Please enter your username below and press the send button.A password reset link will be sent to you.
If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on June 29, 2010
"The first decade of the 21st century, the so-called ‘naughties’, has brought profound changes to the technological foundations of the media landscape. The key buzzwords are networks, the Internet and social media. In the second decade, people will not search for new technologies allowing for even easier, faster and low-priced content production. Rather, appropriate reactions to this media revolution are to be developed and integrated politically, culturally and socially. The concept “Slow”, as in “Slow Food” and not as in “Slow Down”, is a key for this. Like “Slow Food”, Slow Media are not about fast consumption but about choosing the ingredients mindfully and preparing them in a concentrated manner. Slow Media are welcoming and hospitable. They like to share."
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on February 03, 2010
“In the classic example, a refugee from Nazi Germany who appears on television saying monstrous things are happening in his homeland must be followed by a Nazi spokesman saying Adolf Hitler is the greatest boon to humanity since pasteurized milk,” the former New York Times columnist Russell Baker wrote. “Real objectivity would require not only hard work by news people to determine which report was accurate, but also a willingness to put up with the abuse certain to follow publication of an objectively formed judgment. To escape the hard work or the abuse, if one man says Hitler is an ogre, we instantly give you another to say Hitler is a prince. A man says the rockets won’t work? We give you another who says they will. The public may not learn much about these fairly sensitive matters, but neither does it get another excuse to denounce the media for unfairness and lack of objectivity. In brief, society is teeming with people who become furious if told what the score is.”
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on January 04, 2010
"Looking back over the noughties, then, you'd have to say that indie produced a good proportion of the decade's least impressive music. Yet indie also produced some of the most. Even on its traditional terrain – the songful guitar band with "interesting" lyrics, "attitude" and a decent shot at an NME front cover – there was a series of indie heavyweights, starting with the Strokes and the Libertines, who jolted the scene out of the dismal post-Britpop slough of the late 90s. And once you strayed beyond that narrow strip of indie-as-commonly-understood, there was a steadily accumulating ferment of activity that shredded the indie stereotype to the point where, by the decade's end, the word was virtually meaningless."
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on December 28, 2009
"Journalists remain artisans in an era of industrialisation. Inside newsrooms, the old craft methods remain dominant. Outside, across the vast expanse of the web, algorithms are automating the information industry.
None of this would matter if newsrooms were hermetically-sealed enclaves. But they’re not. Increasingly, journalists find themselves on the business end of a high-velocity feedback loop created by digital distribution and reader interaction.
But if traditional journalism looks increasingly slow, it also looks increasingly costly relative to digital revenues. As publishers now tell us frequently, news-gathering remains expensive."
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on November 02, 2009
"I am less protective of legacy news organisations because they have had a chance to remake themselves as smaller, nimbler, collaborative enterprises for the internet and have largely failed. The future of news – and there is a future – is being built by entrepreneurs who in change see opportunity, not crisis.
In short: I say the fate of journalism is not in the hands of institutions. The fate of journalism is in the hands of entrepreneurs."
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on October 22, 2009
"There are only three business models: I pay, you pay or someone else pays. That’s it. I pay means that I (the publisher of the content) am willing to fund the creation, production and distribution of the content for my own purposes. You pay means that you are willing to pay me for my content. Someone else pays means that a third party is willing to pay me so that you can consume my content. Some of my KPMG friends have pointed out that, from the content producer/publisher’s point of view, there are really only two models: I pay or I get paid. I like to include the idea of third-party involvement, because it is so common to the media business.
In practice, we see three adaptations of the three models: Ad supported (broadcast), Subscription/Pay Per View (premium content) and the dual revenue combination of ad support and subscription (cable/print, etc.)"
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on October 11, 2009
"3. Transparency would be a core element of our journalism. One example of many: every print article would have an accompanying box called "Things We Don't Know," a list of questions our journalists couldn't answer in their reporting. TV and radio stories would mention the key unknowns. Whatever the medium, the organisation's website would include an invitation to the audience to help fill in the holes, which exist in every story.
4. We would create a service to notify online readers, should they choose to sign up for it, of errors we've learned about in our journalism. Users of this service could choose to be notified of major errors only (in our judgment) or all errors, however insignificant we may believe them to be." Interesting stuff here.
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on September 20, 2009
"Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won't pay for content anymore. At least, that's how they see it.
In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more?"
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on August 03, 2009
"Pervasive as they are, mechanical/objective errors are the easiest to control of the six environments or types of news errors and often the most obvious to readers. Each of these tips was developed from situations in the newsroom and the analysis of errors. They come from personal observation and from experiences told by other journalists. As you will see, these tips also relate directly to the published corrections found in every newspaper, big or small."
This link recently saved by armchair_anarchist on July 08, 2009
"So is this really the best time to start charging for online news? No. The best time was back in 1994, when the Web made online publishing to the masses a snap. And now that newspapers are finally making the move, they're applying a 1994 solution to the 2009 Web. Today, online publishers are seeing more and more traffic coming through blogs, aggregators like Google News, and social sites like Facebook and Twitter. Ignoring them is even more perilous to a paper's image than it was two years ago, when the New York Times tore down its Times Select pay walls. The hypertext link that made the Web unique is even more powerful today, and pay walls that break those links send would-be readers a clear message: Don't bother."