Because, really.

Humanity's Whitney Houston problem [Things that make so little sense they make my head hurt]

2012-02-12T13:00:00.000-06:00

So, here's the thing that keeps going through my head:

Whitney Houston clearly had a serious serious problem or series of serious problems all stacked on top of each other. We put her on TV and the cover of magazines, making millions of dollars off of her series of problems. Which, don't be mistaken, is not my main point and is what it is, because "we" wouldn't have exploited her problems if "we" weren't watching/buying said exploitation - supply and demand.

The knot in my brain is around these questions:

1) Was as much energy spent on trying to get her help as was spent on her problems? [Not something any of us not in Whitney's inner circle can answer]

2) How far gone do you have to be to have all the resources/attention/support that she had and not have the help matter?

3) If this is how it played out for an uber talented super star, what does that have to say about how it plays out for millions of everyday people everywhere?

Millions of everyday people everywhere.

4) And how does/should/could a happening like this change how it plays out for millions of everyday people everywhere?

Because, really.

ISO a new word for "Social Media" [See Nicole ramble]

2012-02-07T20:36:00.001-06:00

Posted over at the Beacon: In search of a 'social media' definition

What am I missing? [Things we have seen before]

2012-01-23T15:30:00.001-06:00

Last Friday, Apple announced, among other things, iBooks Author.

Essentially, as Microsoft Word is to Documents, iBooks Author is to highly interactive iPad iBooks.

I say iPad iBooks because a book created using the iBooks Author software can only be read on an iPad. And can only be sold via the Apple App Store.

There is a great deal of hubbub and ire over this, and as I look into it more and more, I become convinced that I must be missing something.

Because, really.

As far as I can tell, and as highlighted in the HuffPo article above, the restrictions are applied to "work you create using this software." iBooks Author is a sophisticated piece of software that puts the equivalent of hours and hours of highly skilled programming in the hands of anyone who can understand the "Drag and drop" concept. I'mma bet you a good deal of money that the product you create for FREE, unless you are one of the developers of - no, even if you are one of the developers of iBooks Author is going to look NOTHING like what you can create using the (also FREE) software in the same amount of time. On an iPad, interactivity, easy of use, flow - essentially HOW it leverages the medium - could be argued as essential to the value of the product.

So, what I'm missing, is why is this awful? Also, why is this not simply awesome? Also, if you don't agree with is why wouldn't you just go on your merry way?

And perhaps most importantly, this isn't about content. Well, it is, secondarily. It's about DISTRIBUTION. Remember that thing back in the day that popped up and could only be played in certain software on certain hardware and people were like "no way, I'm against that, I'm not going to participate in that."

Right. iTunes.

Because, really.

[and I really am wondering if I'm missing something. So please, lay it out for me if I am.]

Thanks to Facebook, my mom now understands software development [The future is here]

2011-09-24T17:41:00.001-05:00

At this point, it's as part of the vernacular as "boy meets girl:" Facebook makes changes, Everyone is confused by changes, Everyone rails (utilizing the new features they are complaining about - how meta!), Everyone threatens to breakup with Facebook, nobody does.

The recent changes are a pretty major shift. I guess.

I say "I guess" because to my mind, these changes are part of The Book that is Face being The Book that is Face.

And I say "to my mind" because I am fully aware that because of what makes me tick, I look at The Book that is Face through a different lens than most. The iterative process of making things or figuring things out - organizations, websites, new recipes, a home - is like oxygen to me. Dive in, engage, try things, test them, assess, adjust, repeat - discussing it ad nauseum all the while. This is how I see Facebook. It's a living piece of software, plugged into 500 million people who are using it, contributing to it and informing it from all over the world, 24/7.

That is hot.

So I don't so much care about the specifics of the changes. That they are happening at this scale at, I consider awesome. I enjoy sharing and connecting with people at the level and reach that the Facebook platform allows, so I'll figure out how to incorporate the changes in whatever way I need to to continue to get out of the platform what I desire. Simple.

But the super duper bonus point I see in all this is the way it is changing The User Experience. And I use title case there because I'm talking about the way people use all stuff. People who cannot set an alarm clock use Facebook. The pressure to see photos of their grandkids or monitor their teen's activities or to keep in touch with friends when heading off to college or a new city was too great, and people who couldn't tell you what a social network is (and could care less) have signed up for and regularly use this living breathing pile of code that is Facebook. And they are along for this ride. They have free (in terms of cash out of their pocket) access to some of the most robust and powerful software in existence. Yes, Google is also as free and as (maybe more) powerful, but (so far) Google does not give them a smoothly integrated and polished window into every shared aspect of their friends and families lives. They are able to set preferences and privacy settings, give feedback and curate their own feeds. And not everyone becomes a super user, but when these upgrades happen and the cut and paste status updates on how to change x,y or z or event invitations to "bring back the old Facebook" outlining the changes in detail start flying, they learn and notice whether they want to or not. And this becomes a collective knowledge, conscious or not, about what technology makes possible. How flexible it can be. How our preferences and feedback can be incorporated. How things that we make don't have to be set in stone.

And that knowledge, that evolution of The User Experience, raises the bar throughout the Matrix (yeah, I said it). Apple - with iTunes, the iPad and the iPhone - has a major part in this collective learning as well. We want our cars to be smarter, our devices to be more integrated - it starts to be the way we expect things to be.

Those of us who create and distribute content would do well to recognize this shift. We've always had to remind ourselves to remember the user, but now, more than ever, it's key. The user is being trained, en masse, that they can control their own experience. And not just in a "have it your way" sort of way, in a very tactical, very personal, very human sort of way. That? Cannot be ignored.

Because, really.

Note: After publishing this, it occurred to me that my mother knows COBOL, so clearly. But if we think of our collective moms, I think the title still works :).

Hate groups and radical right - same thing? [Help a sister out, please]

2011-02-23T13:59:00.004-06:00

The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a report that shows hate groups in the United States top 1,000 for the first time. This is a clear reminder that organized hate, among other things, is on the rise, but the thing that struck me was in the opening paragraph of the announcement of the report:

The number of active hate groups in the United States topped 1,000 for the first time and the antigovernment “Patriot” movement expanded dramatically for the second straight year as the radical right showed continued explosive growth in 2010.

[Insert noise made by cute animated puppy that is suddenly confused]

I imagined posting a link to this report on this very jarring statistic, but the first thing I though of was how at least 5 people I know would never make it past that first paragraph and how quickly, the conversation would ignore the very important and jarring statistic and instead focus on the interchangeable use of the term "hate group" and the term "radical right."

I read the rest of the release, hoping that at some point they mentioned the research behind this automatic correlation, but to no avail.

Can someone break this down for me? Because, really...

update:

NPR has a report on the findings without the sloppy conjecture.

Black History Month: Thumbs up or thumbs down? [Discussions that need to happen]

2011-02-23T10:48:00.012-06:00

Today was going to be the day that I left my cellphone in my purse and logged out of Facebook. I have mounting involved and mentally challenging things to cross of my list and multi-tasking was not on the agenda. Just as I went to my Facebook tab to log out, the following ensues on my wall:

Before you continue, read the blog post she linked to on Jack and Jill Politics here. And make sure you actually go and listen to the referenced Bloggingheads video here.

February is almost over. I almost made it through without having this discussion head on. But as I read the blog post and then actually watched the video in full, it became clear that I was going to have to jump in. I've given myself 30 minutes (now 15) on this, but it's something about which I feel strongly, so here goes.

1. We have to be able to have conversations. I kind of wrote about this in my Beacon blog post yesterday, and even more explicitly earlier this month. We have got to stop shouting from the extreme boundaries of conversations and be willing to get uncomfortable in the gray areas because that is where progress happens. The Jack and Jill Politics post plays the shouting game, not only leaving out any sort of nuance when quoting sound bytes from the video, but by escalating this to be about the NYTimes having an agenda around Black History Month and indicating that the bloggers in the video (John McWhorter of the New Republic and Glenn Loury of Brown University) are sellouts (a whole other powder keg conversation) - "I don’t know where they found these brothers or what they paid them to say this," blog author Jill Tubman says. Unnecessary.

2. McWhorter and Loury speak the truth: People of all colors do roll their eyes at Black History Month. Black History Month does house a set of standard rituals and auto-pilot events that don't really raise, change or challenge the consciousness of the very people it exists to enlighten. They don't so much call for the end of Black History Month (though you can take sound bytes away from the video discussion that would support such a claim), but push us to think about whether or not it is the best way to achieve what those who fought for it wanted to achieve. They are of the opinion that it does not, however they are not dismissing the need to find some way, some new way more appropriate to our current society, to get the same ideas across. To fixate on the fact that they are "calling for the end of Black History Month" and not go on to discuss why, why not and the forces at play is to waste precious time and energy -

3. Because I do think Black History Month is no longer effective. (There! I said it!) I also concede that something is better than nothing. I also understand that different people are at different levels of understanding and that I run in an uncharacteristically open minded circle of people. So what do I suggest instead? I've always been of the opinion that limiting the focus on Black History to a month is by definition marginalizing it (while understanding that some feel that setting aside a month is a needed highlight). A concerted and on-going effort to highlight people of color, achievements and contributions, issues as they effect us today in our daily lives - that to me would be more challenging and have more impact. A good friend of mine and I always talked about re-branding February as a celebration of all races and ethnicities - "February Festival" we called it. Anyone who has seen my Facebook wall knows that it does not have to be February for me to stir the pot and encourage (some would say force :)) discussion on issues of race.

So, while I understand and agree with why Black History Month was created, I am of the opinion that it no longer addresses the issues it set out to tackle. The fact that there's now a month for everything and everyone, to me, only supports this opinion. We tune out, we roll our eyes, we go on auto-pilot.

In short (because now I'm approaching 45 minutes, though I only gave myself 30), everything is contextual. Even "black" history doesn't belong solely to black people. Showing it through a singular lens is to distort it, is to leave out part of the story. This is the history of us - all of us. Coming together and moving forward isn't possible - on any subject or belief - if all the energy goes toward separating things out.

And PS, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking you to talk about it. Because, really - that's what keeps the world going around.

The non-secret to social media [Duh]

2010-09-07T10:33:00.002-05:00

originally published on the Beacon Blog

A crazy thing happened last week. A friend of mine, chief executive of Nurses for Newborns Foundation, posted a Facebook status noting that their diaper reserves had been reduced to zero.

Early intervention, specifically programs that help babies, being a pet cause of mine, I put out the call to my network. A few people immediately responded that they would be dropping off diapers. It seems like a small thing, but a newborn can go through 75 diapers in a week and many of the families NFNF serves have to decide between diapers and food, diapers and bus fare to get to work, etc. A crying baby is something that can cause a level of stress and strain only understood if you've experienced it. Among its many services, NFNF provides diapers to families to help with that most basic need - to keep a baby clean and comfortable.

I felt that if I explained the above, I could get some of my friends to help out who wouldn't otherwise think about how far something so simple can go. So I took about five minutes and set up a Facebook event for a "Virtual Diaper Drive," and invited all my friends from the region to take part. Soon a few of them messaged or posted to say they were setting up drives of their own and a few reposted to their group of friends. NFNF posted the event to its Facebook page, and people who were connected to them started to repost.

By the end of the first day (Tuesday, Aug. 31) Hartford Coffee Co. stepped up as a drop off point (with a $1 off incentive even!) and shared the drive with its network. After only 24 hours, NFNF counted 5,000 diapers through their office doors. Thursday afternoon the count hit 10,000. By Friday afternoon, 15,300. KMOX 1120 aired a story Sunday morning, and Sunday night, Fox 2 and KPLR 11 aired a story on every news broadcast. Final count as of last night 22,734 diapers.

When people start talking social media strategy, I am quick to remind that social networking did not start with the advent of MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. A chain letter is social media. Quilt circles. Amish friendship bread. It all comes down to very basic offline behavior: We choose our network, we listen to our network, we rely on our network, we trust our network - and even then, if the message isn't relevant, useful or impactful in some way (even if it's a good laugh or the gnashing of teeth) it's not going to resonate with the network, no matter how strong the ties.

Last week happened partially because of a perfect storm (I saw my colleagues post, I had time to post an event, the right number of people saw it and shared it, it was a slow news weekend, all of the people and organizations involved have established networks, etc.), but mostly because I knew someone I trusted, that person had a selfless and important need, the need was digestible and tangible and we communicated it well, and it resonated with enough people in all our networks to catch fire.

Everyone's clamoring to use social media because it's cheap, fast and easy. But when you really look at what you're trying to accomplish, you may find that it's none of the above. You may find that it's completely inappropriate for your message; but if you look harder, you may see that it can support your message in other ways.

So the secret to social media, in my opinion, is to go back to basics. Forget all the technical bells and whistles and apps and ask the basic questions: Does this matter? To whom does it matter and why? What is the best way to get the information to the people who want/need it?

Because, really.

Data data everywhere and not a drop to drink [You have got to be kidding me]

2010-08-31T07:07:00.002-05:00

originally published on the Beacon Blog

As some of you in St. Louis likely encountered, last weekend construction wreaked havoc on Interstate 55/70 between Missouri and Illinois. Though I did my best to listen closely on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday morning as KMOX gave us repeated fair warning, all I retained was a 90 percent certainty that it was going to be a mess, and it was going to start at 8 p.m. on Friday.

I met friends after work on Friday and it was 9 p.m. before we parted ways to head home. One of my friends was also from the Illinois side and, despite the fact that we are both heavy consumers of media, neither of us was 100 percent certain that the construction had started.

Our shared 90 percent certainty was enough to send us off in the direction of the McKinley Bridge, but that 10 percent had me determined to confirm that the more direct and familiar path of 55/70 was indeed unavailable.

So I pulled out my smartphone and started to search.

First stoplight: Radio websites. Nothing.

Next stoplight: TV websites. Nothing.

Next stoplight: Newspaper websites: Nothing.

And so on -- MODOT, IDOT -- I even tried searching Twitter -- NOTHING.

With all of the information available on all the different platforms, I couldn't get what I needed when I needed it how I needed it. So, where's the real failing here? Is it mine? For being so spoiled and demanding as to expect to get what I needed literally at my fingertips? Is it the information providers for not anticipating my need and my access point (smartphone, in the car, on the move)?

The general idea is that the internet has brought on information overload, but I'm of the opinion that what we're being offered is a good deal of noise. As we move into the next phase of the Beacon, it's one of the challenges I most look forward to: stepping back to see where we can really be of service, to whom and on what platform.

But I'm pretty sure it won't be real-time traffic information delivered on my mobile device. So, folks, who do that: How about a link on your mobile site to at least the MODOT and IDOT published announcements? It can replace the ad you put front and center on your site.

Because, really.

In hopes that I was more more articulate this time [Things I can't let lie]

2010-08-17T15:17:00.002-05:00

A week later, I take another and more public stab at attempting to articulate why the Slate article rubbed the wrong way. Enjoy >

Oh, come on now, CBS [Someone's paying good money for this]

2010-08-15T21:59:00.008-05:00

Tonight on Facebook from CBS:

then -

then -

Seriously? Don't try to be all "I'm your friend, it's social media!" with me by using "cut and paste insert show here."

Let's turn this into a teachable moment, shall we?

1. Um, you are a major network. Perhaps, just perhaps some people watch more than one of your shows and therefore have more than one in their newsfeed.

2. The whole social networking thing is about relationship marketing. This would indicate different and appropriate "personalities" for each property. Using the caption hook for all of them is fine, but the cut and paste "personality" on the front and back does the opposite of personalizing when seen in triplicate.

3. If you wanted to blatantly use the same hook for all your shows, you could just own it - "Sunday evening, weekend winding down and nothing to do? Over at CBS.com we're doing the TV show equivalent of getting out the scanner - help us out with some captions - at least this time you know you won't be surprised with a tag of you in your 3rd grade play..." The show brand is part of the post, so you don't need the awkward [insert character] references. Then, the third time I see it I'm maybe three times intrigued instead of three times annoyed.

4. Timing is everything. Because you should be thinking about the fact that people are likely to be fans of more than one show, pacing them out a bit wouldn't be a bad idea (see first half of last sentence of #3 above).

And the smiley face at the end really just adds insult to injury - "look how casual and familiar I'm being as I totally fake being casual and familiar!"

Because, really.

Thank you Slate, the internets are hilarious today [When a tree falls in the forest]

2010-08-11T14:00:00.006-05:00

Things that have come out of the Slate article, in a mere 24 hours:

- brown birds via @innyvinny
- tweegro twitter account
- #BrownTiwtterBird hashtag (or, I guess, blacktag)
- #HowBlackPeopleUseTwitter hashtag (or, I guess, blacktag)

Also? Study this: A growing group of employed, college educated, executive level black people are sucking away their entire workday around this article. WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?!?!?

Also, bets on which main stream media covers it first? And where's Gawker? Is it because we're black????

Kidding.

When April Fools comes in August [You have got to be kidding me]

2010-08-11T09:30:00.008-05:00

When I first saw that there was a Slate article on "How Blacks Use Twitter: The latest research on race and microblogging" the automatic response was to roll my eyes.

I discovered the link on Facebook, posted by one of the facilitators of the regional leadership program I recently completed. He happens to be black and specialize in diversity consulting and training. He posted it with the comment "Yet another attempt to analyze black behavior. Good luck with that." and the article showed the now internet-famous and already memed black twitter bird:

Now, I assumed that this image came from someones profile image the author had come across during his "research." I later discovered that no, Slate came up with this image just for this article. So there's that.

I clicked through and read the article, and honestly? I couldn't even begin to process it. I decided that I would just go to bed. But before I did, I tried to bait some of my favorite like-minded people who maybe, just maybe, might get as worked up as I was and break it all down for me while I slept. I also did some twitter searching to see if anyone else shared my reaction and found two things: white people (rather, people with white profile photos) retweeting the article as "very interesting!" and a handful of black people (or people with black profile photos and/or who had a number of tweets previously about black issues and/or specifically said that they are black) retweeting the article saying "are you kidding me?"

Because, really.

So, I sighed a few more times and went to bed.

[At this point, if you haven't already, you should read the whole article]

And when I woke up, it all seemed clear: This has to be satire. Right? Slate did this to cause a stir in the twitter- bloges- phere and they are planning to follow it up with a real discussion, right? Right?

Now, it hasn't even been 24 hours, so maybe that's still the case, but from the replies the author (Farhad Manjoo) has been writing on his twitter account in response to people questioning the article, I'm sadly going to have to go with no. This article is supposed to be for real.

Now, let me say for the record that I don't think that this article is overtly racist. I'm not crying racism. I suppose, since I'm forcing myself to synthesize these thoughts is that I'm crying incredulousness.

I guess it all comes down to the fact that the framing of this article - sorry, this "research" - feels so 1960 anti-deseg propaganda. See how interesting these people are? See how they are so funny and lively? See how they never use good english? See how idle they are with their time? The brown bird image even gives the whole thing a little Al Jolson feel.

Now, the last half of the article is spent very pointedly disputing the validity of the article's title - both through quotes and pointing out the problems in the some of the data used. But I feel like it's too late. It's like when the little girl in grade school asks if she can touch your hair and then doesn't understand why, when all she does is say it's "neat" - which, after all is a compliment, isn't it? - you still have your feelings hurt.

It's very possible (likely, maybe, in the world of thirst for clicks and pageviews) that Mr. Manjoo submitted a much more even handed article, that the editor slapped on the definitive title and subtitle and added the brown bird to create some buzz.

But it's equally as possible that, even though this is 2010, no one at Slate sees anything uncomfortable, slightly offensive and/or a little disconcerting about the framing of this piece.

Because, really, context is everything.

Related:
- Things that are not surprising: Black people use twitter

- "What were Black people talking about on twitter last night?"

- Pew Fall 2009 report on demographics of twitter use and status updating

This blog has moved

2010-04-30T10:48:00.001-05:00

This blog is now located at http://becausereally.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://becausereally.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

And the NYTimes delivers [yay]

2009-04-13T14:43:00.004-05:00

That discussion I was hoping for? Here's a taste

Utility in the Jumble of Twittered Thoughts

Thank you New York Times.

Things I hope we can talk about now [Setting myself up for disappointment]

2009-04-12T21:13:00.005-05:00

It's far from Christmas and it's not my birthday but I'm going to ahead and make a wish anyway. Here are the thing about which I'm really excited to see intelligent analysis following the drama of #amazonfail

1. The massive gaps/fails (loooove NiemanLab's use of #mediafail in reference to this debacle) that came to light. Author Craig Seymour says that his book was de-ranked back in February, and media outlets weren't interested. Will they only be interested now because it's had a day of internet madspin? How much of it has to do with the Easter holiday? How much to do with less reporters reporting? How much to do with the subject at hand?

2. Amazon is consistently pointed to as one of the kings of predictive search, behavioral targeting and general keyword mastery. What does this massive fail say about that? Does it make us question who, if anyone (besides Google), really is a leader in this area? Is it scary that someone who supposedly uses it so well screwed it up so royally, making it clear that the knowledge gap in this arena is even wider than a casual glance makes clear? Are we all even on the same page about how important this type of technology is to the next phase of making $$ on the web?

3. Twitter as a news-breaking entity. I know. I don't really want to talk about it either. But here we are. Not talking about it is silly. There will likely be a lot of whining and complaining and disagreeing and "but how will the monetize-ing," but it would be nice to see discussion on how the power of Twitter (I can't believe I just typed that) can be harnessed and used by traditional outlets on a regular basis - if at all.

And what remains to be seen, is what Amazon will do. While a Publisher's Weekly report that a representative called is a "glitch" crashed their site, an LA Times blog reports that indeed, they're trying to play this off as a mistake.

Best of luck with that, Amazon.

(And ps, I found the link to the LA Times through following the trend topic "glitch" on Twitter.)

When Twitter breaks news [This hurts me more than it hurts you]

2009-04-12T13:38:00.006-05:00

Apparently, late last week, Amazon started stripping rankings from books it deemed "adult" in nature. Not surprisingly, there seems to be a lack of rhyme to their reason - or some would say, definite rhyme to their reason - suppress books that have gay themes; ie: Brokeback Mountain's ranking has been removed, Playboy's The Complete Centerforlds still has its ranking.

I found out about this just because I randomly decided to look at the top trending topics on Twitter. One was #amazonfail. I had to read a few tweets to see what that meant and I was able to quickly discover it had something to do with some new policy. So I went to Google to search "Amazon policy" and came up with nothing. Went to Google News search and found nothing. So back to Twitter (ugh), where after reading more tweets, I was lead to this blog entry, which seems to be where it all started, a mere 12 hours ago.

Then I went to Amazon and checked out some titles. Seems to be true.

So I went back to Google and searched "Amazon.com adult policy." Nothing. Searched Google News. Nothing. Also haven't seen anything show up within my usually-on-this-type-of-thing Facebook network.

Regardless of right or wrong, this will be a PR nightmare for Amazon, and will eventually make it to the mainstream. The question is, how long will it take? And I guess the more interesting point here is that Twitter beat everything else for timely delivery.

Oy.

Note: At the time of this posting, there are only 6 Google results when I search '"Amazon Follies" Mark Probst' (the name of the blog post and blog author of the incident that started it all). Twitter is showing up about 10 new results every 30 seconds.

UPDATE: More here - #Amazonfail and the politics of anti-corporate cyber-activism

And a Google-bomb attack attempt is already underway.

Still no Google News results. The top Google web results belong to aggregators, keyword hoarders and twitter-bots.

And then I put a band-aid on his severed neck [The press is falling]

2009-03-24T23:33:00.004-05:00

A friend posted a link on Facebook tonight to the Reuters article about the senate bill introduced today that would allow newspapers to restructure as nonprofits.

Pause.

Now, I clearly work for a nonprofit news source, so I believe in the concept.

But riddle me this: says the article "Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations."

Oh, really?

The Reuters report later lists the papers that have ceased or reduced publication -

Seattle P-I - owned by Hearst (28 TV stations)

Rocky Mountain News - E.W. Scripps (10 TV stations)

Baltimore Examiner - part of a media group of newspapers, but the owner also owns stakes in a number of professional sports teams, movie theatres, radio stations

SF Chronicle - see Hearst

He then mentions Gannett, Advance and Tribune.

Seriously?

Community newspapers, according to the National Newspaper Association's 4th quarter 2008 results, are outperforming the industry at large by 14%. Larger metros were down 20%, the industry 21% and community papers - 6.6% (Full NNA report >).

Forest, meet trees, trees, meet kettle, kettle, meet - oh, nevermind.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer goes online only [The press is falling]

2009-03-16T12:50:00.003-05:00

It was announced today that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will print its last edition tomorrow, March 17 and shift to online only publication. This leaves Seattle with one daily newspaper, The Seattle Times.

While many saw this coming, it will be interesting to see it actually play out - how will seattlepi.com change and grow and will it truly embrace the medium it now calls home? Will it innovate and problem solve, or continue to try the same old tricks?

Here's hoping that having the staff of this large and this prominent of a publication fully focused on an online model will uncover a thing or two. Or ten. And help illustrate the common sense that many are missing.

Because, really.

In Denver Times [Striking while the iron is hot]

2009-03-16T12:40:00.007-05:00

Former Rocky Mountain News staffers announce online venture called In Denver Times based partially on subscriptions.

Now, while I thoroughly believe that unless you have highly specialized content, subscription models don't work, I'm going to go ahead and say that I think they have a pretty good chance of reaching their goal (50,000 pledged subscribers by April 23rd). Why? Because their business model has little to do with the circumstances under which they're kicking it off: the perfect storm of passion, drama, incessant "death of newspapers" coverage (oh wait, is that the same as drama?) and a city that just lost an institution. It's very Mickey and Judy "let's put on a show" and that is never to be underestimated.

And the logo design is good.

Now, whether its sustainable or not will have to do with a whole different set of details - how good is the subscription-only content? How is the business structured internally? See all previous questions regarding seattlepi.com.

But I personally think we'll get to the place where these questions get the chance to be answered. This, in itself, is almost more a viral campaign than the launch of a new form of journalism. 'Twill be interesting to watch indeed...

Update: I like the logo, less so this video, but in general the right idea...

iTunes SchmiTunes [This thing isn't that thing]

2009-03-16T10:29:00.003-05:00

Why bother breaking down why you can't compare micro-payments for news to iTunes (duh) Clay Shirky has done it so well?

Aggregated realtime keyword search results = local news? [Getting there from here]

2009-03-08T20:36:00.012-05:00

In an interview, Twitter CEO, Even Williams said (translated by Google from German): "We are currently thinking about an extension that notifies the user what is happening in its immediate vicinity is happening. Depending on where I am staying, I could then learn about that a few streets away a fire is burning."

TechCruch writes an article titled Twitter To Start Serving Local News To Users?

*Sigh*

This morning, there was a fatal and shocking shooting incident at a church near my hometown. More specifically, the church is 2 small towns over, the victim is from my hometown and the perpetrator is from 3 small towns over. The shooting happened around 8:30am. I heard about it for the first time around 11:30am via Facebook. Once it was brought up, my mom mentioned that it had been announced in church - probably around 9:30. By the time I checked Twitter around 12:30pm, Maryville (the name of the town where the shooting happened) was the 3rd trending topic (popular keyword). The first appearance was around 9:30am.

All this to say that as much as I am still mostly annoyed by most things surrounding the existence of Twitter, at its core it has its uses - and if understood and harnessed correctly, maybe even the majority of the press wouldn't be able to miss them.

If Twitter had a tool that "notifies the user what is happening in its immediate vicinity," I would have known about the national news that happened a few miles from my hometown within an hour of it happening instead of 3 hours later. A good number of the early tweets in the Twitter search string link to CNN, the local CBS station (KMOV), etc. - actual news outlets. So I'd get to the local news via Twitter, and I guess I'd technically have received "news" of it from Twitter, but the actual reporting come from where I'd expect it to.

Am I arguing semantics? Some may say yes, but in this environment of the constant overblown discussion of whether or not bloggers will replace reporters, the TechCrunch headline is worth calling out, the semantics are worth being understood.

Within 3-5 hours after the shooting, the tweets started to get less helpful. Tweethounds were using the keyword with truncated urls that would appear to be to a news story but really led to their Twitter profile. Aggregators got in on the keyword by reporting its rank in hopes of newbies deciding their feed is "the place" to keep up with what's trending. Random people were using the keyword just so their account would show up in the search string. Basic Twitter uselessness.

But now, some 12+ hours later, interesting links are starting to show up in tweets - pastor responses, personal accounts, etc. Takes a little more mining to get to the interesting stuff, but it's there for the seeker.

And there you have the data rainbow of Twitter. Harness the first hour or so of that into an alert and that's a service I would find useful. Would I want it to serve as my "local news?" No. Would the alert be as useful without the links to local news stories? Maybe not? Would local news reports get more (free) play if there was an alert system like that? Likely.

See kids? Appropriate usage and teamwork. Fabulous concepts.

I overreacted [Mea Culpa]

2009-03-04T09:01:00.001-06:00

It was actually a pretty good article.

Stars micro-blog their lives on Twitter

That's sooooo nine days ago [Questionable allocation of resources]

2009-03-02T15:10:00.007-06:00

Over a week ago (Saturday, February 21st, to be exact) Michael Ian Black declared the first ever Twitter war on none other than LeVar Burton. Hilarity and odds on BetUS.com ensued. Many tweets later, it was all over by Wednesday, February 25th (truce was called, everyone won).

Today, I repeat TODAY Michael Ian Black tweets that he "just got off the phone with the AP who [is] doing a story on LeWar."

There are two possibilities here:

1. AP is doing (yet another) story about Twitter in general (because OMG there aren't enough of these ill-informed missives clogging up our news day already) and referring to LeWar as an illustration of something or other.

2. AP is doing an actual story on the actual LeWar a full NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER proving that it isn't that journalism is dead, but that, well, I don't even know what to say.

Perhaps some questions will help me verbalize:

- Given the immediate and viral nature of Twitter, is there a point to a traditional one-to-many story covering something that you kind of have to experience to get and a full NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER at that?

- Would not a shorter story, during the event be more relevant? Maybe even some sort of app that tracks progress, or a mock-serious blow by blow (in the same spirit as the BetUS post)?

- In the midst of, oh, I dunno, lots of real drama going on in the world, is LeWar truly worthy of an actual thought out story NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER?

I hope I'm wrong and jumping on my soapbox too quickly. I hope that the AP is working on a story about actual effective uses of Twitter, and using LeWar as an example.

I hope. Because, really.

Michael Ian Black on Twitter
LeVar Burton on Twitter

Spotted [Portable offices]

2009-02-27T14:07:00.002-06:00

Man in a 3-piece suit in the middle of the Maryland/Euclid pay lot conducting a conference call over an earbud.

And it's 38 degrees.

Can someone explain the drama? [Substitute paranoia for reality]

2009-02-27T12:35:00.007-06:00

I can barely bring myself to comment on this, but I'm going to try.

Newspaper publishers are all up in arms because Google is now serving ads on news search results.

Can't do it. The reality is too bright. I can't even find the words to state the obvious.

Ok. I'll try harder.

Google ads, as any blogger will tell you, make pennies. They only make many pennies if you have many stories. So, if any of the single news sources returned in any said Google News search were to make the amount of pennies owed it based on the fraction of the result for which it's responsible, it would not be many pennies. Not to mention that the search is only being done where it's being done because of the promise of many scattered results.

Each publisher is more than welcome to develop their own intelligent search ad serving software and site-crawler and do exactly what Google's doing.

What's that? Oh, right.

ExACTly.

Gawker's Owen Thomas apparently has the energy to intelligently break this down with a little less snark.

Hey forest, meet tree [Missing the point]

2009-02-27T11:38:00.005-06:00

In this TVNewsday article, Harry Jessell asserts that the "demise of the papers" leaves the door wide open for "TV stations . . . to become the dominant local Web sites."

*Sigh*

Well, let me take that back. In theory, I could agree with this. However, in practice, without completely re-defining what it is that a TV does, this is simply moving around the FAIL.

The advertising model is broken. This was a discussion in broadcast with the rise of the DVR, then we got distracted by the newspaper implosion. And let's not forget that one of the most popular websites in the world (Facebook), cannot make money off of advertising.

In the article Jessell brings up the recently announced ESPN website focused on Chicago sports, as "plunging into the local online marketplace," which is technically correct. But the real key here is that they are using online to deliver highly desired, in-depth content to a proven audience that happens to be localized. Because it's ESPN, this can be a 360 dive - web, print and broadcast - all leveraging each other to likely support a number of monetizeable products.

Local TV stations are not poised to replicate this unless they take a step back and approach things in a completely different way - which Jessell points out. He also points out that they can't do this alone. Partnering up with other entities will be key. But the really what this would take is a mind shift - a shift away from chasing advertising dollars and a shift back toward the basics. Because, really, content is king.

Spotted [It's cold outside]

2009-02-27T08:55:00.001-06:00

SLU student in flip flops with wet hair walking to class.

Because, really?

Which part of "not the WSJ" is confusing to you? [Grasping at straws]

2009-02-26T21:16:00.004-06:00

*Sigh*

Newsday thinks is can charge for its web content.

I truly don't understand how people make these decisions. Because, really.

Ken Doctor has the energy to verbalize why this is a bad idea here.

Is some communication too much to ask in these already frustrating times? [Piling it on]

2009-02-26T16:21:00.001-06:00

My husband, within a week of being laid off, interviewed for a mid-high level job in his field. The organization had been looking to fill this position for a while, and because the local paper is bleeding jobs, had interviewed quite a few likely capable candidates. So by no means was my husband a shoe-in - especially since the job specialized on a subject my husband isn't familiar with. After the interview, they said they'd let him know either way.

After a few weeks without hearing anything, he followed up with an email. No response. That was two weeks ago.

Today, on craiglist, a posting for said job.

I know folks get busy and take forever to make hires, but if you say "let you know either way" and you're hiring for a semi-senior position in an industry where everyone knows everyone and the walls are crashing in, let a brother know.

Craigslist?

Because, really.

Live and in virtual person [The press is falling]

2009-02-26T15:50:00.001-06:00

Though everyone's on edge and continuously waiting for the other shoe to drop, it's still horrifying when it happens, especially when we all remember, as humans, that all this drama comes home to roost at the doors of actual people, with families. And even more so when technology allows us to get a front row seat. It was announced today at noon that Denver Rocky Mountain News would publish its last edition tomorrow. How's that for short notice?

Denver Rock Mountain News liveblog of the actual announcement >
Denver Rocky Mountain News newsroom Twitter account >

Because, really.

Give me my notes back [The Book that is Face]

2009-02-26T12:00:00.003-06:00

My response to a Tangelos posting about the abundance of note-memes on Facebook as of late:

---

I admit, I got sucked into the 25 things note. At first I was annoyed, but then I started reading them and they were actually really entertaining and sometimes touching and insightful. I was entertained enough to feel guilty not giving back, so I even wrote my own. People who would NEVER participate in things like that were participating. In my circle, the titles gradually changed to “If [insert name of person who wouldn't be caught dead participating in a chain email] is doing this, I guess I have no excuse… 25 things about me.” Some of the material was so good I made a “top 25 25 things” post where I mixed up a list of all of my favorites from different friends. It was a “chain letter” by nature, but the content and inspired interaction felt like the rest of the Facebook experience.

But now it’s out of hand.

I’ve always taken great pains to explain to the Facebook-resistant that Facebook isn’t like MySpace. That if you choose to only add friends you actually know and avoid 3rd-party applications, the majority of interaction is actual interaction and not just clutter. But this whole note thing is threatening that, as notes are a native app and removing it means you miss out on actual notes. I wish they’d develop a “note game” app so this phenomenon can stop cluttering the note-sphere. And now the album game is encroaching on the photo-sphere.

I want my native apps to work like expect them to - when someone writes a new note I want to get excited about reading something substantive, random or at least original. When someone tags me in a photo I want it to be an actual photo of me, or of something specifically representative of me. Now I’m starting to ignore notes, and I’m glad my favorite American Idol re-capper has taken to the blogsphere so I don’t have to worry about missing his weekly wildly funny and original recap note in a sea of “My First Born” or “One Word” notes.

The thing I loved most about Facebook was the ability to control my experience. Until now, the expected user behavior has pretty much matched and remained consistent within each app. When there were variations they were at least in the same spirit. But this notes thing… it’s like the masses have found a way to work SuperPoke into a standard wall posting. Annoying.

On KDHX [The press is falling]

2009-02-18T21:11:00.000-06:00

Margaret and I on KDHX >.

The link goes directly to the stream.