Disqus - Friends of oneman

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:39:52 -0000

No worries, Daniel -- I think your focus on data and measurement is a
valuable one, and you are quite right that there are arguments on both sides
that are not bolstered by any data whatsoever. But how does one measure
serendipity or the lack thereof? It seems to me that the whole concept is
so abstruse and indefinable that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:25:44 -0000

No data, Daniel -- just my perceptions :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:02:42 -0000

I think that's a great point, Mark. So many newspaper websites -- ours
included -- simply copy the format and structure that worked in print,
rather than taking advantage of this new medium and the way people consume
and understand content online. Hopefully we are all learning quickly :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:50:47 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve. Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that
there is a much broader range of serendipitous content that we get exposed
to on the Web and through social media. I rely on that and enjoy it
immensely. But I still think (maybe just nostalgiically) that there is
value in the particular blend of curation and aggregation that newspapers
provide -- not all of it, but certainly some of it.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:37:52 -0000

Thanks, Raul -- I just finished reading Todd's piece, which is excellent,
and posted a link to it on Twitter. I think he is dead on target with his
overview of the five "werewolves" and what they are doing to the industry.
I particularly liked his observation about how newspapers appealed to an
"accidental public," some of whom were interested in informing themselves
about issues and some of whom just wanted to be entertained or amused. That
is one of the central dilemmas of any form of publishing, in paper or online
-- how much should you appeal to the former and how much to the latter?

Re: Be an agent of change in the newsroom

mathewi — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:58:19 -0000

Thanks, Parker -- looking forward to that presentation.

Re: Go Home Lake

mathewi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:52:58 -0000

What a coincidence -- your dad's book is sitting on the table in the living room of my friend's cottage :-)

Re: meshmarketing is live

mathewi — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:22:49 -0000

Thanks, Mitch -- I'm looking forward to it too. :-)

Re: Newsday.com: Court: State law won’t protect terror author from libel judgment

martinstabe — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:25:07 -0000

Michael,

There is indeed an update on this: This case turned out to be important because it started the ball rolling on a New York State law protecting New York-based writers against "libel tourism".

Since then, the issue of US writers being sued for libel abroad, particularly in British courts, has led to the passage of an anti-libel tourism bill in the US House of Representatives. As a result, questions about this issue were also raised in the British Parliament's discussions about libel law reform.

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:16 -0000

Thanks, Gina :-)

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:07:03 -0000

Yes, I think that's a fair point Ryan. But the same could be said of any site -- or any publication for that matter -- that specializes in commentary, analysis, satire etc.

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:55:17 -0000

Yes, I agree that "via" links are not sufficient -- and I agree Gawker could have done better on the attribution front.

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:37:34 -0000

Thanks, Rohan -- I got the cat to do the last part because my thumbs were tired :-)

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:37 -0000

Thanks.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:22 -0000

Thanks, Jon.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:07:19 -0000

Thanks, Mara. I'll take a look.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:00:12 -0000

Thanks, Darren.

Re: WSJ rules on Twitter: too restrictive

mathewi — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:02:05 -0000

I can see your point, Dave, but I disagree. Yes, media outlets risk creating personal brands by allowing their writers to promote themselves in this way -- and some of those brands might decide to go out on their own. But that happens all the time, just as musicians who feel they have outgrown a label often move on to a different one, or go direct.

The reality is that people tend to identify with and relate to individuals, not to corporate brands -- or rather, the value they see in corporate brands is an amalgam of their respect for or admiration of or attraction to personalities within that corporate entity.

Re: Alan Rusbridger on the future of news

mathewi — Fri, 01 May 2009 08:23:53 -0000

I totally agree, Adam.

Re: Cluetrain: Human speech, human concerns

mathewi — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:16:03 -0000

I think I know what you're driving at, Justin, but I disagree. A newspaper needs advertisers, yes, but it needs readers more -- without them, advertisers would be useless. The readers are actually the advertisers customers as well, they're just piggybacking on newspapers in order to reach them.

Re: Cluetrain: Human speech, human concerns

mathewi — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:20:43 -0000

Thanks, Scott -- I couldn't agree more

Re: Anonymity in reader comments has value

mathewi — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:16:05 -0000

That's fascinating, David -- I'd be very interested to read their comments, anonymous or otherwise :-)

Re: Is Craigslist the victim of a witch-hunt?

mathewi — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:41:23 -0000

Just curious, Jeff -- do you know for a fact that Craigslist isn't doing some or all of those things already?

Re: Is Craigslist the victim of a witch-hunt?

mathewi — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:45:26 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Jeff, but do you really think Wal-Mart and Exxon are somehow comparable to Craigslist? It's a service that connects buyers with sellers, like the Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in a newspaper. They also have a duty to prove that they are abiding by the law, and not allowing advertising for illegal services, just as Craigslist does -- which as far as I can tell it is trying to do. Whether it is trying hard enough is open to debate. You can theorize all you like about Craig or Jim's personal preferences, but they are doing what they can to abide by the law, and there is no compelling evidence to the contrary. Criticizing them for not being outraged enough seems a little disingenuous.

Re: Is Craigslist the victim of a witch-hunt?

mathewi — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:53:58 -0000

I don;t see what good closing down the section will, frankly. I assume those kinds of ads will just pop up somewhere else.