It’s mildly good news, but it’s probably just another sign that the economy is beginning to get up and out of the swamp. After all, the job market is improved. Treasuries are rising. And the yen weakened against the euro and U.S. dollar.

So is there reason to believe there’s any sort of correlation between the faltering news industry and the recession? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is, that could mean a slow, steady improvement to sustain the industry while new ideas are conceived to ensure it stays that way.

I like that the current president gets out of the bubble, that he enjoys a burger, and is willing to walk back into the White House with a greasy go-bag for the staff. I’m not sure being able to watch it all unfold is good for his presidency.

– David Carr, The New York Times
David Carr’s article in The Times today, Reality TV’s Glare Hits High Office, used the ongoing White House “party crashers” controversy as greater context for the administration establishing a strong media openness and embracing.

But I wonder if subtext of this quote means that the media shouldn’t continue to actively cover him. Or is it that active coverage should be selective, and look into the president’s work rather than leverage coverage towards his celebrity status? Maybe that’s it. And if it is it seems an interesting caution since it’s essentially the way Obama built up his image, or at least, how it seemed to be embraced.

Has he been to nytimes.com lately? I read it in Google Chrome without an account, for free, everyday. I’d say that’s pretty high-quality journalism.

I’d say that’s not really the issue. News organizations don’t need to convince consumers of anything. Their job is to offer an alluring product that fits the consumer’s need. What organizations really need to do is convince advertisers that the digital medium is just as viable and lucrative as print is.

After all, subscription and newsstand rates have always been low, per industry standard, because news organizations thrive off the ad sales. But if you don’t have to worry about presses and shipment and all those pesky overhead costs that go into actually printing a paper, then I would guess you don’t really need to charge news consumers to make up that end, no? You just make sure the ads continue to pour in. You continue to tailor your various website sections to advertisers where it would make sense, just as you would in print. That’s the convincing that really needs to take place, because ads that move and flash and, in some instances, force you to watch or skip over, are definitely as noticeable as staid printed images…at least, in this amateur blogger’s opinion.



See?

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.