans fail, and to see news execs try a value-added membership model instead. "This will require that news publishers actually work their butts off to sell, rather than sit back and expect people to fork over money "just because" everyone should support journalism," he wrote. — Rethinking publishing for the tablet: One theme for the new year in media that's already emerged is the impending dominance of the tablet. As The New York Times' Joshua Brustein wrote, that was supposed to be the theme last year, too, but only the iPad was the only device able to get off the ground in any meaningful way. Several of Apple's competitors are gearing up to make their push this year instead; The Times' Nick Bilton predicted that companies that try to one-up Apple with bells and whistles will fail, though Google may come up with a legitimate iPad rival. Google has begun work toward that end, looking for support from publishers to develop a newsstand to compete with Apple's app store. And Amazon's Kindle is doing fine despite the iPad's popularity, TechCrunch argued. Meanwhile, Women's Wear Daily reported that magazine app sales on the iPad are down from earlier in the year, though Mashable's Lauren Indvik argued that the numbers aren't as bad as they seem. The magazine numbers prompted quite a bit of analysis of what's gone wrong with magazine apps. British entrepreneur Andrew Walkingshaw ripped news organizations for a lack of innovation in their tablet editions — "tablets are always-on, tactile, completely reconfigurable, great-looking, permanently jacked into the Internet plumbing, and you’re using them to make skeumorphic newspaper clones?" — and French media consultant Frederic Filloux made similar points, urging publishers to come up with new design concepts and develop a coherent pricing structure (something Econsultancy's Patricio Robles had a problem with, too). There were plenty of other suggestions for tablet publications, too: GigaOM's Mathew Ingram said they should focus on filtering the web, MG Siegler of TechCrunch asked for an easy-to-use newsstand rather than a system of standalone apps, and Alan Mutter suggested magazines lower the prices and cut down on the technical glitches. Three others focused specifically on the tablet publishing business model: At the Lab, Ken Doctor gave us three big numbers to watch in determining where this is headed, entrepreneur Bradford Cross proposed a more ad-based model revolving around connections to the open web, and venture capitalist Fred Wilson predicted that the mobile economy will soon begin looking more like the web economy. — Reading roundup: A few items worth taking a look at over the weekend: — The flare-up du jour in the tech world is over RSS, and specifically, whether or not it is indeed still alive. Web designer Kroc Camen suggested it might be dying, TechCrunch's MG Siegler fingered Twitter and Facebook as the cause, Dave Winer (who helped develop RSS) took umbrage, and GigaOM's Mathew Ingram and The Guardian's Martin Belam defended RSS' relevance. — Add the Dallas Morning News to the list of paywalled (or soon-to-be-paywalled) papers to watch: It announced it will launch a paid-content plan Feb. 15. The Lab's Justin Ellis shed light on Morning News' thinking behind the plan. PaidContent's Staci Kramer alsobroke down a Pew report on paying for online content. — For the many writers are considering how to balance social media and longer-form writing, two thoughtful pieces to take a look at: Wired's Clive Thompson on the way tweets and texts can work in concert in-depth analysis, and Anil Dash on the importance of blogging good ideas. — Finally, NPR's Matt Thompson put together 10 fantastic lessons for the future of media, all coming from women who putting them into action. It's an encouraging, inspiring set of insights.

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:44:29 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Dec. 10, 2010.] Only one topic really grabbed everyone's attention this week in future-of-news circles (and most of the rest of the world, too): WikiLeaks. To make the story a bit easier to digest, I've divided it into two sections — the crackdown on WikiLeaks, and its implications for journalism. Attacks and counterattacks around WikiLeaks: Since it released 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables last week, WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, have been at the center of attacks by governments, international organizations, and private businesses. The forms and intensity they've taken have seemed unprecedented, though Daniel Ellsberg said he faced all the same things when he leaked the Pentagon Papers nearly 40 years ago. Here's a rundown of what's happened since late last week: Both Amazon and the domain registry EveryDNS.net booted WikiLeaks, leaving it scrambling to stay online. (Here's a good conversation between Ethan Zuckerman and The Columbia Journalism Review on the implications of Amazon's decision.) PayPal, the company that WikiLeaks uses to collect most of its donations, cut off service to WikiLeaks, too. PayPal later relented, but not before botching its explanation of whether U.S. government pressure was involved. On the government side, the Library of Congress blocked WikiLeaks, and Assange surrendered to British authorities on a Swedish sexual assault warrant (the evidence for which David Cay Johnston said the media should be questioning) and is being held without bail. Slate's Jack Shafer said the arrest could be a blessing in disguise for Assange. WikiLeaks obviously has plenty of critics: Christopher Hitchens called Assange a megalomaniac who's "made everyone complicit in his own private decision to try to sabotage U.S. foreign policy," and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman called for Assange and The New York Times, respectively, to be prosecuted via the Espionage Act. But WikiLeaks' many online defenders also manifested themselves this week, too, as hundreds of mirror sites cropped up when WikiLeaks' main site was taken down, and various online groups attacked the sites of companies that had pulled back on services to WikiLeaks. By Wednesday, it was starting to resemble what Dave Winer called "a full-out war on the Internet." Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan looked at the response by WikiLeaks' defenders to argue that WikiLeaks will never be blocked, and web pioneer Mark Pesce said that WikiLeaks has formed the blueprint for every group like it to follow. Many other writers and thinkers lambasted the backlash against WikiLeaks, including Reporters Without Borders, Business Insider's Henry Blodget, Roberto Arguedas at Gizmodo, BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin, Wired's Evan Hansen, and David Samuels of The Atlantic. Four defenses of WikiLeaks' rights raised particularly salient points: First, NYU prof Clay Shirky argued that while WikiLeaks may prove to be damaging in the long run, democracy needs it to be protected in the short run: "If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow." Second, CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis said that WikiLeaks fosters a critical power shift from secrecy to transparency. Finally, GigaOM's Mathew Ingram and Salon's Dan Gillmor made similar points about the parallel between WikiLeaks' rights and the press's First Amendment rights. Whether we agree with them or not, Assange and WikiLeaks are protected under the same legal umbrella as The New York Times, they argued, and every attack on the rights of the former is an attack on the latter's rights, too. "If journalism can routinely be shut down the way the government wants to do this time, we'll have thrown out free speech in this lawless frenzy," Gillmor wrote. — WikiLeaks and journalism: In between all the attacks and counterattacks surrounding him, Julian Assange did a little bit of talking of his own this week, too. He warned about releasing more documents if he's prosecuted or killed, including possible Guantánamo Bay files. He defended WikiLeaks in an op-ed in The Australian. He answered readers' questions at The Guardian, and dodged one about diplomacy that started an intriguing discussion at Jay Rosen's Posterous. When faced with the (rather pointless) question of whether he's a journalist, he responded with a rather pointless answer. Fortunately, plenty of other people did some deep thinking about what WikiLeaks means for journalism and society. (The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal has a far more comprehensive list of those people's thoughts here.) Former Guardian web editor Emily Bell argued that WikiLeaks has awakened journalism to a renewed focus on the purpose behind what it does, as opposed to its current obsession with the models by which it achieves that purpose. Here at the Lab, USC grad student Nikki Usher listed a few ways that WikiLeaks shows that both traditional and nontraditional journalism matter and pointed out the value of the two working together. At the Online Journalism Review, Robert Niles said that WikiLeaks divides journalists into two camps: "Those who want to see information get to the public, by whatever means, and those who want to control the means by which information flows." Honolulu Civil Beat editor John Temple thought a bit about what WikiLeaks means for small, local news organizations like his, and British j-prof Paul Bradshaw used WikiLeaks as a study in how to handle big data dumps journalistically. Also at the Lab, CUNY j-prof C.W. Anderson had some thoughts about this new quasi-source in the form of large databases, and how journalists might be challenged to think about it. Finally, if you're looking for some deep thoughts on WikiLeaks in audio form, Jay Rosen has you covered — in short form at PBS MediaShift, and at quite a bit more length with Dave Winer on their Rebooting the News podcast. — How porous should paywalls be?: Meanwhile, the paid-content train chugs along, led by The New York Times, which is still planning on instituting its paywall next year. The Times' digital chief, Martin Nisenholtz, dropped a few more details this week about how its model will work, again stressing that the site will remain open to inbound links across the web. But for the first time, Nisenholtz also stressed the need to limit the abuse of those links as a way to get inside the wall without paying, revealing that The Times will be working with Google to limit the number of times a reader can access Times articles for free via its search. Nisenholtz also hinted at the size of the paywall's target audience, leading Poynter's Rick Edmonds to estimate that The Times will be focusing on about 6 million "heavy users of the site." Reuters' Felix Salmon was skeptical of Nisenholtz's stricter paywall plans, saying that they won't be worth the cost: "Strengthening your paywall sends the message that you don’t trust your subscribers, or your subscribers’ non-subscriber friends: you’re treating them as potential content thieves." The only way such a strategy would make sense, he said, is if The Times is considering starting at a very high price point, something like $20 a month. Henry Blodget of Business Insider, on the other hand, is warming to the idea of a paywall for The Times. In other paid-content news: News Corp.'s Times of London, which is running a very different paywall from The New York Times, may have only 54,000 people accessing content behind it, according to research by the competing Guardian. The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle announced it's launching an metered model powered by Steve Brill's Press+, a plan Steve Yelvington defended and Matthew Terenzio questioned. While one paid-content plan gets started, another one might be coming to an end: Newsday is taking its notoriously unsuccessful paywall down through next month, and several on Twitter guessed that the move would become permanent. One news organization that's not going to be a pioneer in paid online news: The Washington Post, as Post Co. CEO Don Graham said at a conference this week. — Reading roundup: Other than the ongoing WikiLeaks brouhaha, it's been a relatively quiet week on the future-of-news front. Here's a bit of what else went on: — Web guru Tim O'Reilly held his News Foo Camp in Arizona last weekend, and since it was an intentionally quiet event, it didn't dominate the online discussion like many such summits do. Still, there were a few interesting post-Newsfoo pieces for the rest of us to chew on, including a roundup of the event by TBD's Steve Buttry, Alex Hillman's reflections, and USC j-prof Robert Hernandez's thoughts on journalists' calling a lie a lie. — A few iPad bits: News media marketer Earl Wilkinson wrote about a possible image problem with the iPad, All Things Digital's Peter Kafka reported on the negotiations between Apple and publishers on iTunes subscriptions, and The New York Times' David Nolen gave some lessons from designing election results for the iPad. — The Guardian's Sarah Hartley interviewed former TBD general manager Jim Brady about the ambitious local online-TV project, and Lost Remote's Cory Bergman looked at TBD and other local TV online branding efforts. — Advertising Age's Ann Marie Kerwin has an illuminating list of 10 trends in global media consumption. — Finally, two good pieces from the Lab: Harvard prof Nicholas Christakis on why popularity doesn't equal influence on social media, and The New York Times' Aron Pilhofer and Jennifer Preston provided a glimpse into how one very influential news organization is evolving on social media.

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:06:25 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Clobazam Without Prescription, on May 7, 2010.]

Has Newsweek's time come?: This week was a relatively quiet one until Wednesday, when The Washington Post Co. announced that it's trying to sell Newsweek, which it's owned since 1961. A possible sale doesn't always signal the demise of a news organization, rx free Clobazam, Clobazam prices, but in this case, as the folks at The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital noted, real brand Clobazam online, Buy Clobazam no prescription, this move was the equivalent of "hastily scrawling out a 'Going Out of Business–Name Your Price' sign and plastering it on the front window." The New York Times has the details, including a j-prof's pronouncement that "the era of mass is over, Clobazam craiglist, Clobazam from international pharmacy, in some respect."

PaidContent's Staci Kramer talked to Washington Post Co. chairman Don Graham, buy generic Clobazam, Clobazam to buy, who boiled Newsweek's profitability problems to one telling statistic: Newsweek's staff split its time about evenly between print and digital last year, but print brought in $160 million in revenue, next day Clobazam, Purchase Clobazam online no prescription, while the digital side drew $8 million. Newsweek's digital operation was good, Graham said — just not good enough to stand out from the hundreds of other news sites out there, Clobazam gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Buy cheap Clobazam no rx, Still, he was confident the Post would find a buyer (though he hasn't talked with anyone seriously), order Clobazam from mexican pharmacy, Clobazam overseas, and that Newsweek and newsweeklies in general would live on.

Newsweek editor Jon Meacham talked to the New York Observer, buying Clobazam online over the counter, Clobazam tablets, saying he's going to see if he can save the magazine, possibly by rounding up bidders to buy it, Clobazam medication. Meacham's conversation with Jon Stewart the day the news broke was laced with both optimism and gallows humor, and New York magazine examined Meacham's decision to try to make Newsweek the American equivalent of The Economist, Buy Clobazam Without Prescription. Clobazam over the counter, In a well-written piece, The New York Times' David Carr summed up two bits of conventional wisdom about Newsweek's downfall: The economics of weekly publishing simply aren't feasible anymore, Clobazam to buy online, Buy Clobazam online with no prescription, and the Washington Post Co.'s Slate, with its snarky, Clobazam paypal, Buy Clobazam online no prescription, knowing tone, has taken Newsweek's place, order Clobazam no prescription. Clobazam from canadian pharmacy, MarketWatch's Jon Friedman suggested that the Post combine the two. Slate's Jack Shafer said it wasn't the Internet that killed Newsweek, buy cheap Clobazam, Order Clobazam online c.o.d, but instead an ongoing game of musical chairs that someone had to lose. (Slate and Time, buy Clobazam online without a prescription, Where can i buy Clobazam online, for example, seem to be doing just fine, buy Clobazam from canada, Sale Clobazam, thanks.) Meanwhile, Derek Powazek, buy Clobazam online cod, Clobazam in mexico, who's edited several web magazines, gave his recipe for newsweekly success in the digital age, Clobazam trusted pharmacy reviews. Buy Clobazam Without Prescription, The next question, of course, is who will buy Newsweek. Where to buy Clobazam, News business analyst Ken Doctor examined two possibilities: TV-based news orgs like ABC, CBS and NBC looking for a print distribution point, where can i buy cheapest Clobazam online, Clobazam prescriptions, and "firebrand owners" like media moguls Mort Zuckerman or Marty Peretz. Either way, Clobazam buy, Clobazam discount, Doctor said, Newsweek will probably be all but extinct before long, buy no prescription Clobazam online. Clobazam in india, Poynter's Rick Edmonds, Media Alley and Mediaite all throw out some combination of Zuckerman, online buying Clobazam hcl, Purchase Clobazam online, Meacham, Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch, fast shipping Clobazam. Ordering Clobazam online, as possibilities.

—

Committing journalism with Twitter: Many of Twitter's users have understood and used it as a medium for breaking, spreading and consuming news for quite a while now, but some research presented within the past week adds some backbone to that idea, Buy Clobazam Without Prescription. Four Korean researchers collected all of Twitter's data over a month's time last year and released their research on it — the first quantitative study of the entire Twitterverse, order Clobazam online overnight delivery no prescription. Clobazam in uk, What they found, according to PC World, buy Clobazam online without prescription, Clobazam price, coupon, was that both the structure of Twitter (with its asymmetrical following system, creating a world with some incredibly influential users and many other more peripheral ones) and its messages (85 percent are about news) give it more of a resemblance to a news medium than to its fellow social networks online, saturday delivery Clobazam. Buy Clobazam from mexico, MIT's Technology Review zeroed in on two particularly interesting findings illustrating the breadth of this new news system: First, two-thirds of Twitter users aren't followed by anyone that they follow, free Clobazam samples, Where can i find Clobazam online, meaning they use it for information consumption rather than social connections. Second, buy Clobazam without prescription, Over the counter Clobazam, despite the wide disparity between the Twitter "stars" and typical users, anyone's tweet still has the possibility of reaching a wide audience, Clobazam pills, Clobazam in australia, thanks to the usefulness of the retweet function. "Individual users have the power to dictate which information is important and should spread by the form of retweet," the researchers wrote, order Clobazam from United States pharmacy. "In a way we are witnessing the emergence of collective intelligence." Buy Clobazam Without Prescription, Also this week, Canadian j-prof Alfred Hermida put forward his argument in an academic paper for Twitter as an "ambient form of journalism" — a medium in which the former news audience creates, disseminates and discusses news, performing acts of journalism that were once performed only by professionals. Online buy Clobazam without a prescription, In a more technical paper, Alex Burns delved into the definition of "ambient journalism, Clobazam in japan, Cod online Clobazam, " especially as it relates to Twitter. Here at the Lab, buy Clobazam without a prescription, Clobazam for sale, Megan Garber also looked at the way news organizations in several countries are using Twitter and other social media for news.

—

The paid-content beat goes on: A few quiet indicators this week of the move toward news paywalls: Rupert Murdoch said News Corp, delivered overnight Clobazam. Clobazam in canada, will be announcing their paywall plans in a few weeks. Those plans apparently include anchoring a consortium of paid-content systems across various media companies, using technology that powers the Wall Street Journal's paywall, the Los Angeles Times reported, Buy Clobazam Without Prescription. Meanwhile, Clobazam in us, the number of publications that Journalism Online's execs say they're working with on paywall plans has increased to 1,400, including the sizable MediaNews chain of newspapers.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune's new publisher/CEO, Mike Klingensmith, talked to MinnPost about his plans for a new metered-model system (like what The New York Times announced in January), and from the sound of it, he's looking at charging primarily for local news — the paper already charges for some of its Minnesota Vikings coverage — and wants to allow traffic from links to come in fairly uninhibited. A decision on the specific plans sound like they're at least a year off, though.

Advertising Age's Nat Ives also took a look at paywalls for smaller newspapers (here's the link, but Ives' article is also under a paywall). Ken Doctor says that for smaller papers, a paywall may be a good short-term wait-and-see strategy, but papers still have to be proactive about ensuring long-term growth.

—

The pros and cons of Facebook's spread Buy Clobazam Without Prescription, : There wasn't a lot of news involving Facebook this week, but the grumblings about its privacy issues rolled on. The New York Times used Facebook's latest (relatively minor, it seems) privacy glitch to give another overview about those concerns, and TechNewsWorld pegged their overview to a Consumer Reports survey about Facebook information sharing that was released this week.

Social media guru Robert Scoble wrote a depressing piece about why Facebook's disregard for privacy can't be regulated, concluding that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "just played chicken with our privacy and it sure looks like he won." New media expert Jeff Jarvis suggested that Facebook turn their bad privacy PR into a service for users (with some help from their ubiquity), offering them a simpler way to see what's being written about them across the web and manage their online reputation.

The New York Times' digital chief Martin Nisenholtz, was pretty impressed by Facebook's spread across the web, giving a sharp analysis of the importance of engagement and identity to publishers online. Those are things that Facebook has mastered, he said, but news organizations haven't, and that's a shame when the Times' most valuable asset is "our audience as knowledgeable participants in the life our web site."

—

Reading roundup: This week, I've got two news items and a few other good ideas to chew on.

— EBay founder Pierre Omidyar launched his new local news site, Honolulu Civil Beat, this week, Buy Clobazam Without Prescription. It's being run by John Temple, who was at the helm of the Rocky Mountain News when it shut down. The biggest distinctive of this project: It's almost entirely behind a paywall. PaidContent and NPR both have the details.

— The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported the most recent set of newspaper numbers a couple of weeks ago, and here at the Lab, newspaper vet Martin Langeveld punched a few holes in the Newspaper Association of America's declaration that the results are the sign of a turnaround. And after the announcement of the first quarter's newspaper profit numbers, the Lab's Ken Doctor explained why newspapers aren't going to be investment those profits in much-needed innovation.

— Publish2's Greg Linch put together a great case Buy Clobazam Without Prescription, for incorporating more of a computational mindset into journalism, identifying several common elements between journalism and programming and urging the two groups to work more closely together. English professor Kim Pearson followed that post up with some proposals for ways to integrate computational thinking into curriculums.

— We've been hearing a lot about online comments over the past few weeks, and Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore took a close look at the ways several news organizations are working to improve them.

— I'll close with two simple but thoughtful pieces on online media, one from the production standpoint, and the other looking at consumption. First social media entrepreneur and blogger Ben Elowitz gave a fine summary of the way the definition of quality has changed in online media versus traditional publishing, and Slate's William Saletan had some helpful tips to make your media consumption broader, deeper and altogether smarter. It's hard work, but it's necessary, Saletan said: "In the electronic echo chamber, it's easier than ever to shut out what you don't want to hear. Nobody will make you open the door and venture out. You'll have to do that yourself.".

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:19:08 +0000

Buy Estrace Without Prescription, For many people at the intersection of the journalism-tech-media discussion, Twitter has moved well beyond the "What I had for lunch" cliche (if it ever was that in the first place), past being a fun new technology to experiment (read: waste time) with, and into a place by itself as the essential distributed source of news and commentary on the web.

I'm no different, order Estrace online c.o.d. Buy Estrace online without prescription, In my own web use, Twitter has long since supplanted RSS as my primary means of finding out what's going on in media and technology, Estrace tablets, Order Estrace no prescription, and, as my thousands of unread Google Reader posts have evidenced, Estrace in india, Estrace pills, it's now become virtually my only gateway into that conversation.

Yet my net of information is getting larger, Estrace trusted pharmacy reviews, Order Estrace online c.o.d, not smaller. The magic of this curated-web use of Twitter is that it constantly points outside of itself; what's so exciting about Twitter is not so much what's within those 140-character updates, Estrace prescriptions, Where can i find Estrace online, but where else on the web they take me.

In my case, it's especially important that Twitter gives a deep and wide entry into the world of the web: I write weekly roundups for the Nieman Journalism Lab on news and discussion in the journalism-in-transition field, rx free Estrace, Estrace for sale, which touches on journalism, media and more than a few areas of technology, Estrace to buy. I'm counting on Twitter as a news source to ensure that those weekly reviews are comprehensive, contextual and, to some extent, authoritative, Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace from mexico, To that end, I jealously guard my "journalism/media" Twitter list, Estrace craiglist, Estrace in canada, since it's the door through which I access all of those conversations. I haven't made the list public, buy Estrace no prescription, Estrace in us, but I thought I'd share some of the best linkers and thinkers from that list, since they've proven to be the most helpful in illuminating the future-of-journalism discussion on the web, Estrace in uk. Buy Estrace online without a prescription, Follow all of these folks, and you should catch a pretty good chunk of what's going on in that discussion, purchase Estrace online no prescription. Where to buy Estrace, I've never done a Follow Friday, so consider this my extended one-time Follow Friday recommendations, order Estrace no prescription, Estrace in india, in no particular order:

Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu)
Who he is: Journalism professor at NYU
Why he's worth following: For six years, Jay was among the best journalism bloggers on the web at PressThink, Estrace over the counter. Buy Estrace Without Prescription, But in the last year and a half, he's moved much of his trenchant, sharp-tongued commentary onto Twitter, where he's once again found his sweet spot. Order Estrace from United States pharmacy, He's referred in the past to his work as an attempt to provide a free journalism education to the public, and he seems to be accomplishing just that, purchase Estrace. Where can i buy Estrace online, If there's a center of this discussion on Twitter, it's Jay, Estrace in usa. Real brand Estrace online, Typical tweet: "Intriguing story of two college news providers at Penn State. Shows how the old media/new media divide is NOT generational http://jr.ly/ybi8"

Nieman Journalism Lab (@NiemanLab)
Who they are: A Harvard-based, buy no prescription Estrace online, Online buying Estrace hcl, foundation-funded "attempt to help journalism figure out its future in an Internet age." The Twitter feed is run, I believe, Estrace in japan, Estrace from canadian pharmacy, by Laura McGann and Megan Garber right now.
Why they're worth following: I'm not just sucking up because I write for them, Buy Estrace Without Prescription. The folks at the Lab are relentlessly scouring the Internet to find all kinds of links that might be helpful for people who care about the future of journalism, Estrace in australia. Saturday delivery Estrace, Typical tweet: "Collaboration in action: Frontline, Planet Money, buy Estrace from canada, Order Estrace from mexican pharmacy, NewsHour team up for a multimedia project on Haiti http://j.mp/9WtBEb"

Mathew Ingram (@mathewi)
Who he is: Senior writer at GigaOm and former journalist with the Globe and Mail in Toronto.
Why he's worth following: Mathew always ends up in the middle of important journalism/media discussions, where to buy Estrace, Buy generic Estrace, especially since he began his work for GigaOm a few months ago. Passes on a lot of nifty links from all corners of the field, Estrace buy.
Typical tweet: Buy Estrace Without Prescription, "interesting post on ChatRoulette and the social need that it fills, from the social psychologist behind Trendspotting: http://bit.ly/9cIG9w"

Mindy McAdams (@macloo)
Who she is: Journalism professor at the University of Florida
Why she's worth following: McAdams is a top authority on multimedia journalism, and her Twitter feed is pretty nearly essential for people interested in that area. Purchase Estrace online, Links to bunches of tips on using a variety of journalism tools, as well as examples of those tools used well, next day Estrace. Estrace san diego, Typical tweet: "Maps and Adobe Flash - Iditarod - Have you seen this coverage of Alaska dog sled race. Anchorage Daily News -
Vadim Lavrusik (@lavrusik)
Who he is: Graduate student in digital media at Columbia, buy Estrace online no prescription, Estrace tablets, also working on social media at The New York Times
Why he's worth following: He's one of the best linkers I've seen on digital media and social media, especially with a strong journalism-oriented undercurrent, buy Estrace without a prescription. Estrace from international pharmacy, Very high signal-to-noise ratio — he's always pointing you to good stuff.
Typical tweet: "Wikipedia's redesign is coming soon: http://bit.ly/adXECA Not dramatic, but more emphasis on search."

Steve Yelvington (@yelvington)
Who he is: New media strategist for news organizations
Why he's worth following: Steve's one of Twitter's best journalism opinionators, Buy Estrace Without Prescription. He's got a knack for summing up big ideas about journalism in 140 characters, online buy Estrace without a prescription. Where can i buy cheapest Estrace online, Typical tweet: "We no longer have masses, just niches, Estrace prices. Order Estrace online overnight delivery no prescription, This confuses politicians as much as it does mass media people."

Cody Brown (@CodyBrown)
Who he is: NYU undergraduate student, founder of NYU Local and Kommons.com
Why he's worth following: Like Yelvington, delivered overnight Estrace, Estrace gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Cody does more opining on journalism than linking. But his wisdom belies his age: He's got a sharp mind and a fantastical intuitive understanding of the way digital media works, Estrace overseas.
Typical tweet: "Can someone please explain why following a nyt journ from their byline is that much more innovative than including a hyperlink @anywhere?"

Howard Owens (@howardowens)
Who he is: Buy Estrace Without Prescription, Founder and publisher of The Batavian, an online local news org in upstate New York
Why he's worth following: For all our talk about hyperlocal news being the future of journalism, Howard's one of the few actually on the ground running a news organization and tweeting about it. Estrace to buy online, He's a refreshing "libertarian/localist" counterpoint to the mostly liberal political leanings of other future-of-journalism folks on Twitter, and he's not afraid to mix it up, free Estrace samples. Buy cheap Estrace no rx, Typical tweet: "@mathewi @kyigit anon=more frank. Can I respectfully call BS on that, buy Estrace online without prescription. Buy cheap Estrace, Just not true. There is simply no virtue in anon on a news site."

C.W, Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Anderson (@Chanders)
Who he is: Digital culture professor at CUNY-College of Staten Island
Why he's worth following: Anderson's one of the few people who are somehow able to cram academically oriented insights about journalism into 140 characters, over the counter Estrace. Where can i order Estrace without prescription, He asks a lot of provocative questions that force you to think about things a bit differently.
Typical tweet: "What would a j-school that proclaimed its fidelity to "understanding journalism" rather than "serving the journalism industry" look like?"

Judy Sims (@Judy_Sims)
Who she is: Independent Toronto-based online media consultant
Why she's worth following: An ideal combination of a sharp wit, Estrace paypal, Buying Estrace online over the counter, interesting links and provocative insight. When you on occasion get all three in a single tweet, buy Estrace without prescription, you're golden.
Typical tweet: Buy Estrace Without Prescription, "I give credit to Viv Mag innovation, but their iPad app just looks like an annoying flash intro to a crappy website. http://nyti.ms/a8kCij"

Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry)
Who he is: Director of community engagement at Allbritton's startup Washington online local news org.
Why he's worth following: A great linker. Finds loads of interesting stuff, and usually adds some insight as he's passing it along.
Typical tweet: "Newspapers' scorn for TV could hurt themselves. RT @jacklail Newspaper paywalls would be a ratings hit for local TV http://goo.gl/fb/39UQ".

Similar posts: Buy Thorazine Without Prescription. Glucophage to buy online.
Trackbacks from: Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy Estrace Without Prescription. Buy VigRX Without Prescription. Buy Amikacin Without Prescription. Buy Hoodia Without Prescription. Buy Cephalexin Without Prescription. Buy Anafranil Without Prescription. Buy Styplon Without Prescription. Buy Immunosin Without Prescription. Buy Ashwagandha Without Prescription. Buy Janumet Without Prescription. Buy Cloxazolam Without Prescription. Buy generic Bromhexine.

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:49:00 +0000

[This review was first posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Meclizine Without Prescription, on Jan. 29, Meclizine buy, Order Meclizine no prescription, 2010.]

The iPad’s big reveal: Apple unveiled its new tablet — the unfortunately named iPad— on Wednesday, a week before the Super Bowl, order Meclizine from United States pharmacy, Online buy Meclizine without a prescription, and the buzz was as least as big: The Internet practically broke under the weight of the hype for Apple’s latest product. Rather than bury you in opinions about the specs and perks of the iPad, buy Meclizine online no prescription, Ordering Meclizine online, I’ll focus on what people are saying about the gadget’s potential impact on print and online media, especially journalism, over the counter Meclizine. Order Meclizine online c.o.d, Here goes:

Let’s start with the runup. Print media folks had high hopes that the iPad would revolutionize their industries — even, Meclizine in india, Meclizine overseas, as The New York Times put it, giving old media “a chance to undo mistakes of the past, buy Meclizine without prescription. In three smart posts, the tech sites TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Wired said the iPad could be a tool to change publishing, but, as Jason Kincaid in TechCrunch wrote, “someone will need to deliver the content.” Then there were the pre-emptive debunkers, who argued that the iPad would be “just another distribution platform,” merely a circulation tool for journalism, and a “massive distraction” for newsrooms.

After the announcement, the overwhelming reaction from the tech world was one of disappointment, Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Meclizine prices, The Guardian has a roundup, and you can itemized lists of iPad beefs by the web giants Mashable, buying Meclizine online over the counter, Meclizine over the counter, Gizmodo and Gawker, as well as new-media-watcher Steve Yelvington, fast shipping Meclizine. Meclizine from canadian pharmacy, But there were a lot of people wowed and encouraged by the iPad announcement: A lot of them were old media people — publishers, as this MediaWeek roundup especially shows, buy Meclizine from canada. Meclizine for sale, As MediaCritic’s Scott Rosenberg observed, the iPad demo played largely to the delight of those who want to mimic the paper experience, Meclizine paypal, Sale Meclizine, but those who see the web as bringing in a new relationship with news seemed to expect more.

Wired and The Big Money gave us a medium-by-medium look at the iPad’s potential impact, and neither was blown away by its possibility for newspapers and magazines, next day Meclizine. Meclizine in us, Between the roundups of Poynter and Alan Mutter and the thoughts of Nieman Journalism Lab director Joshua Benton, we have a pretty good spectrum of sensible takes from media-watchers from a variety of backgrounds.

A few points in the discussion worth highlighting: A number of tech writers — Twitter engineer Alex Payne, Meclizine in australia, Online buying Meclizine hcl, Rafe Colburn and j-prof C.W. Anderson — have noted that Buy Meclizine Without Prescription, the iPad is fundamentally a closed platform, designed more to secure market share for Apple than to perpetuate the web’s openness. (They’ve got a point.) Second, Meclizine to buy online, Rx free Meclizine, quite a few others have pointed out that the iPad is a content consumption device, not a content creation one, real brand Meclizine online. Purchase Meclizine online, This has several implications: It appeals to a different audience than most new tech products (the casual, “lean-back” user, buy Meclizine without a prescription, Meclizine in mexico, says Jason Fry; the content-inhaling youth of the world, says David Carr), Meclizine medication. Where can i find Meclizine online, It makes content creation critical (see TechCrunch and Wired), and, Meclizine in uk, Meclizine trusted pharmacy reviews, as NYU professor Jay Rosen put it, it turns the nature of the Internet from the “read write web” back into the “read only” web.

Ultimately, Meclizine to buy, Buy Meclizine online without prescription, the iPad’s utility for journalism is going to come down to the quality of content that news organizations create for it. Is that content going to be regressive, trying to recreate a print experience and neutering the power of a new tool, buy Meclizine online cod. Buy cheap Meclizine, Or is it going to be rich, web-native and innovative, Meclizine craiglist, Meclizine prescriptions, giving users an experience and value they haven’t had until now. (Will Bunch, Judy Sims and Alan Jacobson make similar points quite succinctly and eloquently.)

—

How leaky will the Times’ paywall be?: The biggest topic in journalism B.T, Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. (Before Tablet) was The New York Times’ proposed paywall, Meclizine from international pharmacy, Meclizine gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, and specifically, parsing the impact of Times execs’ statement that anyone coming to a Times article through “another Web site” will get free access to that article, buy Meclizine online with no prescription, Where to buy Meclizine, without it counting toward their metered tally of page views. NYU professor Jay Rosen was the first to draw attention to the implications of that provision, Meclizine tablets, Buy Meclizine online without a prescription, concluding, “That looks a lot less like a pay wall to me, Meclizine in canada. Buy Meclizine no prescription, It isn’t a metered system if I can access the Times via the link economy without limit.”

In that case, Reuters’ Felix Salmon argued, cod online Meclizine, Meclizine trusted pharmacy reviews, online subscribers would be paying not for the Times’ content, but for how they got to it, where to buy Meclizine. Meclizine from canadian pharmacy, Or, as Josh Young put it, order Meclizine from United States pharmacy, Meclizine in uk, the Times is “charging for being ignorant of all doors but the front.” (Some more great back-and-forth on why the Times would want such a flimsy paywall can be found in the Notes and comments of Rosen’s piece.)

Silicon Valley Watcher Tom Foremski and Times contributor Robert Wright acknowledged the paywall’s leakiness, too: Foremski proposed getting linkers to run the Times’ ads, Meclizine buy, Online buying Meclizine hcl, and Wright wanted to add micropayments to the paywall. Steve Yelvington pointed out another big hole in the Times’ metered model: cookies.

Felix Salmon and Gawker’s Gabriel Snyder did the math and found it doesn’t look good for the Times; The Big Money’s Frederic Filloux was more optimistic about the numbers, provided the Times only charges the heaviest users, buy Meclizine online cod. (Salmon is also disappointed Buy Meclizine Without Prescription, that the Times has given up on the dream of being so essential that it can make big bucks from a free site.) If you want to do some number-crunching of your own, the Nieman Journalism Lab’s Jonathan Stray has a nifty little tool for you.

—

Newsday’s 35 online subscribers: Based on sources from an internal meeting, The New York Observer reported the number of subscribers of Newsday’s website since the Long Island newspaper — the nation’s 11th-largest newspaper by print circulation — put up a paywall three months ago, and the tally shocked a lot media observers: 35. MediaDailyNews detailed Newsday’s overall decline in numbers since the wall went up in late October. Meclizine overseas,
Several people — not least Newsday’s own execs — quickly noted the paper’s unique case: It’s owned by Cablevision, and subscribers of the print edition or Cablevision’s cable or broadband access get free access to the site, sale Meclizine. Meclizine in usa, (The paper estimates that amounts to 75 percent of Long Islanders.) As Steve Yelvington noted and Newsday hinted to paidContent, the paywall is much more about giving a free perk to cable and Internet subscribers than actually netting paid website customers. So it doesn’t make much sense to apply this scenario to other similar-sized papers, ordering Meclizine online. Meclizine over the counter, That being said, 35 is an astonishingly low number, Meclizine craiglist, to say the least.

—

Foursquare’s possibilities for news orgs: Foursquare — a fast-growing, mobile-based social network based on sharing your location — announced its partnership with the free daily paper Canada Metro, the company’s first partnership with a news organization. Metro will add location-specific coverage to Foursquare users, who could receive alerts when they’re near those spots.

On the social media blog Mashable, Jennifer Van Grove described Metro’s Foursquare content as a travel guide book that “unlocks the best a neighborhood has to offer, Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. She calls the relationship symbiotic (mobile utility for Metro, print exposure for Foursquare and local businesses). With mobile news access exploding, this could be part of a future-of-journalism recipe: The tech blog ReadWriteWeb has an intriguing vision of the type of location-aware news and tips that might be possible through services like Foursquare.

Last week, Lehigh j-prof Jeremy Littau said that Foursquare can allow journalists to map out pertinent facts about their communities and help residents explore their neighborhoods. And Sean Blanda advised The New York Times (and other news organizations) to learn from Foursquare’s system of rewarding users.

—

Taking action in Haiti: Last week’s discussion about whether reporters in Haiti should become involved in the story they’re covering (in this case, particularly reporters serving as doctors) continued into the weekend. The Society of Professional Journalists reiterated its stance that journalists should “avoid making themselves part of the stories they are reporting.” This prompted a barrage of angry Twitter posts by Jeff Jarvis. Tyler Dukes listed them and fired back at Jarvis, while Gazette Communications’ Steve Buttry joined Jarvis’ attack on SPJ. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription, NPR’s “On the Media” brought in a few more takes, and St. Petersburg Times media critic Eric Deggans proposed a middle way: It’s OK to help, but turn the cameras off when you do it.

—

Reading roundup: If your head isn’t already spinning from the loads of iPad commentary I’ve thrown at you, there are a few pieces from the past week that are well worth a read: First, Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the British newspaper The Guardian, deftly outlined the state of journalism and argued against paywalls for news orgs in a lecture on Monday. Here’s the summary, the full text (it’s long) and a smart response by Jason Fry questioning Rusbridger’s anti-paywall argument.

Second, The New York Times’ Nick Bilton points out how ingrained sharing, filtering and aggregating have become in the way we live on the web. It’s one of those short, simple pieces that neatly captures a concept that many of us had noticed but hadn’t sharply articulated yet.

Finally, the Knight Digital Media Center’s Michele McLellan — also a fellow at the University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute — has a mind-blowingly thorough taxonomy of local news organizations across the country. This is definitely a post you’ll want to save for future reference.
.

Similar posts: Buy Lotrel Without Prescription. Where can i buy cheapest Mestinon online.
Trackbacks from: Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Meclizine Without Prescription. Buy Mellaril Without Prescription. Buy Clobazam Without Prescription. Buy Luvox Without Prescription. Buy Piroxicam Without Prescription. Buy Cialis professional Without Prescription. Buy Levaquin Without Prescription. Buy Smok-OX Without Prescription. Buy Lovastatin Without Prescription. Buy Norvasc (Amlodipine) Without Prescription. Buy Mebendazole Without Prescription. Next day Inderal (Propranolol).

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:33:48 +0000

Buy Lexapro Without Prescription, We journalism/new media nerds like to think of ourselves as being pretty open, but we can be a bit clannish at times: We close ranks to defend a few core principles, we have our own hierarchy of gurus and we use our own set of words and phrases. Lexapro tablets, When I dove into the future-of-journalism world, I quickly found that a few of these phrases function as shorthand for big, Lexapro to buy, Rx free Lexapro, fundamental ideas. They often get traded without explanation and sometimes without links, buy generic Lexapro, Cod online Lexapro, leaving the uninitiated pretty confused and possibly a little turned off, too, Lexapro overseas. Buy cheap Lexapro no rx, Consider this your dictionary for those phrases. If you've got any more suggestions, Lexapro for sale, Buy Lexapro online with no prescription, by all means, let me know in the comments, next day Lexapro. This guide is very expandable, Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Purchase Lexapro online no prescription, (And if you have a correction, please let me know, online buy Lexapro without a prescription, Lexapro in usa, too.)

"Do what you do best and link to the rest."

Where it came from: This is the signature phrase of Jeff Jarvis, the Entertainment Weekly/TV Guide/San Francisco Examiner veteran, Lexapro gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Buy Lexapro without prescription, CUNY journalism prof and author of "What Would Google Do?" Jarvis first wrote it in a Feb. 22, order Lexapro no prescription, Buy no prescription Lexapro online, 2007, post at his popular media-watching blog, Lexapro prices, Lexapro buy, BuzzMachine.

What it means: Your best bet is simply to read that initial post — Jarvis explains the concept pretty well there, Lexapro in japan. Lexapro price, coupon, The short version: Rather than duplicating what bunches of other news organizations are producing just so your outlet can have its own version of the story, just ask yourself, Lexapro pills, Lexapro from international pharmacy, as Jarvis says, "'can we do it better?' If not, Lexapro in india, Buy cheap Lexapro, then link. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription, And devote your time to what you can do better." For another illuminating angle on what this phrase signifies, see in particular the second-to-last paragraph of Megan Garber's Columbia Journalism Review article from November 2009 on the Fort Hood and Twitter lists.

"If the news is important, Lexapro in mexico, Buy Lexapro online cod, it will find me."

Where it came from: An unlikely source — an unnamed college student in an anecdote in a March 27, 2008, Lexapro prescriptions, Saturday delivery Lexapro, New York Times article by Brian Stelter on how young people share political news. (The actual quote is, ordering Lexapro online, Order Lexapro online c.o.d, "If the news is that important ..." but it seems to have been compressed.)

What it means: The idea quickly became an apt summary of the way news is consumed online — by linking, sharing, buy Lexapro online without a prescription, Buy Lexapro without a prescription, reading one bit whether even seeing the whole or even the original source. In the other words, buy Lexapro no prescription, Lexapro in us, a long, long ways from reading the newspaper front-to-back every day, delivered overnight Lexapro. Lexapro discount, The news organization's role as an authoritative arbiter of news value is diminished in this philosophy; the user creates her own news agenda, and her most trusted sources are her social networks, Lexapro in uk. (Here's The Huffington Post's Josh Young, web entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Canadian journalist Mathew Ingram and the aforementioned Jarvis on this phrase.)

"Information wants to be free."

Where it came from: Our first recorded use was back in 1984, when writer Stewart Brand said this (as he recalled it 13 years later): "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable, Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Lexapro medication, The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, buy Lexapro online without prescription, Where to buy Lexapro, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time, online buying Lexapro hcl. Lexapro craiglist, So you have these two fighting against each other." That was eventually compressed into "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive." Not surprisingly, over the counter Lexapro, Buy Lexapro online no prescription, the 'free' part was a lot more appealing to us than the 'expensive' one, so that's the part of the quote that stuck, where to buy Lexapro. (Roger Clarke and Wikipedia Buy Lexapro Without Prescription, are good sources for this information, both on its origins and meaning.)

What it means: This part is pretty fluid — and controversial. Where can i buy Lexapro online, Critics of a free-based Internet economy often take it as an economic statement, as in, sale Lexapro, Lexapro from canadian pharmacy, "Information wants to cost $0." While Brand seemed to have been talking about cost and economics when he first uttered the phrase, many Internet thinkers after him have defined it to mean a broader freedom to access, where can i buy cheapest Lexapro online, Where can i order Lexapro without prescription, distribute, and adapt information, Lexapro san diego, Lexapro over the counter, especially online. The phrase became central in the struggles of free content and copyright — a rallying cry for those on one side and a rather pejorative label for the other, free Lexapro samples. Order Lexapro online overnight delivery no prescription, Of course, some pro-free people, buy Lexapro from canada, Purchase Lexapro online, like Wired's Chris Anderson, still use the phrase in its dollars-and-cents sense, Lexapro paypal. Lexapro trusted pharmacy reviews, "It's not information overload. It's filter failure."

Where it comes from: It was the title of a keynote speech given by NYU professor and new media guru Clay Shirky on Sept, Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. 18, Lexapro in canada, Lexapro to buy online, 2008, at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York, real brand Lexapro online. Lexapro in australia, The phrase has been quoted by others (and Shirky himself) in various forms, including "Information overload is filter failure, buying Lexapro online over the counter, Fast shipping Lexapro, " and "There's no such thing as information overload; there's only filter failure."

What it means: To get the fullest idea, watch the speech. Shirky gives a hasty, Cliff's Notes version in this interview with The Columbia Journalism Review, in which he argues that information overload has been around for centuries, and the reason it seems so problematic on the web is that we haven't developed the proper filters for all that information. The idea has been tied to several concepts on the web, including social filters and sharing, and curation and aggregation of news.

"Our readers know more than we do."

Where it came from: Buy Lexapro Without Prescription, This phrase is former San Jose Mercury News columnist and citizen journalism pioneer Dan Gillmor's, first uttered in 2004. It seems the phrase was initially coined as "My readers know more than I do," and you'll still find it in either form. (Jay Rosen has a link to what may be Gillmor's first use of it, but the link is dead now. The phrase also figures prominently in Gillmor's 2004 book "We the Media." )

What it means: Look no further than Jay Rosen's December 2004 piece, which refers to the idea simply as "Open Source journalism." As Rosen describes it, it's the concept that any journalist's (or media outlet's) audience knows more than that journalist, and the web allows them to communicate that knowledge with each other and the professional journalist. It's a way of drawing on "the wisdom of the crowd" — another favorite web phrase — within a journalistic framework.

"The people formerly known as the audience"

Where it came from: The phrase is NYU professor Jay Rosen's, first written and defined in his June 27, 2006, post of the same title, Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Rosen acknowledges that it's partly derived from Dan Gillmor's phrase, "the former audience," outlined in his 2004 book, "We the Media." In January 2010, Rosen called the post "easily my most quoted piece of writing and the best meme of the decade just ended. ... Nothing else comes close."

What it means: I can't do you much better than simply reading Rosen's initial post, plus his notes and after matter. It's related to the idea behind "Our readers know more than we do," referring to, as Rosen puts it, "The writing readers. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription, The viewers who picked up a camera. The formerly atomized listeners who with modest effort can connect with each other and gain the means to speak— to the world, as it were."

"The sources go direct."

Where it came from: The newest phrase on the list. This one comes from blogging and RSS pioneer Dave Winer, who seems to have officially coined it in the March 19, 2009, post "The reboot of journalism." Now, Winer commonly refers to it as simply "Sources go direct." It's helped formed the ideological backbone of Winer and Jay Rosen's weekly podcast, Rebooting the News.

What it means: It stands for the idea that the "sources" who used to have their message mediated through the traditional media can go bypass those channels and communicate directly with their listeners. Winer provides plenty of examples in that initial post, and if you listen to most any episode of Rebooting the News, you'll probably hear him expound on the idea.

"Transparency is the new objectivity."

Where it came from: The phrase was originated by technology philosopher David Weinberger, who first said it in a lecture in Toronto on Oct, Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. 23, 2008. He further defined the idea and put the phrase to writing in a July 19, 2009, post at his blog.

What it means: When Weinberger first said the phrase, he followed it with the statement, "We are not going to trust objectivity unless we can see the discussion that lead to it.” In his July post, Weinberger fleshed this idea out further, arguing that transparency is the modus operandi in a linked medium like the web, where we can easily see (and expect to see) someone's connections, sources and influences. Transparency, he said, has subsumed objectivity: "Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting us look at sources, disagreements, and the personal assumptions and values supposedly bracketed out of the report." The phrase picked up quite a bit of use in fall 2009 as a principle in the discussions over news media outlets' social media policies.

Similar posts: Buy Mestinon Without Prescription. Lioresal to buy online.
Trackbacks from: Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Lexapro Without Prescription. Buy Maxalt Without Prescription. Buy Ponstel Without Prescription. Buy Selegiline Without Prescription. Buy Cialis Without Prescription. Buy VigRX Without Prescription. Buy Immunosin Without Prescription. Buy Ketoconazole Without Prescription. Buy Haridra Without Prescription. Buy Aleve Without Prescription. Buy Amoxil (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription. Buy Flovent Without Prescription. Online buy Amoxil (Amoxicillin) without a prescription.