uh-oh, it’s already irrelevant

The launch of TurkeyTwitter, a fun little Thanksgiving-themed aggregator of, well, Thanksgiving-related tweets, begs the question: What now?

If you check out the website, you’ll see that people are still tweeting categorically in order to provide some content. But won’t it die down in the next few days?

So was this a fun little start-up for shits and giggles, or perhaps the beginning of a major marketing proposal? Will the heads behind the site (a couple of IT guys and a web specialist, all from various parts of the Midwest) plan some more holiday-themed aggregators? Who knows. What one does know is that Twitter can seemingly provide endless business opportunities for those who aren’t even affiliated with it, as well as data collection stretching beyond the mind’s eye.

bbc vows not to charge for news

With the BBC announcing they do not plan on charging for online news content, one wonders, will others follow their lead? Or, well, rather follow their stance of inactivity?

It’s probable. The organization is one of the most respectful of news outlets int he world. Sure, it’s got its fair share of criticism, as any news organization does, but its international popularity is undeniable. Therefore, the possibility that other news organizations may follow suit and continue providing their online content for free and ad-based seems pretty substantial.

OK, maybe none of the news organizations owned by NewsCorp, at least…

“no comment on the tweets”

A pretty interesting story regarding ESPN columnist Bill Simmons and his Twitter suspension from the company.

Simmons had tweeted a few posts in response to Boston station WEEI, which had apparently been critical of him on one of their sports shows. Why is this an issue? Because last month, ESPN brought them on as an affiliate. Whoopsie!

Here’s a good one:

Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you.

Another classic case of free speech ideals being quashed by corporate interests. A pity, but prior to it, at least some comedy is to be had.

maybe i’m missing something…

Is this cover sexist?

I don’t know. I don’t really have an opinion on it one way or the other. That’s not really what this blog entry it’s about.

It’s in regards to knowing what you’re getting into. Palin, actually, referred to this cover as “sexist” and “degrading.” Huh??? Didn’t you pose for the picture? If you had any objections to how you were being portrayed, couldn’t you have objected and shot down the scenario?

You’re a pretty goddamn powerful woman, Sarah. You’re considered one of the leading figures of the modern conservative movement. I think your agent must be a pretty convincing person, and could probably settle any arrangement your heart or conscience desires.

As I understand it, the picture was actually taken for Runner’s World magazine, but that doesn’t really excuse anything, in my opinion. That’s not terribly far out of context. This wasn’t even her in a private moment or something. It was a photo shoot. You’ve got to expect those will be used in a wide array of situations.

assignment: where do i see myself?

I see myself hopefully fitting well into “the new media ecosystem.” I’ve been helping produce content for a digital platform on a volunteer basis for the last five years and I assume that when I finally attain the proper credentials and education, I’ll be an attractive contributor for sites that actually want to pay me. Can I make a living off it? Well, that’s tough to say, but it is my intention.

I understand that even music consumers are slowly turning away from the print format, but even with declining attention spans, many still crave strong, in-depth feature writing, and that’s something that’s always been a viable mode in music journalism. I’m sure it can still be explored on a digital level.

Ideally, if I were to graduate in December, I would like an editorial position helping develop and produce exclusive online content for a magazine or publication of some sort. I do have plenty of interview and feature-writing experience and that is likely a huge plus, as well as a little bit of video editing experience. These are all pretty crucial to such a position, in my belief.

columbia journalism review looks at government-newspaper help

The Columbia Journalism Review had a little column this month about the creative ideas government can infuse to help out journalism.

It’s just funny that CJR announces journalism as a sort of public service, alongside other public systems like transportation and education. I mean, as a journalist and someone who keeps up with current events, I agree.

But with the Bush administration still lingering in mind and now Obama’s administration staking out this vicious feud with FOX News, it’s funny to look at a thesis that says government should help journalism monitor government activity. I mean, again, yeah, it’s true, but the ironing is delicious.

Bush got kinda ridiculous saying newspapers were “hurting America” or whatever when they were reporting on the wiretaps and such; Obama’s not doing much better putting a blackout on a news organization. At least neither are developing an all-encompassing Nixon-esque feud. Now there’s an administration where an economic bailout of sorts would just be laughable.

questions for brian farnham

-What inspired this idea?
-Is covering as many geographically diverse communities as possible getting to be any more overwhelming as you find editors for each?
-What sort of qualifications or criteria are you looking for in an editor?
-It seemed like not much advertising was up, unless I wasn’t looking well enough, but you have pretty concrete rates anyway. Do those vary from community to community, and when do you plan on launching ads full-on?

gawker’s look at the Times’ reporting of spitzer scandal

Gawker posted a very interesting look the email exchanges that went on last year between PR officials for former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and New York Times reporters when the prostitution scandal broke. New York’s open records law apparently allowed Gawker to obtain all the emails, which sort of boggles my mind, but is besides the point.

It’s a pretty pointed look at the communication that went on and Gawker essentially accuses the Times of giving Spitzer great deference. While they’re right in some situations (Times reporter Danny Hakim seemingly changed a loaded word in his copy to something more neutral at the request of Spitzer PR Christine Anderson), they seem a little cynical otherwise (showing copy to a source tends to be about factual correctness, not suggestive editing).

questions I would ask michael rosenblum

1. What do you believe mixing the proverbial “churches” and “states” would entail, exactly?
2. Do you believe the news organizations who choose to partake in these mixes should be transparent about it?
3. Are you at all concerned that doing so may result in a greater distrust of the mainstream media by the general news-consuming public? Wouldn’t that hurt the long-term financial goals of a news organization when they begin to lose readers who see said news organization as nothing more than a paid advertisement?