Some more about newspapers
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Apr 09, 2009 4:51 PM EDT |
As this seems to be a topic of continuing interest here (it's not political even though it is from Daily Kos): http://kos.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/9/718088/-In-the-wa... Especially relevant for LXer because of the discussion about aggregators. There is also this interesting link about the AP turning into the MAFIAA: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/08/ap-exec-doesnt-know-it-... |
| ColonelPanik Apr 09, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
The best one yet. News papers. "You Blew It" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/to-newspaper-mogul... |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 09, 2009 5:30 PM EDT |
I really, really hope that Google starts doing what Kos suggest. I've been suggesting it myself ever since the copiepresse case: Take their websites off Google entirely. But noo. The newspapers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the traffic from Google and they want to get paid for it. That's like walking into the bakery and expecting them to pay you for taking their donuts. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 09, 2009 5:31 PM EDT |
http://mises.org/story/3294 Should the Government Bail Out Newspapers? "What started last year as something of a joke from the "tongue & check" department at Business Week, and a supposedly outlandish column by Michelle Malkin, has now become a reality: the state of Connecticut is seriously considering a rescue package for The Bristol Press. Can the nation's premier junk-bond newspaper, The New York Times, or The Chicago Tribune—already in bankruptcy court—be far behind?" |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 09, 2009 9:11 PM EDT |
I asked Bob about this and to quote him, "The LXer practice of short quotes and direct links to the original source is a good practice." I am here to say to all that can hear, LXer has nothing to worry about from the AP. We do not steal content, we either create our own, or directly link to it. If your looking for a good place to keep up on this, here is a site run by Paul Gillin, a new acquaintance of mine. http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/ |
| ColonelPanik Apr 09, 2009 11:00 PM EDT |
Scott: Great find there, thank you. I hope everybody hits that link! I find myself thinking about Sanders idea of a personal news paper. The ten or so links I hit several times a day are giving me the news about what I am interested in. And the BBC feed is for important hot items. There are other places that have some news on the front page, if something catches my eye... my news. Change. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 10, 2009 2:49 AM EDT |
I just love this "ad" linked by newspaperdeathwatch: http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2009/04/newspaper-associati... That just really shows how out-of-touch newspapers can be. First off it implies that newspapers are for old technophobes, as the article already states. But it also shows that the newspaper that created the ad doesn't understand news. So what if city hall only publishes notices on their websites? That doesn't mean you can't print them in your newspaper anymore! Notices are facts and you can't copyright facts so they're free to take them and reprint them in their newspaper. Not only that, but city hall is government and everything the government writes (well, in the US) is by definition in the public domain. It looks to me like that newspaper is thinking of news as "property", just like IP advocates do. |
| bigg Apr 10, 2009 7:36 AM EDT |
> That just really shows how out-of-touch newspapers can be. It shows me that they are sleazy, disgusting rodents. Why don't they report news that their paying customers rely on them for? That poor old lady, she might be missing all kinds of stories because the dishonest editor is not reporting news unless someone pays him to do so. That's an incredible lack of integrity. "We report all the news that we've been paid to report." |
| tuxtom Apr 10, 2009 8:37 AM EDT |
Bird Cage Liners...which also work well for for training puppies and cleaning glass. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 10, 2009 9:18 AM EDT |
The local paper is referred to as the "Greensboro News and Fish Wrap", instead of "News & Record". |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 9:32 AM EDT |
TT -- Not bad when you're mixing paint, either. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2009 12:15 PM EDT |
> I asked Bob about this and to quote him... What? Is someone actually listening to something I said? |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 12:45 PM EDT |
Paint stirrer, birdcage liner, also usable for deadly weapons, as MythBusters demonstrated. |
| tuxtom Apr 13, 2009 3:22 AM EDT |
Oh, I forgot...Firestarter. |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2009 3:32 AM EDT |
A joke from the days of Soviet Communism: A representative from Pravda went from town to town, asking how the newspaper could be improved. At one stop, a local cut-up commented, "Use lighter ink." The representative asked, "Why should we do that?" The cut-up answered, "Because our [behinds] are all black!" (Smith, Hedrick, The Russians, 1984.) |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 13, 2009 10:55 AM EDT |
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/13/nonprofit_journ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/technology/start-ups/13hyp... |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 13, 2009 1:59 PM EDT |
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007026 |
| ColonelPanik Apr 13, 2009 2:23 PM EDT |
Last Friday the Colonel and Ms. Panik spent the day with some
authors, publishers, agents, fans, and misc. others at the:
http://www.enmu.edu/academics/williamson/lectureship.shtml The "Book Publishing" industry is having some of the same problems that the other Dead Tree Media are dealing with. But the question we have to ask is: Who is the most worried?" The writers are concerned, hey, its their lives and livelihood! The writers are concerned, but you should see the terror in the eyes of the publishers and agents. The books will get written and somehow those "books" will get to the readers! It might mean that all hands will have to adopt. But the middle men/women in the publishing field are toast. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 4:04 PM EDT |
CP, on that note, L. Neil Smith is putting his book _CERES_ online as a serial, http://www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?page_id=53 ...at least I think it's on the same note... |
| ColonelPanik Apr 13, 2009 6:09 PM EDT |
B_R Thank you! Fine link. And just a little more: http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/what-percent-of.html |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
CP -- Writers are justifiably worried because of the "what's yours is mine" mentality that pervades the internet. If that can be figured out, middle critters are in a world of hurt, because ownership of the publishing process gave them the upper hand (by far). As it stands today, publishers remain writers' best chance of getting paid. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 10:20 AM EDT |
> As it stands today, publishers remain writers' best chance of getting paid. As much as I agree with that statement, it is a far and I consider illogical leap to go from "best chance {right now} of getting paid" to "art will not be created otherwise". I would be interested to know what you think of Baen selling books in electronic format. They seem to be making money that way. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 14, 2009 11:06 AM EDT |
See: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28843/ That thread is about the RIAA but it is the same thing. Now, both sides of this conversation are right and wrong. However it does not matter. What has been will not forever be! The will be some new way, form, method, system or whatever that will be fair to all. Or at least less unfair to all. Early days. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 11:24 AM EDT |
> Early days. Very well said. Buggy-whip makers watching banging, slow cars drive by wondering what the heck is going on. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 11:54 AM EDT |
Bob - I never said art will not be created. Quantity, quality, and accessibility, however are issues. In the old days, artists created work for wealthy patrons. Ordinary folks might get to see rich people's art or not. Lots of great crafts and folk art available, for sure, but no Michaelangelos. The absence of paydays means that some art -- the stuff that isn't physically trapped in stone, oil, etc -- is relegated to hobby status for those who can afford it or those who don't care about having a decent life. Wealthy patrons might still commission it, and corporations -- if you like to think of advertising as art. Lots of amateur crap by people who can't invest the time and effort to fully develop the skills. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 12:19 PM EDT |
> Quantity, quality, and accessibility, however are issues. None of which are answered by turning "artists" into politically expedient welfare queens. Wealthy patrons have always commissioned art. Architecture is still driven that way, or don't you consider architecture "art"? Notice to all architects: you're SOL. No government payments to you, you're not "artists" this week. Make sure to get your campain contributions in with the politicians next election cycle for your share of the hand-outs! And maybe you didn't notice, Michaelangelo did his work as commissions to wealthy patrons. So there goes the one specific example you made out the window. Also, far far more people have enjoyed Michaelangelo's work through copies than by seeing it directly, and the easier it's been to copy the more people have seen and celebrated his genius. Too bad we can't ask him which he would prefer. Personally, I believe he would be happy to have brought beauty to the lives of more than just those who could make the trek to Italy and paid the price of admission to the copyrighted show. > Lots of amateur crap by people who can't invest the time and effort to fully develop the skills. Lots if what people call "art" is also crap, literally in at least one case. I wouldn't have paid a plug nickel for a Picasso, they're ugly. I don't care if they sell for $Millions, I still wouldn't put one on the wall. By calling something "art" but not something else, and then having government protect what you like but not what you don't like, all you're doing is enshrining your personal preferences into law at the expense of everyone else. |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 12:35 PM EDT |
This reminds me of a quote from Spider Robinson I read once when talking about his stint as a book reviewer "A critic will tell if something is art, a reviewer will tell if you its any good." This is one of those things I'm 100% with Bob on. Art should not be government sponsored ... ever. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness, and pursuit denotes that they also have the right to fail miserably at it. Just because its what someone thinks that they want to make a living at it doesn't mean that they should make a living at it on taxpayers expense. Maybe if I could convince someone that sitting in my recliner doing internet commentary was art worthy subsidization I would change my tune, otherwise I'm stuck with making a living with a real job in the real world, and leaving all my creative outlets as hobbies. There are some truly talented artists out there (including literary works as art) who make a fine living at it, for the rest "Do you want fries with that" is probably a phrase they should get really used to. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
> This is one of those things I'm 100% with Bob on. Art should not be government sponsored ... ever. While I agree, I think I could argue one case where the government could legitimately sponsor art, and that is in the purchase of original works to decorate government buildings and lands. > ...for the rest "Do you want fries with that" is probably a phrase they should get really used to. It used to be a common opinion that an artist should "suffer for their art". I.e, that success should be a long and difficult road. |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
Sorry jd, I cant agree with that. If the employee's of the building in question feel that there should be something to liven up their area, then that is the responsibility of the individual. The taxpayer should not have to hold the burden of paying for piece of artwork that they will hopefully never have to see. Having seen many examples of the 'artwork' that is liable to park itself in and around government buildings, I cant honestly even call it art. A rubbish pile to confuse Escher seems a much better description. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 14, 2009 1:49 PM EDT |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958564490012439.html |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 2:11 PM EDT |
Where did taxpayer supported art come in to the conversation? Mercy!! The strange turns things take. Quoting: By calling something "art" but not something else, and then having government protect what you like but not what you don't like, all you're doing is enshrining your personal preferences into law at the expense of everyone else. I don't think anybody would argue with that. OTOH, some of us might want a bit of what you're smoking. |
| tuxchick Apr 14, 2009 2:15 PM EDT |
Quoting: some of us might want a bit of what you're smoking. I'm with dino. I need some altered consciousness. Just for a little while, like a mini-vacation. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 2:16 PM EDT |
Interesting Scott. From that article:Quoting:Though there is little uncertainty about the short-term outlook, analysts and industry executives will be watching for any signs of a recovery in advertising. Declines in print ad revenue accelerated through the end of last year, and if early returns this year offer no clearer view of a bottom, publishers could start taking more aggressive action, including closing papers or shifting operations online. I don't see any reason why the rate of decline should have lowered in the last few months as opposed to the months before that. I'll be keeping an eye out for that earnings report. |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 2:18 PM EDT |
dino, probably came in from me misreading or extrapolating from Bobs comments on wealthy private patrons. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2009 2:18 PM EDT |
> A rubbish pile to confuse Escher seems a much better description. While I agree with your assessment of such "art", I still think that the argument could be made. I didn't say I thought it was a winning argument; I said I thought I could make one. There is a difference. :) It's always best to remember that there are occasions where reasonable people can disagree and there are internally consistent arguments on both sides. |
| gus3 Apr 14, 2009 2:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm with dino. I need some altered consciousness. Just for a little while, like a mini-vacation.http://www.cuteoverload.com/ |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 2:28 PM EDT |
gus3 - The pain...The PAIN!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 2:30 PM EDT |
jd, agreed. And I think that I should start making the extra effort to stop with my commentary on O/T stuff. We (an unnamed yet obvious group) have been getting away with a whole lot of questionable commentary. So I will slap my own wrist and attempt some self control. Although I do wish there were a sub-forum or some such where this group could go and debate all the socio-political faldaral in excess to our hearts content. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 14, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
OMG...the..cuteness..is..too..much..to..bear.. /thud |
| tuxchick Apr 14, 2009 3:03 PM EDT |
Awww, how cute! At last, I have found my happy place! |
| ColonelPanik Apr 14, 2009 3:06 PM EDT |
So most of us do some damage to the TOS here on LXer, I am guilty. BUT, these threads that evolve or devolve into TOS compost seem to carry on longer and present some wide ranging insights. Many of us do enjoy them. Scott and Company: Maybe LXer needs some change? |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 14, 2009 3:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:Scott and Company: Maybe LXer needs some change? I didn't see any TOS violations in this thread..did I miss something? Besides, for as much as I enforce the TOS, there are many many times I do not, when I could. And as for LXer needing change, from what I can tell, we are always changing in one way or another. But it is not changing the important stuff that works, being consistent with the quality of our own material and standards, that is the challenge. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 3:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:At last, I have found my happy place! And? Can you fly now? Quoting:Scott and Company: Maybe LXer needs some change? You know, even if we were to have an off-topic forum, I'd still advocate a "no politics" rule. 9 out of 10 times political threads just lead to problems. Okay, there is the occasional thread where you, Dino and Bob Robertson manage to restrain yourself and such things get discussed without degenerating into a nasty flamewar, but visit any other large forum on the internet that allows politics and you will see that this is the exception rather than the norm. With a "no politics" rule we can occasionally turn a blind eye to a civil discussion. Without such a rule it would be harder to control that. After all, perhaps the "no politics" rule is the entire reason why you manage to keep the occasional discussion civil, friendly and well... occasional. How would that change when that rule would go away? I bet the three/four of you would be at it all day :-) By the way, the above is all just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect LXer policy, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just based on my personal experience as a moderator on several other large forums, some of which do allow for politics. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 4:14 PM EDT |
Sander - You reasonablists are all alike. Trying to make life difficult for decent, hard-working, cod-fearing Americans and Dutch folk. It's time we woke up the terrible threat you and your reasonable brethren and sistren pose to the Western and Eastern and Southern and Northern way of life. I give you fair warning now -- your days will be followed by nights and your nights will be followed by days. If that doesn't do the trick, just wait. The world will become a very cold place, say, in January. Or, at least, it will if you don't live in the Southern Hemisphere or too close to the equator. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 14, 2009 4:14 PM EDT |
I second everything Sander just said on the Forum subject. It is because you know the TOS will be enforced if it gets 'ugly' that makes our Forum participants police themselves knowing that if it gets out of line, the hammer will come down. And I do speak for LXer, yadda yadda..;-) |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2009 4:40 PM EDT |
> I bet the three/four of you would be at it all day :-) Nah, too much work to do. Eight hours of the day, maybe. :) |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 4:50 PM EDT |
Scott, thanks for saying you dont see any TOS violations. Perhaps it is because people do try to maintain a polite discourse, even if at times (no fingers, this really is a general comment) logic and reason seem to flee from one side or the other. There does come a point where each of us must look and say, whoa this is really not related to anything remotely Free or Open Source Software and I should probably shut up before it goes any further off the deep end. (to tie that comment to an allowed topic, yes, I do differentiate between Free and Open Source. It's one of the things I agree with RMS on.) |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:The world will become a very cold place, say, in January. Or, at least, it will if you don't live in the Southern Hemisphere or too close to the equator. You could easily loose that bet :-) It's really not uncommon to have beautiful warm and sunny weather in January and then 10cm of snow in the beginning of April. Dutch weather is fickle like that :-) |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:And I do speak for LXer, yadda yadda..;-) I just added that to my post because I didn't know what you, Bob and the other editors think about this :-) Personally I can see some value in adding an off-topic forum, just as long as we keep easily flammable material like politics and religion away by means of the ToS. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 14, 2009 6:20 PM EDT |
@Sander, I would say that you have a right to speak on LXer's behalf. You being here as long as you have, you have a pretty good idea what I and the others would think about something. If you had trepidations about our thoughts on it, you would say so. Like you did. ;-) I think that with a subject as big as FOSS with all of its complexities, difference of philosophies, opposing viewpoints and social implications, and that just about any conversation concerning it can quickly delve into issues that are far from anything resembling 'computing', that our forums are just the right size. What has gotten us here, and what will see us into the future is our focus on GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software News and our forums related to it. That focus is what has made us a destination for FOSS news and opinion on the Internet. People have enough reasons to want to flame each other just over their difference of opinion about FOSS related stuff that a off-topic forum would just be free reign for many to launch ICBM's at the world in general and in my eye only serve to tarnish LXer's reputation, which we are still cultivating and growing every day. With the everyday general news publication seeing its last days and soon the whole world to be going online to inform themselves of the news they really want, LXer has an opportunity to cement its place in the new news landscape as the place to get your GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software News and Opinion. Even after that cement has been mixed, poured and cured, we must continue to be diligent in our focus and uncompromising in our standards. Because what people think of us, is all we have. The jackhammer of negative perception and/or lack of professionalism can easily break up that well laid cement, and I refuse to let that happen. ;-) P.S. - I just read this aloud and the hair on the back of my neck stood up, is that bad? :-) |
| gus3 Apr 14, 2009 10:21 PM EDT |
Scott, you could take the first two sentences of the third para, and the first sentence of the fourth para, and turn it into LXer's "mission statement":Quoting:What has gotten us here, and what will see us into the future is our focus on GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software News and our forums related to it. That focus is what has made us a destination for FOSS news and opinion on the Internet.What do you think? |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 15, 2009 4:16 AM EDT |
I like it, I like it a whole lot. It may need a tweak or two but what does everyone else think? |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 15, 2009 4:30 AM EDT |
Not bad at all. It's a bit wordy, more like a mission description than a mission statement, but I think it works quite well. |
| bigg Apr 15, 2009 5:06 AM EDT |
I agree with Sander that it works well as a mission description. |
| gus3 Apr 15, 2009 8:44 AM EDT |
Yeah, it works a lot better than "monetizing opportunities to leverage" clap-trap. |
| bigg Apr 15, 2009 8:52 AM EDT |
We can wait until the LXer IPO for Scott to work on a mission statement. |
| dinotrac Apr 15, 2009 9:24 AM EDT |
I prefer: "To be stupid only when it's entertaining." |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 11:28 AM EDT |
Wait, what? dino I thought your job was to point out the stupidity in others and thus make them more entertaining. I'm so confused now ... |
| dinotrac Apr 15, 2009 11:58 AM EDT |
azer - It's ok. I was referring to everyone else. In all humility, of course. |
You cannot post until you login.