Comments on: Last opinions on opinions http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/ by Jeff Jarvis Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:29:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Updating Bill Keller http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-369032 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Updating Bill Keller Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:46:22 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-369032 [...] me saying that? It’s fiction. I don’t say that. I don’t believe that. Jay Rosen shot that fish in the barrel a year and a half ago when he responded to hearing it again from [...] [...] me saying that? It’s fiction. I don’t say that. I don’t believe that. Jay Rosen shot that fish in the barrel a year and a half ago when he responded to hearing it again from [...]

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » An Oxford debate http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-68097 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » An Oxford debate Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:25:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-68097 [...] Next, Rusbridger takes Dean Esmay to task for taking rusbridger to task for saying in an earlier speech that he hears no bloggers volunteering to go to Iraq. rusbridger said he saw no names. Esmay listed three: Michael Totten, Michael Yon, Steven Vincent. I’ll add Christopher Allbriton. This back-and-forth on the facts would be best served with reciprocal links; that is part of the infrastructure of interactive news that needs work. rusbridger acknowledges the work of Iraqi bloggers but then raises the old saw: Blogs are not a “substitute for the mainstream media if you want a rounded view of Iraq, including the daily atrocities, the geo-politics, the local politics, the military and intelligence aspects of the conflict and the human rights implications.” No one — or next to no one — says they are a substitute. They are complementary (as we discussed at the hyperlinked-society conference last week and at the earlier Museum of Television & Radio Media Center confab — see Jay Rosen in the last paragraph here). It is time to get past the us-v-them red herring and to start working hard to see just how complementary these camps can be. rusbridger concludes: In a rapidly converged world newspapers will probably have to ask themselves whether they remain a purely text medium. And, as if this weren’t enough, they are going to have to face the fact that younger readers, especially, are questioning previously accepted notions of journalistic authority, that audiences are fragmenting and that many people are increasingly finding non-conventional news sources a valuable addition, if not a ready substitute, for mainstream media. Newspapers have to decide how much they embrace these new forms of discourse and dissemination or whether they stand apart from them. [...] [...] Next, Rusbridger takes Dean Esmay to task for taking rusbridger to task for saying in an earlier speech that he hears no bloggers volunteering to go to Iraq. rusbridger said he saw no names. Esmay listed three: Michael Totten, Michael Yon, Steven Vincent. I’ll add Christopher Allbriton. This back-and-forth on the facts would be best served with reciprocal links; that is part of the infrastructure of interactive news that needs work. rusbridger acknowledges the work of Iraqi bloggers but then raises the old saw: Blogs are not a “substitute for the mainstream media if you want a rounded view of Iraq, including the daily atrocities, the geo-politics, the local politics, the military and intelligence aspects of the conflict and the human rights implications.” No one — or next to no one — says they are a substitute. They are complementary (as we discussed at the hyperlinked-society conference last week and at the earlier Museum of Television & Radio Media Center confab — see Jay Rosen in the last paragraph here). It is time to get past the us-v-them red herring and to start working hard to see just how complementary these camps can be. rusbridger concludes: In a rapidly converged world newspapers will probably have to ask themselves whether they remain a purely text medium. And, as if this weren’t enough, they are going to have to face the fact that younger readers, especially, are questioning previously accepted notions of journalistic authority, that audiences are fragmenting and that many people are increasingly finding non-conventional news sources a valuable addition, if not a ready substitute, for mainstream media. Newspapers have to decide how much they embrace these new forms of discourse and dissemination or whether they stand apart from them. [...]

]]> By: eCache » Blog Archive » Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #54 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-57408 eCache » Blog Archive » Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #54 Sun, 28 May 2006 06:08:41 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-57408 [...] Jarvis liveblogged an event at the Museum of Television & Radio Media Center. BuzzMachine (follow-up #1 and follow-up #2) is the cutting edge of media. [...] [...] Jarvis liveblogged an event at the Museum of Television & Radio Media Center. BuzzMachine (follow-up #1 and follow-up #2) is the cutting edge of media. [...]

]]> By: hey http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-55316 hey Fri, 26 May 2006 03:55:26 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-55316 The WSJ principal pages are left aligned and designed for small screen sizes, but the article pages pop up to fill the space you give them. It's nice and works for peope that don't expand the browser to fill the screen or for mobile browsing. I like both sites and you'll notice that WSJ has been changing its interface. They make serious money off of wsj.com and do cater to the audience. Tell them what you want if you don't like it that much. The WSJ principal pages are left aligned and designed for small screen sizes, but the article pages pop up to fill the space you give them. It’s nice and works for peope that don’t expand the browser to fill the screen or for mobile browsing. I like both sites and you’ll notice that WSJ has been changing its interface. They make serious money off of wsj.com and do cater to the audience. Tell them what you want if you don’t like it that much.

]]> By: Kirk http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-53974 Kirk Wed, 24 May 2006 20:10:04 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-53974 I hope quality someday becomes a lucrative niche, and considering the state of our public education system I don't think niche is the wrong word. I subscribe to the web editions of the Economist and the WSJ. The Economist is way ahead in terms of layout. It's like the WSJ Web boss never read "The Mythical Man Month". The whole page is aligned left which just looks stupid on a big widescreen monitor, common with finance folk. The Economist, on the other hand, has a clean, functional layout and their mix of free and paid content works better than the NYTimes approach. I hope quality someday becomes a lucrative niche, and considering the state of our public education system I don’t think niche is the wrong word. I subscribe to the web editions of the Economist and the WSJ. The Economist is way ahead in terms of layout. It’s like the WSJ Web boss never read “The Mythical Man Month”. The whole page is aligned left which just looks stupid on a big widescreen monitor, common with finance folk.

The Economist, on the other hand, has a clean, functional layout and their mix of free and paid content works better than the NYTimes approach.

]]> By: nobody http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-53943 nobody Wed, 24 May 2006 19:22:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/24/last-opinions-on-opinions/#comment-53943 The Economist failed to mention that subscribers to the magazine must subscribe to the website's "subscribers only" section. To do this you must answer several questions, INCLUDING YOUR DATE OF BIRTH! Hello, Identity Theft! Why don't they just put a unique identification number, like, oh say, a subscription number, on the label, and have you use that? Great writing and analysis, Jeff. I always knew the Church of Journalism crowd was pretty much worthless. and their great skill was sefl-promotion; the blogosphere proves it. Keep it up! The Economist failed to mention that subscribers to the magazine must subscribe to the website’s “subscribers only” section.

To do this you must answer several questions, INCLUDING YOUR DATE OF BIRTH!

Hello, Identity Theft!

Why don’t they just put a unique identification number, like, oh say, a subscription number, on the label, and have you use that?

Great writing and analysis, Jeff.

I always knew the Church of Journalism crowd was pretty much worthless. and their great skill was sefl-promotion; the blogosphere proves it.

Keep it up!

]]>