hey did you guys know that i got a Dear Sugar tattoo on friday? from #41,...
Thank You Ogden Marriott and your Sales Team for being so rad… (Taken with Instagram at Marriott...
ahhhhhhhh!
(you should go if you’ll be in town, but you should also JUST LOOK AT MY BROTHER AND...
excellent modern media critique.
undoubtedly, in an effort to foster non-opinion, thought leaders move to voice leaders and we’re left with a majority that no longer is rooted in any form of critical thinking.
You made your fortune with Giordano, one of the largest clothing brands in Asia. Why the name “Giordano”?
In New York, I was very hungry one day and somebody gave me a couple of cookies. I didn’t know that they had marijuana in them. I became very munchy. I walked into a pizza joint called Giordano and thought: Hey, people would think that this is an Italian brand name. Why not? So I put the napkin in my pocket, came back to Hong Kong and asked our graphics people to copy it.
“very munchy.”
see kids, it really doesn’t take hard work to make it. just get high and write shit down.
Of course I care deeply about The Future of Journalism, and I know the upheavals in our business matter a great deal. But the orgy of self-reference is so indiscriminate, so trivializing. We have flocks of media oxpeckers who ride the backs of pachyderms, feeding on ticks. We have a coterie of learned analysts — Clay Shirky, Alan Mutter, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis and the rest — who meditate on the meta of media. By turning news executives into celebrities, we devalue the institutions that support them, the basics of craft and the authority of editorial judgment. (If I were vaporized by aliens tomorrow, my family would miss me, but the 1,100 journalists of The New York Times would not miss a deadline.) Some once-serious news outlets give pride of place not to stories they think important but to stories that are “trending” on Twitter — the “American Idol”-ization of news. And we have bestowed our highest honor — market valuation — not on those who labor over the making of original journalism but on aggregation.
Bill Keller | All the Aggregation That’s Fit to Aggregate - NYTimes.com
that, folks, is what we call a shot across the bow.
When people talk too much of the “revolutionary” impact of blogs, I’ll always mention one progenitor. The conversational style in news media started with the Daily Show, not with Gawker and the blogs.
all hail new jersey.
There’s too much news on the web; and way too little explanation.
“tightly-written news, views and stuff.” a new favorite.
$3.42 vs 10 cents. The Times is monetizing its time on site 34 times better than Facebook.
definitely click-through to this. social networks are blowing news sites out of the water in terms of time spent on site but, it seems, aren’t doing a fantastic job monetizing it.
I’m expecting chaos, but as the front pages of our sites become ever more professional, it’s even more important to allow anarchy to bubble up from below. The goal is to blur the line between our editors and commenter-contributors. News and discussion have been so segregated on the web. You think of the 1990s era discussion forum software. Really hasn’t changed. Maybe we should think of journalists as the instigators and moderators of discussion. News follows from discussion as much as discussion follows from news. Successful sites — and useful publishing software platforms — will bring the two together so they can feed off each other.
Nick Denton, Got a #tip? Gawker opens tag pages to masses. (via soupsoup) (via wearethedigitalkids)
that 2nd to last sentence is the most important one to understand.
And too often, we fill that void with instant commentary and celebrity gossip and the softer stories that Walter disdained, rather than the hard news and investigative journalism he championed. “What happened today?” is replaced with “Who won today?” The public debate cheapens. The public trust falters. We fail to understand our world or one another as well as we should –- and that has real consequences in our own lives and in the life of our nation. We seem stuck with a choice between what cuts to our bottom line and what harms us as a society. Which price is higher to pay? Which cost is harder to bear?
