Several stories dying on the vine today, but I'll keep making phone calls. Or you sources can call me!
Until my news ship comes in, here's what I've been reading today:
♦ If you miss former Strib investigative reporter Chris Ison's work, please enjoy his castigation of his current employer, the University of Minnesota. In the Minnesota Daily's alumni issue, Prof. Ison writes:
What much of the public doesn’t know is the extent of the University’s effort to undermine public awareness. Last month, a message to University directors and others warned that the Daily was trying to report on the potential effects of proposed budget cuts. The audacity! University News Service Director Daniel Wolter urged those contacted by Daily reporters to call him before agreeing to talk. He expressed concern about problems “that will result from using this particular venue for that purpose,” and said he’d be “happy” to offer a no comment on their behalf.
A similar e-mail was distributed just more than a year ago, complaining of “numerous uncoordinated administration comments giving too much information” to the media. The message directed all who receive press inquiries to route them to the News Service to ensure “the University’s reputation is both protected and advanced through the news media.” In other words: Don’t talk so that we can spin.
Such messages aren’t meant to be seen by newspaper staffers, of course, but they do see them. Why? Because people at the University who believe in truth, freedom of expression and open public discourse send them.
♦ On a wonkier note, net-media pathologist Ed Kohler is back, and this time, he's not hating on City Pages!
Ed's current annoyance: startribune.com page refreshes. Boiling this waaay down, Kohler claims because the Strib is one of the faster page refreshers (every ten minutes), they not only piss off their readers, they harm their advertisers by serving ads people won't see.
There's no input from the Strib, though in the past, managers have argued that refreshing benefits readers on fast-changing stories. (The advertising revenue is a given.) Still, if you asked most startribune.com readers, they'd say get rid of it.
♦ Oh wait, there is a bit of serendipitous news! If you followed Ed's serial takedown of City Pages, you may remember his epic piece,"How Village Voice Media Uses Digg to Game Their Traffic Numbers." Turns out the linchpin of VVM's strategy, an employee nicknamed "Philostrato," is leaving the company, taking his ultra-powerful Digg identity with him.
VVM new media director Bill Jensen says social media director Keith Plocek is leaving of his own accord, and not due to anything Kohler wrote. (Curiously, Plocek declined comment when I contacted him at VVM's Houston Press.) Plocek also was the Houston Press' web editor; if you're looking for a gig down South, here's the job posting.
♦ Although I loathe auto-generated headline feeds on Twitter, they are one of the ten ways newspapers can save themselves via social media, according to Mashable's Woody Lewis.
On the flip, I thoroughly enjoyed the PiPress' Julio Ojeda-Zapata's Twitterphile response to esteemed colleague Joe Soucheray's get-off-my-lawn verdict. I would only add that a narcissist who talks to worshipers on the radio shouldn't scream "narcissism" about people who talk to each other on the Internet.
♦ Esteemed colleague Eric Black performed well on PBS' "Newshour," coolly explaining the mechanics of the U.S. Senate election and the collective temperment that keeps us from rioting.
♦ What am I listening to right now? These guys. Their catalogue is free. My personal favorites (clicking will download the MP3s) are "Mtn Cat" and "Reflections of the Sun."
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
33 comments
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
20 comments
-
19 comments
Comments (2)
Regarding Twitter, or What Are You Listening To Right Now, or Everything Old Is New Again: This reminds me of when a then-girlfriend told me, back in 1971, that she'd had a phone call from an unidentified male (not me) asking her what color underwear she had on. She was creeped out by the call, maybe because it was kind of a reverse Tweet.
It seems to be that ads viewed by actual humans are more likely to lead to sales, which means the advertisers will continue to buy ads.
Why do media sites have such a hard time understanding this?