Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:05:04 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Oct. 28, 2011.] News consumers and paid content on tablets: We're now a year and a half into the tablet era, so we've started to get a more stable sense of exactly who's using them and how. The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism added to that understanding this week with what's probably the most comprehensive study to date on tablet use, particularly for news. The survey's big headline was of the good-news, bad-news variety: 77% of users read news on their tablets at least weekly, and 53% do it daily. That's the good news. The bad news? Only 14% have paid directly for the news they're reading on their tablet — though another 23% get access as part of a print subscription package. And those who haven't paid valued the free-ness of their news sources pretty highly. The fact that people love to read news on their iPads but aren't particularly willing to pay for it didn't seem to worry PEJ director Tom Rosenstiel too much — he told Adweek that things will be different in a year or two as people get used to paying for tablet news, just as they got used to paying for TV. Poynter's Jeff Sonderman noted that while most users prefer to get their news via browser, many of those in the paying crowd are the ones using mostly apps. He suggested going with a two-tiered paid/free approach, with an ad-driven browser site and a paid, premium app. "Rather than bemoan the small number of people who will pay, or freeze out the large number who won’t, the smart publisher will find ways to capture both audiences," he said. A couple of other tidbits from the study: John Paul Titlow of ReadWriteWeb said it's good news for publishers and e-businesses that tablets are drawing much more of people's undivided attention than desktops or laptops did, and Mathew Ingram of GigaOM noted that people aren't sharing much of the news they're reading on their tablets, identifying social features as an area where news orgs could stand to improve on tablets. — WikiLeaks goes into hibernation: WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange announced this week that the site may be forced to close by the end of the year because what he called a "financial blockade" of major banks and credit card companies refusing to process donations for it. The blockade, begun last December after WikiLeaks began releasing its collection of diplomatic cables, has wiped out as much as 95% of the site's revenues, according to Assange, forcing it run on its reserves over the past several months. WikiLeaks has stopped processing leaks and shifted its resources to fundraising, including lawsuits and petitions it has filed in several countries to force the companies to process their donations. As Australia's the Age reported, its leaders hope to back up and running within a month. At the Guardian, Dan Gillmor chastised news organizations for their lack of concern about the financial companies' action against WikiLeaks, saying the blockade is "a danger to everyone. It is a harbinger of a future where governments will find new leverage points to shut down the media they don't like." Gawker's Adrian Chen, on the other hand, posed some good questions on WikiLeaks' use of money this year, wondered how the group has used up most of its reserves (reported at $1.3 million at the end of 2010) without publishing any major new leaks. With WikiLeaks now in rebuilding mode, the Atlantic's Elspeth Reeve reflected on what the site has done for transparency and networked journalism, and her conclusion wasn't a flattering one. She called its experiment in enabling mass document leaking "an abysmal failure," noting that its most consequential leaks all seem to have come from one man — Bradley Manning — who's now in jail. "All those theoretical discussions of an anarchic new citizen press driven by anonymous file-sharing remain academic," she said. Reeve noted that leakers seem to be no safer now than they were a few years ago, and that goes for the ones who give information to traditional news organizations as well as WikiLeaks. Writing in the New York Times, data security expert Christopher Soghoian praised WikiLeaks for its security measures to protect its confidential sources while lamenting how poorly traditional news orgs do at the technical aspects of that job. It's probably not a coincidence, then, that news orgs' efforts at creating WikiLeaks-like leak submission programs have stalled, as Forbes' Jeff Bercovici reported. — Murdoch & Co. hang on at News Corp.: The long-simmering outrage at News Corp. over its phone-hacking and circulation inflation scandals may have been expected by some to come to a head last Friday at the company's annual shareholder meeting, but there were relatively few fireworks to be seen. Rupert Murdoch made a defiant address to shareholders, describing the criticism of his company as "both understandable scrutiny and unfair attack." As expected, there were shareholders who called for Murdoch and his sons to step down, and a good number of critical questions parried by Murdoch, as paidContent documented. But the main business of the meeting remained unaffected: Murdoch and his sons were re-elected to the News Corp. board, though there was speculation that an "embarrassingly high" number of shareholders voted against them, according to the Independent. Meanwhile, former Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton testified before a committee of Parliament about the phone hacking and, predictably, gave a whole lot of "I don't recall"s and non-answers. — Reading roundup: This week was one of those weeks without many big stories in the future-of-journalism world, but with a lot of small ones. Here are a few of them: — As Megan Garber reported at the Lab this week, USA Today tried something new that we may see other news organizations doing in the future, licensing the data from the databases it produces on its website to commercial app developers. As GigaOM's Mathew Ingram and the Knight Digital Media Center's Amy Gahran pointed out, the real benefit of moves like this may be less about revenue and more about a creating a crowdsourced R&D department. — The death of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was the big news story late last week, and there were a couple of media-oriented angles. The big one was whether news orgs chose to show pictures or video of Gadhafi dead or being beaten. Poynter's Julie Moos found that U.S. newspapers were less likely than European ones to run the gruesome images. Those orgs that did run them ended up having to defend themselves. Meanwhile, Techdirt's Mike Masnick looked at the copyright issues involved with camera-phone footage of Gadhafi's beating. — After Jeff Jarvis and Evgeny Morozov traded blows over the past couple of weeks about Jarvis' new book, "Private Parts," the Lab's Megan Garber weighed in with a brilliant post on why books's ideas aren't truly read and discussed, and how to make it so that they are. Jarvis chimed in with some more ways to disrupt the book/conference cycle. — Gawker's Hamilton Nolan unearthed a sketchy linking-for-pay scheme from a small marketing company that claimed to have pulled it off with the Huffington Post and Business Insider. Those two orgs, naturally, issued denials. — Media/tech entrepreneurs Cody Brown and Katie Ray introduced another venture this week with Scroll, a tool intended to help publishers use a variety of more sophisticated web designs without knowing how to code them. The Lab had a profile of it. — In a masterful column, the New York Times' David Carr suggested that some of the Occupy Wall Street agitation should be directed toward newspaper chains, such as Gannett and the Tribune Co., who give their executives massive bonuses while laying off employees. — Finally, I've linked to a lot of "programming for journalists" guides and tipsheets here, but this one by Jonathan Richards at the Guardian may be the best I've seen at capturing and explaining the coding mentality in simple terms. Give it a read.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:56:15 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Oct. 21, 2011.] Growing tension at News Corp.: We'll be hearing the news from News Corp.'s annual shareholder meeting later today, and media observers are certainly watching the meeting closely, especially after reports late last week that numerous groups representing about a quarter of the company's investors are planning on voting against many of News Corp.'s board members. The list of problems at News Corp. has continued to lengthen over the past three months, and an analyst interviewed by NPR's David Folkenflik asserted that in an ordinary company, the board would have fired the CEO by now. But Rupert Murdoch, of course, is no ordinary CEO. But even in the close-knit top leadership of News Corp., this scandal is leading to significant tension between Murdoch and his son, James, who was until recently the company's heir apparent. A New York Times report this week gave details of the power struggles in the Murdoch family, and Reuters' Jack Shafer pointed out that public family squabbles aren't new for the Murdochs. Both media analyst Alan Mutter and the Guardian's Dan Gillmor were doubtful, however, that the complaints of investors would make any sort of difference in the way News Corp. is run, especially since Murdoch has a 40% share in the company. "As long as Rupert Murdoch is in control, there are only two factors that will lead to change: a genuine threat to his family's money and power," Gillmor said. Without those threats, he argued, shareholders aren't going to see a change in direction. And amid all of this, News Corp.'s various scandals continue to play out publicly. On the phone-hacking front, an attorney who did work for News Corp. told Parliament that he knew the company had misled Parliament about the extent of the hacking but did nothing about it. And on the Wall Street Journal's circulation inflation, News Corp. reportedly knew about the issue almost a year before its executive resigned over it, and Poynter's Steve Myers found that WSJ Asia also relies heavily on deeply discounted issues. But the Journal isn't the only one that relies on those discounted circulation ploys: The Guardian's Roy Greenslade noted that three major U.K. papers do, and Poynter's Rick Edmonds said some U.S. papers do as well. Media analyst Frederic Filloux warned of the effects of this kind of culture of cheating: "such tricks push prices further down because media buyers increasingly distrust the system. Today, they apply the rule 'you cheat, we cut prices'. And the downward spiral continues." — Getting identity right online: Google+ announced a big change in its policies this week, giving word that it will soon amend its real-names-only rule to allow pseudonyms. That policy has been the subject of much debate over the past couple of months, and the coming change prompted Electronic Freedom Foundation to declare victory. Programmer Jamie Zawinski called that statement "shamefully credulous" and wondered why it's going to take months to implement. He predicted that Google+ will still require real names, but will allow nicknames and pseudonyms in addition. Before its change, Google+ had drawn some more criticism for its identity policy. Christopher "moot" Poole has been one of the more prominent advocates for anonymity online — it's central to 4chan, the image-based message board he founded — and he articulated his position again this week in a short tech-conference speech. (Good summaries by VentureBeat and ReadWriteWeb.) This time, he targeted the identity policies of Facebook and Google+, saying they try to force-fit people into a single identity, when they're really much more complex than that. "Google and Facebook would have you believe that you’re a mirror, but we’re actually more like diamonds," Poole said. "Look from a different angle, and you see something completely different." He argued that Google+ missed a big opportunity to innovate by allowing users to manipulate who they share with, rather than who they share as. Twitter has a better handle on identity, he said, as an interest-based community, rather than an identity-based one. Wired's Tim Carmody praised Poole's philosophy of identity, arguing that it's practical without surrendering to Facebook's one-identity-for-all-time mantra. And GigaOM's Mathew Ingram also praised Twitter's approach, arguing that its commitment to free speech is far more important than whether participants are using their real names. — Making nonprofit news sustainable: The Knight Foundation released a comprehensive report on what makes local nonprofit news organizations work, featuring profiles of eight orgs, including many of the big names in that corner of the news world — Bay Citizen, MinnPost, Voice of San Diego, Texas Tribune, and so on. The study highlighted three keys to sustainability for local nonprofit news orgs: First, a workable business development strategy, which means that even if they start with foundation support, they need to treat it as something that will diminish over time, rather than an ongoing revenue stream. Second, they need innovative approaches to building engagement both online and offline. And third, they need the skills to go deep into data journalism and interactive features, which "require technological capacity that sits outside the experience of many journalists." Poynter's Rick Edmonds dug deeper into the study, noting a couple of other interesting tidbits: Though the sites are working hard to diversify their funding, more than half of it is still coming from foundations, and another third from donations. He also said these news sites need to have deep community roots and be able to adapt to specific local information needs, rather than just having a general "replace what's gone" goal. — Apple's Newsstand starts strong: It's only been around a little more than a week, but according to a couple of app sellers, the early indicators on Apple's new Newsstand have been quite positive. Exact Editions and Future, two companies that produce and sell apps for publishers, said that sales have more than doubled across the board since Newsstand's launch, according to paidContent. The Daily was the biggest winner, coming out No. 1 on Newsstand's first bestseller list. While noting that it's very early, Jessica Roy of 10,000 Wordscalled the news "incredibly encouraging for digital publishers." At the Knight Digital Media Center, Amy Gahran wondered whether Newsstand's popularity and ease of use will eventually spell the end of standalone iPhone and iPad news apps. That may not be a bad thing, she said: "Standalone news apps may look cool, but cumulatively they’re also a hassle for users who mainly just want access to content, not special interactive features." Meanwhile, another news org, the Economist, has had to give in to Apple's requirements that app payments go through its App Store, rather than through the web. — Reading roundup: Here's what else went on in the world of news and tech in the past week: — Google announced it would shut down a few services: Code Search, which lets people look up open-source code, and two social networks, Jaiku and Google Buzz. ReadWriteWeb's Marshall Kirkpatrick reflected on Buzz's privacy problems, and j-prof Josh Braun said Buzz reminds us that a social network site doesn't have to be huge to be priceless. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM wondered if Google has really learned all that much from Buzz and Jaiku. — The New York Times' David Streitfeld wrote on Amazon's burgeoning business as a book publisher, both online and in print. Mathew Ingram told publishers to wake up and realize that they're a middleman that people are figuring out how to eliminate. — The Guardian gave an update after a week its open-newslist experiment, reporting that it's drawn quite a bit of interest from readers and that it's been expanded to include longer-range plans. The Journal Register Co.'s Steve Buttry noted that some of his company's papers are doing this, too. — After its initial five-year run ended, the Knight Foundation announced its Knight News Challenge will continue in 2012, being run three times a year. — The real-time web got a real breaking-news test yesterday when the news of former Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi had died broke with numerous conflicting reports. Poynter's Julie Moos looked at how major news sites handled the uncertainty. — It's something that's harped on for at least a decade, but Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore showed that news orgs still have a ways to go in providing accessible contact information for their journalists.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:59:18 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Aug. 19, 2011.] Is social media killing big ideas?: In the New York Times this week, USC fellow Neal Gabler put forward a different form of the familiar "information overload" complaint, this time tying the proliferation of social media to the paucity of big ideas. We don't spend time thinking about and valuing big ideas, he argued, because we're too busy trying to process — and add to — the flood of information coming at us through social media. You can't think and tweet at the same time, Gabler said, because tweeting "is a form of distraction or anti-thinking." Naturally, this didn't go over particularly well among the online media punditry. Several people countered that one of Twitter's functions is to direct users to big ideas, to point outside of its 140-character limits through hyperlinks. Media prof Chuck Tryon, author Stephen Baker, and Techdirt's Mike Masnick all made that argument, with Masnick summing it up well: "While social media may not have enlarged Gabler's intellectual universe, it has massively enlarged mine. Thanks to Twitter specifically, I've been able to meet tons of fascinatingly smart people I never would have met otherwise." The trick, as Baker said, is to "listen to the right people, and then follow their links." Two other writers made particularly smart points: Kevin Drum of Mother Jones noted that where before we knew exactly where to find big ideas and how to discuss them, we're now in the middle of a massive media transition. That doesn't mean the big idea is dead, he said, it means it's headed somewhere new, and we don't know exactly where yet. And the Lab's Megan Garber pointed out that Gabler's vision of big ideas is closely tied to big media, but argued that those big ideas don't need big media to thrive. Instead, she said, "Increasingly, though, the ideas that spark progress are collective, diffusive endeavors rather than the result (to the extent they ever were) of individual inspiration." — A paywall plan that understands online readers?: Reuters blogger Felix Salmon is already on record as a supporter of the New York Times' five-month-old paywall, and this week he detailed exactly why he thinks it's so effective. Salmon likened the Times' metered model, with all of its leeway and potential workarounds, to a polite "Please keep off the grass" sign. He argued that contra the prevailing philosophy that readers won't pay for something they can get for free, the Times is betting that "the pleasure of reading its content will be enough to persuade a large number of people to pay. It’s a far more attractive model, and one which is much more likely to attract new young subscribers over the long term." In a follow-up post, Salmon explained why the Times' model is fundamentally different from the Financial Times' pay meter — it's not trying nearly as hard to keep non-subscribers away from its content. Venture capitalist Fred Wilson and Poynter's Jeff Sonderman agreed with Salmon's premise: Wilson praised the efficacy of getting paid after the fact rather than before, and Sonderman said the Times has discovered that convenience, duty, and appreciation are more compelling motivations than coercion. There was one notable dissenter: GigaOM's Mathew Ingram, who took issue with the idea that the Times' plan has been successful, arguing instead that it's not growing the paper's online audience, but setting up digital sandbags to protect a declining print product. The plan "has virtually nothing to do with actually taking advantage of the digital world in any concrete way," Ingram wrote. "It’s just charging people nickels and dimes for their paper, the way the NYT and other newspapers have for a century and a half or so." — News Corp.'s problems continue to grow: The damning information against News Corp. in the phone-hacking scandal at its former News of the World newspaper keeps on coming. This week, it was a four-year-old letter written by Clive Goodman, a reporter at the center of the scandal. In it, Goodman said that the hacking was discussed regularly at the paper and suggested that knowledge of it ran much deeper than News Corp. has been insisting. Notably, News Corp. had submitted the letter to Parliament but redacted the incriminating parts. With the new revelation, Slate's Jack Shafer wrote that "the scandal has grown too large for one or two willing Murdoch lieutenants or employees to stanch it by taking the fall." That impression has led many watchers to wonder, as the Guardian's Brian Cathcart did, if James Murdoch, Rupert's son, may be forced to resign. James responded late last week to Parliament's questions about his truthfulness in his testimony to them last month, and News Corp. is reportedly making plans in case he decides to step aside. The bad news continues to pile up elsewhere in News Corp., too. The private investigator at the center of the scandal sued News International (the company's British newspaper division) for not paying his legal bills, and officially acknowledged in its annual report that the scandal could impair its business, and that it doesn't know how much money it'll end up costing. Two more commentators — the New Yorker's Ken Auletta and Reuters' David Callahan — echoed a popular sentiment lately, saying the responsibility for this whole ordeal lies directly with Rupert Murdoch. — Google grabs a mobile-phone producer: For the tech geeks among us, Google made some big news this week, buying Motorola Mobility, Motorola's mobile devices division, for $12.5 billion. According to the New York Times, the deal had a lot to do with stockpiling patents in order to defend its Android mobile operating system from patent lawsuits. It also may allow Google to drive down development costs for the all-important smartphone and tablet markets. Cory Bergman of Lost Remote noted that this move isn't just about mobile, though — it also represents Google's biggest move into TV yet. With Motorola's significant share of the cable-TV hardware business, Bergman said, Google now has the opportunity to seamlessly integrate its technology with TVs across the world. Here at the Lab, Joshua Benton used the acquisition as an example of the tension between a Windows-style modular approach to business, with products that can be swapped in and out, and an Apple-esque interdependent one, with a set of interlinking, proprietary products. He also applied the idea to news, saying our journalistic ecosystem needs both the more open modular approach and the more packaged interdependent approach. A couple of other posts looked at the story of the deal itself: Reuters' Felix Salmon examined the decline (and declining value) of the financial scoops beat, and Gawker's Ryan Tate saw Google's manufactured press-release quotes by its business partners as a sign that Google is moving away from the "Don't Be Evil" mantra toward being a tight-fisted corporate giant. — Reading roundup: This week was a pretty packed one. Here's the best of the rest: — This week in AOL: The New York Times' Verne Kopytoff analyzed why the new-look AOL has experienced so many hiccups, and j-prof Dan Kennedy seized on the tidbit in that article that AOL would reportedly be profitable without Patch. — Web philosopher David Weinberger wrote a fantastic piece about the journalistic curiosity and community exchange that's present at Reddit, and GigaOM's Mathew Ingram echoed his thoughts. — The Knight Digital Media Center's Joy Mayer has apparently become journalism's "Minister of Engagement," and she's earned the title, publishing a thorough guide to community engagement for newsrooms. — The Online Journalism Review's Robert Niles wondered what journalism is worth, and came up with some depressing answers. — Finally, since classes are starting up all over the place in the next week or two, here's 10 great tips for journalism students from Sarah Marshall of Journalism.co.uk, via Twitter.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:49:33 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Aug. 12, 2011.] Murdoch passes Wall Street's test: The fallout from News Corp.'s phone hacking scandal continued to spread this week, with the reported arrest of another former News of the World editor and the report that the ostensibly fired News Corp. British chief, Rebekah Brooks, is still on the company payroll. Three weeks after testifying before Parliament, Rupert Murdoch faced Wall Street analysts this week in a conference call, telling them that he's not going anywhere and that the scandal hasn't done any material damage to the company outside of News of the World. All Things Digital's Peter Kafka said Wall Street really doesn't care about the hacking, and Murdoch didn't say much about the few questions he did get on it. Murdoch also had to meet with News Corp.'s board, but as the New York Times' Jeremy Peters reported, the board's officially independent members include numerous people who have deep personal ties to Murdoch. Perhaps more troubling was a different connection among one of the board members: According to Time's Massimo Calabresi, one of them is "best friends" with the district attorney leading the U.S. investigation into the company. The Times' David Carr uncovered more hints at News Corp.'s enormous political influence here in the States, detailing cases of swift approval of a merger by a Justice Department unit led by a future News Corp. executive, as well as a suspiciously dropped federal criminal case. "The company’s size and might give it a soft, less obvious power that it has been able to project to remarkable effect," Carr concluded. At Adweek, Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff went further, reporting that the Justice Department is considering investigating News Corp. on racketeering charges, though Forbes' Jeff Bercovici doubted that would happen. For a bit more info on the situation, here's a good Q&A with Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter who's been all over the story. — AOL's slap from investors: This week hasn't been a good one for AOL: After it reported a quarterly loss on Tuesday, its stock dropped by about a quarter by the end of the day. All Things Digital's Peter Kafka gave a quick explainer of why investors are so down on AOL: What little money they're making isn't coming from the all-important display advertising business. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM added more depth to that analysis, arguing that investors are doubting AOL's assurances that its two big gambles — Patch and the acquisition of the Huffington Post — will pay off. According to AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (paraphrased by Business Insider), the reason for those problems is that AOL's advertising side hasn't scaled well enough. Peter Kafka explained that AOL's advertising (especially display) is indeed up, though much of that can be attributed to the HuffPo and TechCrunch acquisitions. Forbes' Jeff Bercovici said AOL's public image problem has even damaged the previously successful HuffPo, quoting an analyst who called AOL a "dead brand." Wired's Tim Carmody decided to unite our two big stories this week and suggested that AOL would be a perfect fit for a purchase by News Corp. Meanwhile's AOL's local-news initiative, Patch, launched a Groupon-esque daily deal service, and Iowa grad student Robert Gutsche Jr.questioned Patch's standards for separating journalism and advertising — and got the runaround from Patch when he asked them about it. AOL's new daily tablet magazine, Editions, also drew some criticism, with Fast Company's Austin Carr perturbed that it's not AOL-y enough. — A news org gets into tablets: We've already seen numerous challengers to the iPad's early stranglehold on the tablet marketplace, but the Tribune Co. might be the first news company to try one out. CNN's Mark Milian reported that the newspaper chain is working on an Android-based tablet, which it's planning on offering it for free or very cheap to people who sign up for extended newspaper subscriptions. It's already missed a mid-August deadline for testing the tablet out. Media pundits didn't think much of the Tribune's idea. Wired's Tim Carmody urged the Tribune (and media companies in general) to quit developing tablets, arguing that it's way too hard to do if you're a major development company, let alone a news organization. "If major publishers are seriously prepared to blow up their primary revenue stream — print advertising — and slap together a giveaway tablet in order to save money on ink, God help them," he wrote. Others echoed Carmody's arguments: PaidContent's Tom Crazit called the project "a colossal waste of money for a company trying to emerge from bankruptcy." Chris Velazco of TechCrunch said the cheap-tablet model (also being talked about by Philadelphia Newspapers) isn't viable. Gizmodo's Brent Rose was less restrained: "WHY??" Morris Communications' Steve Yelvington was a little kinder to the Tribune, saying the numbers might add up, but the devil's in the details. — The Times gets experimental: The New York Times has frequently made strong pushes into news innovation over the past several years, and this week it started another one, launching a new public test kitchen for projects in development. The Lab's Megan Garber explained what the site, beta620, is all about, but GigaOM's Mathew Ingram, while applauding the effort, expressed some doubt about whether the Times is really capable of developing a startup's mindset. Tim Carmody of Wired, on the other hand, said the startup analogy isn't the right one for the Times. With these projects, he said, "The New York Times has become an openly experimental public institution. It’s less a cathedral consecrated to its own past than a free museum where patrons are invited to touch and transform everything they see." Poynter's Jeff Sonderman had some suggestions for next steps for the Times to take with beta620: experimenting with design, getting away from the long narrative article, and rethinking comments. — The real-name debate: One long-simmering debate I want to briefly catch you up on: Google+ has decided to take the Facebook route of disallowing pseudonyms, adjusting but reaffirming its policy in the face of online criticism late last month and again on Thursday. The outcry continued, voiced most prominently late last week by social media researcher danah boyd, who asserted that "'real names' policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people." Liz Gannes of All Things Digital said she understands Google's motivations for enforcing real names and unifying everything under its umbrella within the same identity, but the idea of doing the latter is awkward at best and frightening at worst. The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal, meanwhile, announced he's changed his mind against real-name policies, arguing that requiring real names online is a radical departure from the relationship between speech and identity in the offline world. — Reading roundup: A few other things to keep an eye on this week: — Amazon released a version of its Kindle app for browsers, called the Kindle Cloud Reader. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram said the browser-based e-book app (which bypasses Apple's restrictions) could be a roadmap for the future of the web, but Wired's Tim Carmody said it still doesn't get the web. — Google announced it's making its hand-chosen Editors' Picks a standing feature on Google News. The Lab's Megan Garber explained what Google's doing with it. Meanwhile, James Gleick at The New York Review of Books offered a thoughtful piece on Google's domination of our online lives. — Adweek explained an underrated obstacle to innovation and progress in news organizations' online efforts: the intractable CMS. — Steve Buttry, now with the Journal Register Co., gave his lessons from TBD's demise on the Washington local news site's first birthday. It's short but solid. Enjoy.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:36:45 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on July 29, 2011.] Debating the Times' paywall and design: In its quarterly earnings call late last week, the New York Times gave the clearest picture yet of how its new online pay plan is working. As usual, it turned out to be something of a Rorschach test: BNET's Erik Sherman called the numbers evidence that the paywall isn't protecting the Times' print subscriptions, as it was intended to. On the other hand, the Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum argued that the Times' big digital subscription figure (224,000) "proves that, contra the naysayers, readers will pay good money for quality news." The Times' paywall adds an important digital revenue stream, he said, while also letting in enough casual readers to keep the value of digital advertising up. The most thorough defense of the Times, though, came from New York magazine's Seth Mnookin: "The Times has taken a do-or-die stand for hard-core, boots-on-the-ground journalism, for earnest civic purpose, for the primacy of content creators over aggregators, and has brought itself back from the precipice."BNET's Jim Edwards said it's premature for Mnookin to say the Times is back, but Reuters' Felix Salmon, a former Times paywall skeptic, agreed with Mnookin that the paywall is working, saying he's glad the Times has shown a porous paywall can work. The other Times-related item is firmly in the hypothetical realm, but it generated at least as much conversation as the real-world pay plan. Last week, web designer Andy Rutledge critiqued the Times' online design and proposed his own version, emphasizing headlines, time stamps, authors, and separating news from opinion. The response wasn't particularly positive. The redesign was generally trashed on Twitter, with a typical sentiment expressed by 10,000 Words' Lauren Rabaino: "It’s hard to take seriously a design that completely ignores the constraints of a typical newspaper." One of the most comprehensive responses came from Guardian developer Martin Belam, who pointed out things like faces, article summaries, and points of social connection that Rutledge was missing. The Lab's Joshua Benton argued that Rutledge's redesign doesn't acknowledge that "the problems of large-scale information architecture for news sites are really hard problems." Meanwhile, Belgian developer Stijn Debrouwere went the other direction, asking for more unrealistic mockups like this one to help us brainstorm what news sites could look like. GigaOM's Mathew Ingram said the problem with the Times' site is that it's designed as if readers are interested in everything the paper produces, which is almost never the case. And Paul Scrivens said both Rutledge and the Times should look outside the news industry for design cues. — Google+ growing pains: Google+ continues to grow at a ridiculous pace — far faster than either Facebook or Twitter, as Idealab's Bill Gross pointed out — and as Simon Dumenco of Ad Age argued, the platform represents a social media do-over for a lot of users. It's still generating dissent, though, with much of it stemming from Google+'s policy toward business pages. As Google's Christian Oestlien wrote late last week, the company is working on a business profile template that will be up in the next few months, but they're deleting business pages (including news organization pages) in the meantime. A few companies will get trial pages before they're available to everyone, and others have found workarounds — the tech blog Mashable managed to keep all its followers by simply changing its page name to the name of its CEO, Pete Cashmore. That got other members of the tech press worked up, including Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, who urged Google to restore the deleted pages and let businesses create pages normally. TechCrunch's MG Siegler said Google is essentially creating its own version of Twitter's Suggested User List, and Mathew Ingram of GigaOM made the case for why this is a big deal. Elsewhere in the world of Google+, Mathew Ingram wrote about the issues it's dealing with regarding anonymity, and the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal is experimenting with a daily news roundup on his personal page there. The Next Web's Martin Bryant examined Google+'s usefulness as a news tool, concluding that while it has potential, it needs a bigger, broader user base to start to really challenge Twitter and Facebook. — The end of media moguls?: The News Corp. phone hacking scandal shifted down a gear this week, but there were still a few developments to report. The News of the World hacking victims also reportedly included the mother of an 8-year-old murder victim, and two former employees testified that they had told James Murdoch that the hacking was widespread, contradicting what Murdoch had told Parliament last week. Other News Corp. veterans challenged the picture Rupert Murdoch painted of himself as a largely hands-off newspaper boss. The New York Times' David Carr wrote that James Murdoch is done, and that Rupert has finally been revealed as vulnerable. CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis was more emphatic, calling Murdoch the last media mogul: "The mogul is extinct. The kind of big media institution he built will follow him. Lovely chaos will follow. It’s called democracy." The Washington Post's Erik Wemple took a quick look at what a post-Murdoch world might look like. A couple of other News Corp.-related avenues to chase down: Dean Starkman of the Columbia Journalism Review argued that a scandal like News of the World's won't happen in the U.S., and News Corp.'s newest property, the tablet publication The Daily, appears to be floundering, according to a New York Observer feature, though a new version was released last week. — Reading roundup: There wasn't a whole lot to take in this week, but here's a quick sampling: — The FCC is releasing a series of studies on media ownership, one of the newest of which suggested that media cross-ownership (ownership of multiple media outlets within a single market) doesn't hurt local news, and may actually help it. — Wisconsin j-prof Stephen Ward made a thoughtful case for redefining objectivity in the digital age. — Particularly for the Twitter skeptics and writing teachers out there, Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore put together a great post outlining the ways Twitter has made her a better writer. — Finally, I've been trying to cover this piecemeal discussion here, but the AP's Jonathan Stray did a much better job of summarizing the recent conversation about the changing structure of news stories with a fantastic reading list. Now that you're done with this link-fest, be sure to give that one a look-through, too.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:25:49 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on July 22, 2011.] Murdoch's damage-control efforts: As News Corp.'s hacking scandal continues to metastasize, it can be difficult to keep up with all the background, angles, and implications. The best one-stop source is Mallary Jean Tenore's explainer for Poynter, and I'll try to update you on all the developments of the past week. The big event came on Tuesday, when Rupert Murdoch, his son James, and his former British chief Rebekah Brooks answered questions from Parliament about the scandal. The Guardian gave a great, quick rundown of what happened there, and the general theme was Murdoch's professed lack of knowledge of the illegal activity at his News of the World tabloid. That's what the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz took away from it, and Slate's Jack Shafer noted that while the Murdochs kept playing the victim card, they wouldn't say who exactly victimized them. That was all part of a calculated PR and legal defense, outlined by Nick Davies of the Guardian. While many people obviously found the idea of a blissfully ignorant Murdoch family hard to believe, Reuters' Felix Salmon said their strategy was effective enough. Still, the scandal has led to some probing questions about the culture that the Murdochs have created at News Corp. The New York Times' David Carr documented a history of illegal and anticompetitive behavior in the company's American arm, and Poynter's Steve Myers called this a corporate corruption story in the Enron vein. In the Guardian, NYU prof Jay Rosen asserted that "News Corp is not a news company at all, but a global media empire that employs its newspapers – and in the US, Fox News – as a lobbying arm." The episode also has implications beyond News Corp. itself: Media consultant Alan Mutter said it weakens the already damaged trust Americans have in the media, and the New York Times reported that media consolidation opponents are hoping it provides an opportunity to re-examine the problems in modern media ownership. Here at the Lab, Ken Doctor wrote about why media concentration should be a concern in the U.S., and the Online Journalism Review's Robert Niles said that's why he's rooting for News Corp. to fail. So what's next for News Corp.? The long-term future of both Rupert and James Murdoch at the company was in question this week, though Rupert assured Parliament he'd be sticking around. Felix Salmon speculated that the whole company could be in play if things go sour, and CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis looked at one possible scenario resulting in a News Corp. news and publishing sell-off. Ken Doctor, meanwhile, said News Corp. might end up becoming a more American company as a result of the scandal. Murdoch still has his defenders, though the most vocal of them at this point (aside from the New York Observer) are media outlets owned by Murdoch himself. Perhaps the most full-throated of those defenses came in the Wall Street Journal, which ran numerous opinion pieces, including one equating the hacking with WikiLeaks and an editorial lashing out at Murdoch's critics. PaidContent's Staci Kramer said the Journal would have been better off spiking the editorial, and the Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum argued that the Journal's characterization of investigative reporting as ideologically motivated tells us a lot about the "intellectual bankruptcy" of the Journal's editorial page itself. Even before the editorial, the New York Times' Joe Nocera said the whole paper had been "Fox-ified" — turned shallow and ideological — by Murdoch's influence. Ryan Chittum countered that the paper has declined under Murdoch, but it's far from hopeless, and Journal staffers also defended themselves against the "Foxification" charge. Meanwhile, a Pew study found that the actual Fox News Channel is covering the scandal far less than its rivals, and the Guardian continued to earn praise for its coverage of the story, with editor Alan Rusbridger describing in Newsweek how they did it. — Should nonprofit news be more objective?: Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study this week examining the growing group of nonprofit news organizations, evaluating them specifically for ideological nature and transparency. The study found that of the several dozen new nonprofit sites covering state and national news it looked at, about half are clearly ideological. Poynter's Rick Edmonds wrote a good, quick summary, noting in particular that several of the most ideological sites offered no clue to their orientation in their names, and that the most productive sites tended to be the least ideological ones. The Lab's Joshua Benton inferred the study's implicit message — the new nonprofit news isn't objective, can't be fully trusted, and especially not to replace newspapers. Benton pushed back against those conclusions, arguing that the new sites aren't meant to replace newspapers, and that their lack of objectivity doesn't keep them from being useful to society. The Columbia Journalism Review's Greg Marx was a bit more pointed in his response, picking apart some of its examples and particularly the implicit conclusion that Benton identified: "The PEJ report is suffused throughout with a sense that it’s the obligation of the new non-profits to reincarnate as best they can the status quo ante ... But it’s worth remembering that, in many times and many places, the status quo ante wasn’t all that good." — Scribd to see if news will Float: Over the past year or so, we've seen several new attempts to charge for news online by aggregating news from a variety of news outlets, with services like Ongo and News.me. This week, the document-sharing site Scribd launched its own entry into that space with Float, a mobile reading app that allows users to read subscribers from a variety of sources — what it calls a "Netflix for news." Float launched a free version this week, but will introduce its paid subscription service this fall. Float has a social media-oriented aspect and an Instapaper-like reading list, but as TechCrunch described, its main feature is its ability to present any type of page, from books to blogs to news articles, in the same uniform, easily browseable format. GigaOM's Colleen Taylor found the fluid presentation remarkable, but wondered if Float could get a critical mass of news sites to make it worth paying for. PaidContent's David Kaplan said that Float works like a hybrid between Instapaper and Pulse, but that it could try to sell publishers on the idea of picking up browsing readers, rather than devoted subscribers. Meanwhile, another traditional media outlet moved forward with an online paid-content strategy: Time introduced a plan that allows readers to subscribe to a bundle of the magazine's print publication, mobile/tablet apps, and web version. As All Things D's Peter Kafka reported, that also includes shutting off magazine articles on the web from nonsubscribers, though most of the web content should remain free. David Kaplan of paidContent said while it's always an uphill battle to get readers to pay for news online, magazine publishers are aided by the fact that they're becoming more unified in charging for their tablet editions. — Big Google+ possibilities: As Google+ continues to grow, tech writers continue to think bigger about what it could end up being. O'Reilly Radar's Edd Dumbill said Google+ could be the program that connects people across the entirety of the web, just search does for information. "Google+ is the rapidly growing seed of a web-wide social backbone, and the catalyst for the ultimate uniting of the social graph," he wrote. Tim Carmody of Wired argued that Google+ is also part of the ramp-up to the coming "Cloud Wars" between Google and Microsoft. We're starting to see more possibilities for Google+ and journalism, too: Mashable provided a list of ways journalists can use the service, and 10,000 Words put together a guide to Google+ and breaking news. Poynter's Jeff Sonderman said Google+ can teach news organizations some lessons about innovation and developing new products. Unfortunately, Google is removing many company/brand accounts from the service right now, including the innovative BreakingNews and KOMU-TV accounts. — Reading roundup: Here's what else we talked about this week: — The Columbia Journalism published online its feature on the Journal Register Co. from earlier this summer, while the Lab's Martin Langeveld gave some smart analysis on what Alden Global Capital's purchase of the newspaper chain last week might mean for the company's media consolidation plans. — Yesterday would have marked the 100th birthday of our best-known media theorist, Marshall McLuhan, and the Lab celebrated with some fantastic essays on his legacy by Megan Garber and Maria Bustillos. At the Guardian, Douglas Coupland wrote about why McLuhan still matters. — NYU j-prof Jay Rosen and author Nicholas Carr finished their debate over whether the Internet has been good for journalism, and Rosen also expounded on five key works to understanding journalism in the Internet age. — Three great pieces to read now ... or later ... whenever: Anil Dash on how to make sure the people using your website treat each other with decency, Paul Ford on the way Facebook defies the journalistic impulse to craft simple narratives, and Scott Rosenberg with a book (available free via PDF) on the new ethics of online journalism.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:07:14 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on July 18, 2011.] News Corp.'s scandal keeps growing: Rupert Murdoch might have hoped News Corp.'s phone hacking scandal would die down when he closed the British tabloid News of the World last week, but it only served to fuel the issue's explosion. This past week, the scandal's collateral damage spread to News Corp.'s proposed takeover of the British broadcaster BSkyB: Faced with increasing pressure from the British government and the revelation that News Corp. journalists tried to get private records of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, News Corp. dropped the BSkyB bid, which had been a huge part of the company's U.K. strategy. Plenty of other problems are cropping up for News Corp., too. The top lawyer for its U.K. newspaper branch, News International, quit. The company's stock lost $7 billion in four business days at one point. A pre-existing U.S. shareholders' suit expanded to cover the hacking scandal. The Murdochs have to testify before British Parliament this week about the scandal, and the FBI started investigating U.S.-related aspects of the issue. That's all in addition to the ongoing problems News Corp. faces, as detailed by Poynter's Rick Edmonds. The scandal has led quite a few writers to criticize the culture that Murdoch has created at News Corp. Capital New York's Tom McGeveran and Reuters' John Lloyd railed on Murdoch and News Corp.'s character, Carl Bernstein called this Murdoch's Watergate, and the Observer's editorial board called for systemic reforms in Britain so Murdoch's influence can never be so strong. Members of the Bancroft family said they wouldn't have sold the Wall Street Journal to Murdoch in 2007 if they'd have known the hacking was going on. On the other hand, the New York Times pointed out that sleazy British tabloid tactics are hardly limited to Murdoch, and media critic Howard Kurtz noted that they're very much alive in the U.S. mainstream press, too. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen defended Murdoch, saying he's been good for journalism on the whole, and Gawker's John Cook defended those tabloid reporting tactics. Meanwhile, j-prof Jeff Jarvis and the Telegraph's Toby Harnden urged the British government not to respond by enacting more regulation. News Corp.'s retreat might not stop with News of the World and BSkyB. Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff and others have reported that the company's execs are debating whether to get out of Britain's newspaper business entirely, and several observers chimed in to say that might actually make a good deal of business sense. Media analyst Ken Doctor said News International is losing steam, and the Financial Times' John Gapper said newspapers are becoming far more trouble than they're worth to Murdoch. Not only that, but the New Yorker's John Cassidy said dropping his U.K. newspapers could let Murdoch revive his BSkyB bid, and Jeff Jarvis speculated that when Murdoch chooses between the power that the papers give him and the money saved by getting rid of them, he'll choose the money. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch called the rumors of a newspaper sell-off "rubbish." But just because News of the World and News International may be dead and dying, that doesn't mean newspapers as a whole are, argued David Carr of the New York Times. As he noted, it was the Guardian's dogged reporting that finally broke this story open. Murdoch "prefers his crusades to be built on chronic ridicule and bombast. But as The Guardian has shown, the steady accretion of fact — an exercise Mr. Murdoch has historically regarded as bland and elitist — can have a profound effect," Carr wrote. The Atlantic also had praise for the Guardian, and Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore interviewed one of its editors about the lonely journey of covering the phone hacking story. — HuffPo aggregation under the microscope: A lively discussion about the rights and wrongs of aggregation developed last week out of a column by Ad Age media critic Simon Dumenco, who complained that the Huffington Post had extensively summarized one of his posts, buried the link to the original, and — contrary to Arianna Huffington's argument that her site benefits those they aggregate by sending them readers — gave him just 57 page views. The Huffington Post responded by apologizing and suspending the article's writer. HuffPo business editor Peter Goodman told Adweek the piece was a fully formed article when it should have been a simple introduction and a link, but Dumenco responded to the apology by arguing that the writer did nothing out of the ordinary — this is just how HuffPo tells its writers to do it. Dumenco's point was echoed by several others: The Awl's Choire Sicha said the suspended writer was doing what she was taught, Gawker's Ryan Tate, drawing on a revealing quote from a former HuffPo writer, made the same point: "This is pretty ridiculous, given HuffPo's systematic, officially-sanctioned approach to rewriting too much of people's news articles." British journalist Kevin Anderson called HuffPo's summary-heavy aggregation "a pretty cynical strategy," and paidContent's Staci Kramer said HuffPo needs to respect its sources, rather than treating a link as a favor. Gabe Rivera, whose news site, Techmeme, was compared to HuffPo favorably by Dumenco, looked for terms to distinguish what his site does from what HuffPo does. Poynter's Julie Moos said some measure of originality will always make for better journalism and a better business model than heavy aggregation, and ZDNet's Tom Foremski pined for the old blogging mentality whose goal was to add value. In a short podcast, author Steven Rosenbaum said this is a logical time to step back and evaluate exactly what constitutes ethical aggregation. There were a few dissenters, though: GigaOM's Mathew Ingram and Slate's Jack Shafer both argued that the type of aggregation that HuffPo does has been around for ages in traditional media (especially in Britain, according to Forbes' Tim Worstall). In fact, Shafer said, news orgs could learn a something valuable from the Huffington Post: "That a huge, previously ignored readership out there wants its news hot, quick, and tight." — Comparing Google+, Facebook, and Twitter: It's been just about three weeks since Google+ launched, and Google's new social network is growing like a weed, with estimates of as many as 10 million users so far. (Its number of active users may soon be approaching Twitter's figures.) Google+ news has dominated Twitter, and Google's also working on integrating it with Gmail. With Plus' incredible growth, tech observers have been going back and forth about what social network Google+ is disrupting most. PCWorld's Megan Geuss wondered whether Google+ and Facebook can coexist, and PC Magazine's John Dvorak posited that all the excitement about Google+ is more or less just pent-up frustration with Facebook. The New York Times' David Pogue and Technology Review's Paul Boutin both compared Google+ favorably to Facebook, largely because of its superior privacy controls (though GigaOM's Mathew Ingram pointed out that it may not be a privacy improvement for some people). Meanwhile, Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan said Google+ is more comparable to Twitter, then went ahead and made a thorough, smart comparison between the two. The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal said Google+ might end up being more conversational than Twitter, which he called more of a call-and-response: Google+ "won't be as good at connecting people to information or each other quickly, but it might be better at longer form discussions and whatever we call the process by which people pull reasoned thoughts from their networks into public discourse." Hutch Carpenter said Google+ resembles both Facebook and Twitter, and Computer World's Mike Elgan wrote that it'll disrupt just about everything. Still, Google+ has its limits: ReadWriteWeb's Marshall Kirkpatrick explained why he'd never move his personal blog there as some are doing, and Instapaper's Marco Arment and the Guardian's Dan Gillmor both urged readers to keep a space for their own online identity outside of spaces like Google+ or Facebook. For journalists feeling out Google+, Meranda Watling of 10,000 Words put together a preliminary guide. — Reading roundup: Here's what else people were talking about this past week: — The newspaper chain MediaNews made a distinctive play for the tablet news market last week, announcing the launch of TapIn, a location-based news app made specifically for tablets. It'll start in the Bay Area in partnership with the San Jose Mercury News. Ken Doctor, Jeff Sonderman, and Mathew Ingram all wrote about what makes it worth watching. — The Economist continued running pieces all week in its series on the future of the news industry. You can check out several writers'reasons for optimism or read the opening statements in an ongoing debate between NYU's Jay Rosen and author Nicholas Carr about whether the Internet has been good for journalism. — Boston Globe developer Andy Boyle made his pitch for young journalists to go into web development, or as he put it, "learn to make the internets." — Poynter's Jeff Sonderman put together two great social media how-to's for journalists: One on verifying information on social media, and the other on strategies for engagement on Facebook. — Finally, NYU's Clay Shirky gave us another thoughtful essay on the unbundling of news and why the news ecosystem needs to be chaotic right now. In the end, though, here's what he believes news should be: "News has to be subsidized because society’s truth-tellers can’t be supported by what their work would fetch on the open market"; "news has to be cheap because cheap is where the opportunity is right now"; and "news has to be free, because it has to spread."

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly 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 Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:41:09 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Vasaka Without Prescription, on Oct. Vasaka in india, 15, 2010.]

Advances for paid content on the iPad: We start this week with a whole bunch of data points regarding journalism and mobile devices; I'll try to tie them together for you the best I can. Conde Nast, order Vasaka online overnight delivery no prescription, Vasaka in canada, one of the world's largest magazine publishers, has done the most thorough iPad research we've seen so far, buy Vasaka online without a prescription, Vasaka in australia, with more than 100 hours of in-person interviews and in-app surveys with more than 5,000 respondents, buy Vasaka online no prescription. Buy Vasaka no prescription, Conde Nast released some of its findings this week, which included five pieces of advice for mobile advertisers that were heavy on interactivity and clear navigation, Vasaka from international pharmacy. Next day Vasaka, They also discovered some good news for mobile advertisers: The iPad's early users aren't simply the typical tech-geek early adopter set, and about four-fifths of them were happy with their experiences with Conde Nast's apps, order Vasaka from mexican pharmacy. Where can i buy cheapest Vasaka online, MocoNews had the most detailed look at Conde Nast's study, arguing that the fact that iPads are shared extensively means they're not being treated as a mobile device, Vasaka over the counter. Users also seemed to spend much more time with the mobile versions of the magazines than the print versions, though that data's a little cloudy, Buy Vasaka Without Prescription. Vasaka price, coupon, NPR has also done some research on its users via Twitter and Facebook, and the Lab's Justin Ellis reported that they've found that those listeners are generally younger, buying Vasaka online over the counter, Vasaka tablets, hardcore listeners. Together, free Vasaka samples, Vasaka medication, Facebook and Twitter account for 7 to 8 percent of NPR's web traffic, though Facebook generates six times as much as Twitter, where can i find Vasaka online. Vasaka buy, There were also a few items on newspapers and the iPad: Forbes' Jeff Bercovici reported that the New York Post will become the first newspaper without a paid website to start selling an iPad app subscription. The subscription is only sold inside the app, where can i buy Vasaka online, Order Vasaka from United States pharmacy, a strategy that The Next Web's Martin Bryant called a psychological trick that "makes users feel less like they’re paying for news and more like they’re 'Just buying another app.'" The British newspaper The Financial Times said its iPad app has made about £1 million in advertising revenue since it was launched in May, but as Poynter's Damon Kiesow noted, buy Vasaka from canada, Vasaka discount, local papers have been slow to jump on the iPad train, with only a dozen of launching apps so far, saturday delivery Vasaka. Buy Vasaka Without Prescription, Meanwhile, GigaOM's Mathew Ingram ripped most magazine iPad apps for a lack of interactivity, openness or user control, saying,"the biggest flaw for me is the total lack of acknowledgment that the device this content appears on is part of the Internet, and therefore it is possible to connect the content to other places with more information about a topic."But some news organizations are already busy preparing for the next big thing: According to The Wall Street Journal, some national news orgs have begun developing content for Samsung's new tablet, the Galaxy, which is scheduled to be released later this year. Buy Vasaka online without prescription, —

Too much of a good story?: Regardless of where you were this week, the huge story was the rescue of 33 Chilean miners who had been trapped underground for more than two months, real brand Vasaka online. Online buy Vasaka without a prescription, The fact that it was such an all-encompassing story is, of course, Vasaka overseas, Over the counter Vasaka, a media story in itself: TV broadcasters planned wall-to-wall coverage beforehand, and that coverage garnered massive ratings in the U.S, ordering Vasaka online. Vasaka in uk, and elsewhere. (We followed on the web, buy Vasaka from mexico, Where can i order Vasaka without prescription, too.) With 2,000 journalists at the site, cod online Vasaka, Vasaka in japan, the event became a global media spectacle the likes of which we haven't seen in a while.

The coverage had plenty of critics, many of them upset about the excessive amount of resources devoted to a story with little long-term impact by news organizations that are making significant cuts to coverage elsewhere, Buy Vasaka Without Prescription. The point couldn't have been finer in the case of the BBC, delivered overnight Vasaka, Buy cheap Vasaka no rx, which spent more than £100,000 on its rescue coverage, Vasaka san diego, Vasaka to buy, leading it to slash the budget for upcoming stories like the Cancun climate change meetings and Lisbon NATO summit.

The sharpest barbs belonged to NYU prof Jay Rosen and Lehigh prof Jeremy Littau. "The proportion of response to story impact is perhaps the best illustration of the insanity we seen in media business choices today, Vasaka for sale, Vasaka in us, " Littau wrote, adding, online buying Vasaka hcl, Where to buy Vasaka, "I see an industry chasing hits and page views by wasting valuable economic and human capital." Lost Remote's Steve Safran pointed out that the degree of coverage had much more to do with the fact that coverage could be planned than with its newsworthiness.

—

Rupert keeps pushing into paywalls: After his Times and Sunday Times went behind a paywall this summer, rx free Vasaka, Vasaka trusted pharmacy reviews, Rupert Murdoch added another newspaper to his online paid-content empire this week: The British tabloid News of the World. Access to the paper's site will cost a pound a day or £1.99 for four weeks, Vasaka gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Where to buy Vasaka, and will include some web exclusives, including a new video section, sale Vasaka. PaidContent gave the new site itself a good review Buy Vasaka Without Prescription, , saying it's an improvement over the old one. Buy Vasaka without prescription, The business plan behind the paywall didn't get such kind reviews. As with The Times' paywall, Vasaka paypal, Purchase Vasaka online, News of the World's content will be hidden from Google and other search engines, and while paidContent reported that its videos had been reposted on YouTube before the site even launched, purchase Vasaka, Buy generic Vasaka, the paper's digital editor told Journalism.co.uk that it's working aggressively to keep its content within the site, including calling in the lawyers if need be, Vasaka to buy online. Vasaka from canadian pharmacy, The Press Gazette's Dominic Ponsford argued that the new site formally marks Murdoch's retreat from the web: "Without any inbound or outbound links, and invisible to Google and other search engines, Vasaka prescriptions, Vasaka pills, the NotW, Times and Sunday Times don’t really have internet sites – but digitally delivered editions."British journalist Kevin Anderson was a little more charitable, buy Vasaka online with no prescription, Vasaka in usa, saying the strategy just might be an early step toward a frictionless all-app approach to digital news.

As for Murdoch's other paywall experiment at The Times, Vasaka craiglist, Buy Vasaka without a prescription, two editors gave a recent talk (reported by Editors Weblog) that juxtaposed two interesting ideas: The editors claimed that a subscription-based website makes them more focused on the user, then touted this as an advantage of the iPad: "People consume how you want them to consume."

—

News orgs' kibosh on political participation: NPR created a bit of buzz this week when it sent a memo to employees explaining that they were not allowed to attend the upcoming rallies by comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (unless they were covering the events), buy cheap Vasaka, Purchase Vasaka online no prescription, as they constitute unethical participation in a political rally. The rule forbidding journalists to participate in political rallies is an old one in newsrooms, and at least eight of the U.S.' largest news organizations told The Huffington Post their journalists also wouldn't be attending the rallies outside of work, Buy Vasaka Without Prescription.

NPR senior VP Dana Davis Rehm explained in a post on its site that NPR issued the memo to clear up any confusion about whether the rallies, order Vasaka online c.o.d, Vasaka prices, which are at least partly satirical in nature, were in fact political. NPR's fresh implementation prompted a new round of criticism of the longstanding rule, especially from those skeptical of efforts at "objective" journalism: The Wrap's Dylan Stableford called it "insane," Northeastern j-prof Dan Kennedy said the prohibition keeps journalists from observing and learning, and CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis made a similar point, arguing that "NPR is forbidding its employees to be curious."

—

A closer look at Denton and Huffington: In the past week, we've gotten long profiles of two new media magnates in a New Yorker piece on Gawker chief Nick Denton and a Forbes story on Arianna Huffington and her Huffington Post. (Huffington also gave a good Q&A to Investor's Business Daily.) Reaction to the Denton articles was pretty subdued, but former Gawker editor Elizabeth Spiers (who wrote the Huffington piece) had some interesting thoughts about how Gawker has become part of the mainstream, though not everyone agrees whether its success is replicable.

Figures in the pieces prompted Reuters' Felix Salmon and Forbes' Jeff Bercovici to break down the sites' valuation. Buy Vasaka Without Prescription, (Salmon only looks at Gawker, though Bercovici compares the two in traffic value and in their owners' roles.) The two networks have long been rivals, and Denton noted that thanks to a couple of big sports-related scandals, Gawker's traffic beat the Post's for the first time ever this week. Also this week, Huffington announced she'd pay $250,000 to send buses to Jon Stewart's rally later this month, an idea the Wrap said some of her employees weren't crazy about.

—

Reading roundup: Busy, busy week this week. We'll see how much good stuff I can point you toward before your eyes start glazing over.

— A few follow-ups to last week's discussion of Howard Kurtz's move from The Washington Post to The Daily Beast: The New York Times' David Carr wrote a lyrical column comparing writing for print and for the web, PBS MediaShift's Mark Glaser interviewed Kurtzon Twitter, and former ESPN.com writer Dan Shanoff pointed out that the move from mainstream media to the web began in the sports world.

— An update on the debate over content farms: MediaWeek ran an article explaining why advertisers like them so much; one of those content farms, Demand Media said in an SEC filing that it plans to spend $50 million to $75 million on investments in content next year; and one hyperlocal operation accused of running on a content-farm model, AOL's Patch, responded to its critics' allegations, Buy Vasaka Without Prescription.

— Two interesting discussions between The Guardian and Jeff Jarvis: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger posted some thoughts about his concept of the Fourth Estate — the traditional press, public media, and the web's public sphere — and Jarvis responded by calling the classification "correct but temporary." The Guardian's Roy Greenslade also wrote about his concern for the news/advertising divide as journalists become entrepreneurs, and Jarvis, an entrepreneurial journalism advocate, defended his cause.

— Three other good reads before we're done:

GigaOM's Mathew Ingram told newspapers it's better to join Groupon than to fight it.

Newspaper analyst Alan Mutter laid out French research that illuminates just how far digital natives' values are from those of the newspaper industry — and what a hurdle those newspapers have in reaching those consumers.

Scott Rosenberg looked at the closed systems encroaching on the web and asked a thought-provoking question: Is the openness that has defined the web destined to be just a parenthesis in a longer history of control. It's a big question and, as Rosenberg reminds us, a critical one for the future of news.

Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription

Mark — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:26:44 +0000

[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription, on Sept. 3, buy Kamagra Oral Jelly online no prescription, Kamagra Oral Jelly paypal, 2010.]

Cuts and big changes for two papers: In the past week, two American newspapers have announced major reorganizations that, Kamagra Oral Jelly discount, Free Kamagra Oral Jelly samples, depending on who you read, were either cold corporate downsizing or fresh attempts at journalism innovation, saturday delivery Kamagra Oral Jelly. Where can i find Kamagra Oral Jelly online, First, late last week, online buy Kamagra Oral Jelly without a prescription, Where can i buy Kamagra Oral Jelly online, Gannett's USA Today announced that it would undergo the most sweeping change in its 28-year history, transforming "into a multi-media company" as opposed to a newspaper and laying off 130 of its 1, Kamagra Oral Jelly to buy, Fast shipping Kamagra Oral Jelly, 500 employees in the process. The Associated Press and paidContent have pretty good explanations of what the changes entail, where to buy Kamagra Oral Jelly, Real brand Kamagra Oral Jelly online, and thanks to the feisty Gannett Blog, we have the slide presentation Gannett execs made to USA Today's staff, Kamagra Oral Jelly buy. Order Kamagra Oral Jelly from mexican pharmacy, Though there are some dots to be connected, those slides are the best illustration of Gannett is trying to do: Push USA Today further into web content, Kamagra Oral Jelly medication, Kamagra Oral Jelly for sale, breaking news and especially mobile content (by far its fastest-growing area) in order to justify a simultaneous move deeper into mobile and online advertising. The paper is hoping to become faster on breaking news, with a web-first mindset, fewer editors and a strategy that focuses on flooding coverage on breaking stories and then coming back later for deeper features, Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription.

Gannett Blog's Jim Hopkins, buy Kamagra Oral Jelly online without prescription, Cod online Kamagra Oral Jelly, a longtime critic of the company, wasn't thrilled about this move either, Kamagra Oral Jelly in australia, Where to buy Kamagra Oral Jelly, pointing out the lack of newsroom experience in some of its key executives and saying that Gannett has already touted almost the exact same strategy four years ago, to little effect, Kamagra Oral Jelly over the counter. Where can i buy cheapest Kamagra Oral Jelly online, He did say a few days later, though, Kamagra Oral Jelly pills, Online buying Kamagra Oral Jelly hcl, that Gannett's plans to flatten the "silos" of the News, Sports, sale Kamagra Oral Jelly, Kamagra Oral Jelly san diego, Money and Life sections to encourage more collaboration among staffers are long overdue.

News media analyst Ken Doctor was much more charitable, Kamagra Oral Jelly prescriptions, Order Kamagra Oral Jelly online overnight delivery no prescription, seeing in USA Today's overhaul echoes of the new "digital first" mentalities at the Journal Register Co. and TBD. The best way to see this, Kamagra Oral Jelly price, coupon, Rx free Kamagra Oral Jelly, Doctor said, is to "mark another day in which a publisher is acting on the plain truths of the marketplace and of the audiences, buy Kamagra Oral Jelly no prescription, Kamagra Oral Jelly tablets, and trying to reinvent itself."Newspaper Death Watch's Paul Gillin called USA Today's transformation a bellwether for news organizations and said its harmony between news and advertising is a bitter but necessary pill for traditionalists to swallow. And media consultant Mario Garcia Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription, said USA Today's audience-driven approach is the key to survival in a multimedia environment.

The other newspaper to announce an overhaul was the Deseret News of Salt Lake City, Kamagra Oral Jelly in usa, Kamagra Oral Jelly prices, a for-profit paper published by the Mormon Church. The paper is laying off 43 percent of its staff, ordering Kamagra Oral Jelly online, Purchase Kamagra Oral Jelly online no prescription, though you wouldn't know it from the News' own article on the changes. In a pair of posts, buy Kamagra Oral Jelly online cod, Where can i order Kamagra Oral Jelly without prescription, Ken Doctor looked at the change in philosophy that's accompanying the cuts — an attempt to become the worldwide Mormon newspaper of sorts, along with pro-am and local news efforts and a news-broadcast collaboration — and liked what he found, Kamagra Oral Jelly pills. Order Kamagra Oral Jelly online overnight delivery no prescription, News business expert Alan Mutter examined the prospects for a slashed, print-and-broadcast newsroom and came out less optimistic, order Kamagra Oral Jelly from mexican pharmacy.

—

Trust and a failed Twitter stunt: Twitter devotees are used to seeing untrue rumors and scoops occasionally get reported there (as Jeff Goldblum can attest), but this week may have been the first time a false Twitter report was knowingly started by a member of the traditional media as a stunt, Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription. Buy cheap Kamagra Oral Jelly no rx, Fed up with the more-breathless-than-usual Twitter rumor-reporting that's been going on in the sports media this summer, Washington Post sports reporter Mike Wise decided to start a false rumor about the length of an NFL quarterback's suspension to make a point about the unreliability of reporting on Twitter, Kamagra Oral Jelly from international pharmacy. Delivered overnight Kamagra Oral Jelly, The stunt bombed; Wise admitted the hoax an hour later and was suspended for a month by the Post the next day. Such an ill-advised prank isn't really news in itself, where can i buy cheapest Kamagra Oral Jelly online, Kamagra Oral Jelly discount, but it did spur a bit of interesting commentary on Twitter and breaking news. Numerous people argued that Wise's hoax betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Twitter as a news medium — one that many others probably share, where can i buy Kamagra Oral Jelly online. Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription, Even after the episode, Wise maintained that it showed that nobody checks facts or sourcing on breaking stories on Twitter. Sale Kamagra Oral Jelly, Quite a few observers disagreed for a variety of reasons. Barry Petchesky of Gawker's sports blog Deadspin said the whole incident actually disproved Wise's thesis: The false story didn't gain much traction, online buying Kamagra Oral Jelly hcl, Ordering Kamagra Oral Jelly online, and the media outlets that did report the story credited Wise until it could be confirmed independently, just the way the system is supposed to work, Kamagra Oral Jelly medication. Online buy Kamagra Oral Jelly without a prescription, But the primary objection was that, as Gawker's Hamilton Nolan, buy generic Kamagra Oral Jelly, Kamagra Oral Jelly gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, Slate's Tom Scocca and several others all argued, to the extent that Wise was trusted, Kamagra Oral Jelly in canada, Cod online Kamagra Oral Jelly, it was because of the credibility that people give to The Washington Post — a traditional news organization — not because he broke the story on Twitter. As TBD's Steve Buttry pointed out, buy Kamagra Oral Jelly without prescription, Kamagra Oral Jelly paypal, people would have run with this story if Wise had planted it in the Post itself or on its website; what makes Twitter any different? DCist's Aaron Morrissey put the point well: Wise falsely "assumed that there weren't levels of authenticity to Twitter, which, real brand Kamagra Oral Jelly online, Kamagra Oral Jelly tablets, just like any other social construct on Earth, features some people who are reputable concerning whatever and others who aren't."

—

Rupert's paywall runs into obstacles: Two months after the online paywall went up at Rupert Murdoch's Times of London, Kamagra Oral Jelly craiglist, Kamagra Oral Jelly in india, The Independent (a competitor of The Times) reported this week that with a vastly reduced audience to sell to, advertisers are fleeing the site, purchase Kamagra Oral Jelly. In the article, various British news industry analysts also said The Times is killing its online brand and not adding any of the sort of value that's necessary to justify charging for news, Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription. Buy no prescription Kamagra Oral Jelly online, Stateside, too, Kamagra Oral Jelly to buy, Lost Remote's Steve Safran saw the news as "mounting evidence that putting up a paywall is bad for business."

It should be noted, though, that according to those analysts, The Times' paywall is "more about gathering consumer information than selling content" — News Corp.'s primary intent may be getting detailed, personalized information on Times readers and using it to sell them other products within its media empire, including its BSkyB satellite TV. Francois Nel ran some possible numbers and determined that even with its relatively small audience (15,000 subscribers, plus day-pass users), News Corp. could be making more money with its paywall than without.

On the other hand, a new study reported by paidContent estimated that online subscribers to The Times and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal are worth only a quarter of their print counterparts. Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription, Getting rid of the print product, the study posited, wouldn't even make up for the loss of income from those subscribers. The Press Gazette's Dominic Ponsford detailed more of the research firm's report — a rather depressing one for newspaper execs.

—

Google and the AP play nice: A quiet news development worth noting: Google and The Associated Press renewed their licensing agreement that allows Google (including, especially, Google News) to host AP content. The deal was announced on Google's side via aone-paragraph post, and on the AP's side through a much more extensive article by its technology writer Michael Liedtke. The extension is significant because the two sides have had a consistently fractious relationship — their first agreement began in 2006 after the AP threatened to sue Google for aggregating its articles, AP executives have criticized news aggregators for misappropriating content, and the AP's material briefly stopped appearing on Google News late last year.

The Lab's Megan Garber noted that this new agreement might go beyond another truce and mark a change in the way the companies relate: "Us-versus-them becoming let’s-work-together." Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan provided plenty of background, surmising that AP has learned its lesson that Google News can live on just fine without them, Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription.

—

Reading roundup: This week was an especially rich one for all sorts of web-journalism punditry. Here's a sampling:

— The American Journalism Review's Barb Palser tried to throw some cold water on the hyperlocal news movement, using some Pew stats to argue that people don't go online for neighborhood news as much as we might think. (That use of statistics led to a frustrated response by Michele McLellan.) And the Online Journalism Review's Robert Niles added his skepticism to the discussion surrounding Patch and large-scale hyperlocal news.

— NYU j-prof Jay Rosen can be a polarizing figure, but there are few media observers who are better at pulling thoughtful insights out of the often mystifying world that is journalism in transition. We got three particularly thought-provoking tidbits from him this week: A sharp interview with The Economist Buy Kamagra Oral Jelly Without Prescription, on the American press, a lecture at a French j-school about audience with tips for new students; and a video clip from the Journal Register Co.'s ideaLab on news production and innovation.

— We spent some time this summer talking about the merits (and drawbacks) of links, so consider this a worthy addendum: Scott Rosenberg, who recently chronicled the history of blogging, issued a three-part defense of the link this week. A great examination of one of the fundamental features of the web.

— Finally, two cool reads, one practical and the other theoretical. The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal listed five lessons from the publication of Longshot, the hyperspeed-produced magazine formerly known as 48HRS, and here at the Lab, Cornell scholar Joshua Braun talked about the way TV news organizations maintain the "stage management" of broadcast in their online efforts. "They continue to control what remains backstage and what goes front-stage," he wrote, giving comment moderation as an example. "That’s not unique to the news, either. But it’s an interesting preservation of the way the media’s worked for a long time.".