RT @prophetwanderer: Jon Stewart said I am getting Helen Thomas's front row seat in the White House press room. http://bit.ly/b9RnJP
[Direct Link]New Newsweek.com Emphasizes Minimal Approach http://cnt.to/kCr /via @paidContent
As the Washington Post Co. (NYSE: WPO) tries to find a buyer for its struggling Newsweek, the magazine has just spruced up its website to make that part appear a bit more attractive to readers and advertisers. In a note to users, Mark Miller, Newsweek Digital’s editor, highlighted a few changes in response to what he said were reader comments, which was a desire for “simplicity and clarity.” Still, compared to the magazine’s well-received Newsweek Tumblr page, it can’t help but look a little weighted down.
A quick glance at the homepage shows a lot more open grey spaces on the sides—instead of a long list of tabs and images—while the top has three small rectangular boxes for two top news stories and a reader quiz. Right next to that, there are spaces for users to click a “subscribe” button and a link to partner MSNBC.com. Alongside a large image connected to a story on the BP oil spill, an ad for FedEx is on the right, under the Newsweek logo, which includes a few more tabs for stories, authors and topics.
Midway down the page, in between some analysis and entertainment stories, there’s also a video feature called The Daily Obsession, as well as a narrow column offering “smart takes” on the news called The Spectrum.
While the look is deceptively cleaner than what Newsweek.com presented before, it still seems to have fit several different ways of finding all the news the magazine churns out.
But of all the various ways to find Fareed Zakaria’s work, the one thing that is hard to find on the main site is that Newsweek Tumblr page.
Related
RT @paidContent New Newsweek.com Emphasizes Minimalism; Paid iPad App Next Week | paidContent http://cnt.to/kCr
- S. Charles Balazsi wonder if Jon Stewart will have a sequel to his *Appholes* parody now that it's more aptly called Gizmodogate ~ http://j.mp/dx4zXs
[Direct Link]
Michael Malone, in an opinion piece for ABC News, says the Gizmodo/iPhone prototype story shows that “journalism has lost much of its muscle”:
A couple weeks ago, Jason Chen, an editor/blogger at the tech site Gizmodo (part of the large gossip blog family Gawker Media) found himself in possession of a prototype of the new Apple G4 iPhone and proceeded to post photos of it on the site. As you can imagine, all hell broke loose as the Web buzzed with speculation about the source of the images, whether the device was stolen, and whether it really was Apple’s newest super-product.
What we now know is that the device was indeed a G4 iPhone, not scheduled for formal introduction for weeks hence; and that it wasn’t stolen, but accidentally left by an Apple employee in a Silicon Valley beer garden. Whoever found it was knowledgeable enough to know what it was — and proceeded to sell it to Gawker for a purported $5,000.
There’s a whole swath of criticism regarding Apple’s decision to report the incident to law enforcement, and law enforcement’s decision to break down the door to Jason Chen’s home and confiscate his computers, that goes along the lines of Malone’s argument above. (Cf. Jon Stewart’s segment on The Daily Show last week.)
To wit: Ignoring that the phone was stolen. California criminal law could not be more clear: the finder of a lost item must either return it to the owner or hand it over to the police; to do anything else is theft. “Finder keepers, losers weepers” is not the law. You don’t have to break into someone’s house or pickpocket them to steal a phone. If you pick up a lost phone and treat it as your own, you’ve stolen it.
Jason Chen did not “find himself in possession” of a prototype iPhone. Jason Chen and Gizmodo bought a prototype iPhone from someone who they knew had stolen it. At least Jon Stewart’s take was funny.
I dislike this article because it ignores the fact that not returning found property makes it theft, and says that the Gizmodo editor "found himself in possession of the phone" like he woke up with it on the pillow rather than paying $5,000 for property he knew for a fact didn't belong to the seller.
- Kevin FoxIf the Iphone had come into the pxssession of a dead tree newspaper the exact same way, there would ne investigation and cops would NEVER had the balls to confiscate anything. This is violation of press freedom and Apple aside its a reallt really bad precedent as we come to depend on BLOGS to be our media in the elctronic age and by the by the entire cop group should be fired like yesterday
- WarLordWarlord, if the phone had been sold to an ordinary Joe Apple would probably have still reported the crime to the police. Where do you think the line is where a crime is 'too serious' to be protected under journalistic shield laws? Breaking and entering? Assault? The truth is that journalistic shield laws protect journalists from being forced to reveal the crimes of others, not to protect them from their own crimes.
- Kevin FoxI think Warlord is right though that the cops would never have raided the offices of a newspaper like the NY Times.
- Jess LeeApple has every right to investigate possibly stolen property but this is one of those times only an asshole would exercise those rights. Come on, all they had to do was ask for it back.
- Private SanjeevTo be fair, the newspaper would have been smart enough to NOT take possesion of something like this. Big news has better legal advice.
- Johnny WorthingtonFrom what I understand they didn't involve the police until they already did have it back. So the argument is that Apple sucks because someone else broke the law and Apple wants to see them prosecuted? I don't get why people think Apple's in the wrong and Gizmodo is being treated unfairly. If a Gizmodo editor broke into someone's house while they were away and took a prototype, or snuck in to an office, would we still be rooting for them? They committed a crime after thinking about it for several days, and were very proud of it and strutted about about how awesome they were. Engadget and Wired had the same opportunity but had more journalistic integrity (or better legal advice). Gizmodo's editors are pricks, but even if they weren't I wouldn't blame Apple for asking the police to investigate the crime committed against them.
- Kevin FoxAnd of course if it was NYT Apple wouldn't be playing hardball right now - we're way past stolen phones and setting the table for future leaks. Like I said, if BLOG will be the newspaper in a paperless future we need to decide what that means even when they pick on somebody we just love
- WarLordI have said it before. The sole purpose is to stop a bounty culture forming. If you can manufacture a plot for a rep from ANY company 'leaving stuff at a bar', have someone find it and pass it onto you, IP lawyers would be having kittens. That's the other thing, Microsoft, Google and all the other tech companies are also on the steering
commitee... I'm sure they're silently hope this guy gets charged so their IP doesn't go up for sale.
Don't think the NYT would have paid for the phone.
- Johnny WorthingtonWhy O Why couldn't have just been a missing Zune.
- MicahAgreed. The NYT point is moot because major news outlets know better.
- Kevin FoxThey did print the Pentagon papers so lawbreaking and news is not muually exclusive
- WarLordMicah, funny thing is, if it was I would still hold the position. If you break a law, regardless of how silly you think it is or your ignorance to it, you can't expect NOT to face concequences. As a person who deals in IP everyday, this is interesting to me on a level above my fanboism
- Johnny WorthingtonThe National Enquirer would have. Would they be subject to a search warrant too, or would they get the subpoena process instead?
- Andrew CEngadget's legal advisors said not to buy the phone. That's class. Gizmodo opted out of what was in their best interests.
- Louis GrayAnd didn't a NYT reported go to jail during the Scooter Lbby trial? Kno better how?
- WarLordYeah, but again, that Plame leak investigation subpoenaed the reporters; the police didn't just get search warrants and seize computers left and right.
- Andrew CJohnny, I understand. What I was saying was there would be no public story and therefore no opinions holding sway in any direction.
- MicahAndrew... The Delete Key... Kinda hard to subpoenaed a deleted file.
- Johnny WorthingtonI'm still of the opinion that if any BLOG is the news of the future they need same cloak sometimes besides gossip its real news plus lets face it, time for Steve to quit beating the horse aint breathing
- WarLordWarLord, no question. But buying 'stolen goods' is a criminal offence. How much pass do we give journalists to break criminal law?
- Johnny WorthingtonI'm outraged that he didn't ask for 50K and i'm going to bore the shit out of everybody by whining about it day in and day out.
- Hayes Haugen@Johnny - yes, and yet the police /didn't/ seize Judith Miller's computers, etc. (yes, I know files can be securely deleted, but - absent journalistic shields, anyways - it's usually worth the effort to seize the PC and search it thoroughly all the same.)
- Andrew CAndrew, the issue here is they don't exactly match. Exposing spies != buying a phone. That's why they siezed all the pieces of equipment that could contain communication and financial records. Establishing intent here is crucial to the case. Who approached who, who set the price. What were the terms, where from and when. Evidence, basically.
- Johnny Worthington"Exposing spies != buying a phone" ... yeah, one issue is considerably more important than the other...
- Andrew CAlso, one was exposing national secrets... The other was purchasing an item unavaible for sale...
- Johnny WorthingtonThe police weren't accusing Judith Miller of breaking the law. They were trying to find out who broke the law by giving her Valerie Plame's identity. When you want someone's testimony to build a case against someone else you subpoena them. When you want to gather evidence of a crime the person themselves had committed you get a search warrant. 'National Security vs a Phone' is a red herring argument.
- Kevin FoxOK, but it seems to me that the crime in particular and its details (who leaked it, say) did in fact warrant (no pun intended) a search of the relevant reporters' notes and record. Except, of course, for the shield laws...
- Andrew CRight, because the shield laws exist to prevent journalists from having to expose the crimes of others. They're *not* there to help shield journalists from their own crimes.
- Kevin FoxKevin, but the New York Times abdicated their journalistic responsibilities by simply printing whatever Dick Cheney wanted, they are as much responsible for drumming up support for Iraq war as the administration. Don't you think that the untold amount of damage cost by their mistake is much more than the unethical dealings of Gizmodo?
- Shakeel MahateI disagree with "not returning found property makes it theft". If you lose your property and I find it, then getting it back to you is not my problem. If the law disagrees, then the law is wrong.
- OttoYou don't have to return it. You could turn it over to the cops. Or, you could just leave it there and not touch it. The law (in the state of California) is over a hundred years old, you'd think someone would've tried to overturn it by now.
- Victor GanataShakeel, to reiterate: I'm not trying to win an ethical argument or to claim that Gizmodo is hunky-dorey because other news outlets do worse things. I'm arguing that Gizmodo broke the law in an way that's not protected by the journalistic shield. 'Journalistic responsibility' isn't a law. Also, to the argument earlier that 'the Enquirer does that kind of thing all the time' I'd love to see an example of where they paid for stolen property for a story and didn't get prosecuted for it. The Sun, a British rag of only marginally higher caliber, recently publicly refused to do so: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/article1631531.ece
- Kevin FoxI didn't say the Enquirer buys stolen property. I said they pay for scoops.
- Andrew CI think that's the crux of the case: buying information seems to be clearly protected, no matter how that information was obtained; buying physical property--even if the purpose is to obtain information in order to disseminate it to the public--well, the courts are going to have to decide whether that is protected or not.
- Victor GanataExactly. Paying for information or for paparazzi photos is legal. Paying for property that is in the possession of someone other than the rightful owner is a crime.
- Kevin FoxWe should in no way condone what Gizmodo did and they deserve what is going to come their way.
- Shakeel MahateGizmodo did nothing illegal because the property was not "stolen". I not only condone their actions, I applaud them for it. More journalists should act this way, instead of being mere PR shills and corporate flacks.
- OttoIf you're going to redefine law to suit yourself, then there's totally no point to this discussion.
- Victor GanataOtto, California law is pretty clear on this point. If you find property, have a reasonable idea of the rightful owner and don't attempt to return it, or if the value is greater than $500 and you don't turn it in to the police, the act of finding becomes one of theft. That's California law.
- Kevin FoxKevin, I go to a flea market and see your beloved customized macbook pro. I pay $500 for it with every intention of returning it to you. Did I just do something a jury would consider a crime? Would you sue me for it?
- Private SanjeevCertainly, one can argue that a law is wrong or should be overturned, but this particular principle seems to undergird the foundation of property rights. You throw it out, then basically whoever has enough force to maintain possession of property owns everything. In the modern era, that's basically the state. Hurray for communism!
- Victor GanataSanjeev, certainly in te eyes of the law you committed a crime. As for 'what's right' it's preposterous to say that Gizmodo was trying to do Apple a favor by getting a hold of the device. Gizmodo's even on the record as saying "If Apple asks for it back, maybe we'll give it back to them." That's not one person fronting their own money to do a friend a favor.
- Kevin FoxKevin: a) I disagree that California Law is clear on that point, as the laws in question don't seem to say anything of the sort, by my own reading. And b) if you are correct in your interpretation, then the laws are wrong. I refuse to obey unjust and incorrect law, as should ever other right thinking person. What happened to freedom and liberty, eh?
- OttoI simply don't understand the heavy-handed tactics AFTER the incident. Apple looks like the bad guy in this. Not talking about stolen/misplaced property issue. Apple could have spun this in a different way is all I am saying.
- Dreamer9177I think Sanjeev's example lacks "mens rea", although I'm not sure the what extent that principle is followed in US criminal law.
- SimonOtto, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the law. As for your choice to not obey laws you don't think are fair, I can't speak to that. It's not part of my argument.
- Kevin FoxJon Stewart goes to town on Apple and Steve Jobs. http://huff.to/aNJWy3
[Direct Link]Jon Stewart Rips Apple a New One is a post from Chris Pirillo
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Appholes | ||||
| ||||
It seems as though everyone with a blog has posted their opinions regarding the iPhone prototype. Was it lost? Was it really “stolen?” Is Gizmodo liable for not turning it in? Is the poor kid that found the gadget the one who should be in trouble? Heck, should anyone even BE in trouble? After all, accidents happen. People lose things all the time. Others find them.
This is likely part of the reason why Apple ignores blog posts for the most part. Everyone has an opinion, and not all of those opinions match what Jobs and company are thinking. Also, the blogosphere doesn’t necessarily reach all of Apple’s intended audience. However, Daily Show host Jon Stewart does happen to reach them, and Apple should be mighty worried about now.
During his show last night, Stewart went on a rampage about the entire iPhone prototype situation. He lambasts Apple for sending out the police, and for their overall reactions to this entire “case.” As Jason Kincaid said over on TechCrunch:
Stewart’s report glosses over some important points in the case and gets a few details wrong. But ultimately that doesn’t really matter — Stewart’s audience probably doesn’t care if there’s a chance a crime was committed here. To them, a guy found a phone in the bar, photos of it were posted on the Internet, and Apple responded by siccing the authorities on them.
While all of us in the tech world have a strong opinion on one side of this proverbial coin or the other, the general population of the world sees the entire debacle just as Jason described. Apple looks like the bad guy in that scenario, and people aren’t happy about it. Most people don’t really give a fig who we think is “right” or “wrong” during all of this. They see that we have a case of “Finders Keepers – Losers Weepers,” and that Apple is acting like a big baby as a result.
From the Daily Show: "It wasn't supposed to be this way: Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one! But now, you guys are busting down doors in Palo Alto while Commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitos! What the **** is going on?!"
- Mark TrappHaaahahahaha
- Mo KargasA funny, but sad take, by Jon Stewart about Arizona's odd laws http://bit.ly/bYtZBu
[Direct Link]
Five months ago, right around the time that Andrey Ternovskiy was building Chatroulette, no one could have predicted that being “nexted” would become the modern day equivalent to a rite of passage.
But after three days of coding, Ternovskiy introduced his pet project for random video chat to friends, then users of Web forums, and from there things just spiraled.
When the New York Times talked to the 17 year-old Ternovskiy earlier in the month, he confessed that, “Last month I saw 30 million unique visitors come to the Web site and one million new people visit each day. It continues to multiply and I just couldn’t stop it from growing.”
Chatroulette’s astronomical growth, while impressive, tends to be tainted by the prevalence of penises, and other naughty bits, that seem to go unchecked (there is a “Report” button) due to anonymity. But, as is the case when something hits a nerve with the population, Chatroulette has spawned a slew of copycats and one-off apps. Clearly there’s more to this cultural phenomenon than what initially accosts the eye.
“All that glitters is not gold … “
Although there’s truth to this Shakespearean phrase, the reality is that when it comes to the Web, the company with its name in lights is the company that most often will prevail.
Look no further than modern day fairy tale of Twitter as proof. The service was challenged by arguably better competitors in the beginning but it won the battle of attention and it now stands alone.
Chatroulette — the glittering Web property du jour — shines bright amidst a flurry of coverage from print, Web, and broadcast media outlets. We may think of Jon Stewart’s satirical review of the service as jumping the shark, or the beginning of the end, but it’s really just a sign that Chatroulette has permeated into pop culture. With upwards of 1.5 million visitors a day, that notion is fast becoming inescapable.
In fact, the 17 year-old youngster from Russia is currently touring the U.S., entertaining offers from venture capitalists and investment firms. Ternovskiy’s gone on record to say that investors and buyers are more interested in him then he is in them. Apparently he could sell for $1 million today if he wanted to.
As Ternovskiy contemplates how best to move forward, one thing is becoming increasingly obvious: The time is ripe for inside and outside bets on Chatroulette’s wheel of opportunity. This glitter will become gold.
Often described as a distraction for college kids, Chatroulette has found an audience because it’s fun — especially at parties. Much like Rock Band or other group entertainment activities, there’s power in the collective experience. The guaranteed randomness of Chatroulette, even with the occasional appearance of a penis, is sure to entertain.
Chatroulette doesn’t need to be serious to succeed. Just as there’s a monetizable niche for funny cat pictures, so too is there room for a random video chat site. Lest we forget, those Lolcats generate 8.5 million page views a day, with the Cheezburger Network bringing in “more than seven figures from advertising, licensing feeds, and merchandise sales,” per a Fast Company report last year.
Even if Chatroulette is relegated to the entertainment-only realm of the Web, that could very well be all it needs to continue to thrive.
Okay there are penises. And plenty of them. But there’s also Merton using Chatroulette for piano improv, and Ben Fold’s playing live in concert. It’s the colorful nature of the service’s users and the lure of the unexpected that have helped Chatroulette flourish.
Sure anonymity takes the form of frightening figures from time to time, but there’s promise in the possibility of what the site could become. Already, Chatroulette is testing custom roulettes which could offer a more structured experience for those with particular interests.
The custom roulettes are auto-generated via subdomains. If one doesn’t exist, type it and it will come into being. So sandiego.chatroulette, sports.chatroulette or ucla.chatroulette could become like Chatroulette rooms offering a little less randomness and experiences more suitable for the squeamish.
Right now you’ll be lucky to find anyone using these custom roulettes, but as site frequenters happen upon the new feature, we’re bound to see this change and become a better way for users to maintain their freedom of expression while having more focused conversations with strangers or neighbors.
Image via Yevgeny Kondakov/Spiegel, Buzzfeed and courtesy of iStockphoto, Irochka_T.
Tags: chatroulette, social media, video, video chat
Why Chatroulette Is More Than Just Penises
- ryanWhy Chatroulette Is More Than Just Penises
- Morton Fox
Too lazy to take the trek to the local pub? Too shy to run your game on that hot dude at the coffee shop? Well, now you can scam on ladies/gents from the comfort of your own home with Chatroulette-inspired dating site, MyChanceRomance.
Popular — yet creeptastic — video site Chatroulette has been inspiring its share of knock-offs of late, as folks try to capitalize on the site’s rampant popularity, which has attracted media attention from the likes of Jon Stewart and multimillion-dollar offers from top investors.
We’ve seen the site used as a de facto meetup spot in the past — remember Chatroulette Missed Connections — and video dating is nothing new, so the marriage of the two concepts seems like a natural progression. But that doesn’t mean it’s a stellar idea.
Sites like MyChanceRomance are basically akin to MTV’s Next (remember that show where people could be “Nexted” at any point over the course of a date?), but with webcams, which — as you can see from the above screenshot of Adam Ostrow and myself testing out the service — don’t make for the most flattering representations. In short: Sites like these are kind of a recipe for a) Creepy encounters with the exhibitionist dudes already tearin’ up Chatroulette, or b) Hours and hours of emotional abuse.
Still, it’s unlikely that the above service will take off. When Adam and I went to gather the screenshot above, we were connected to each other instantly, which means no one is likely using the service. Also, the sound wasn’t working, and we were randomly disconnected after a minute or two. Also, you’re only able to enter your gender in order to be matched with a mate, not your location. So unless you’re down for a long-distance Internet relationship, this is probably not the site for you.
[via Killer Startups]
Tags: chatroulette, online dating, pop culture, video
SocialMash:> MyChanceRomance Marries Chatroulette and Online Dating http://ow.ly/16RqU1
- Jim WilkersonSocialMash:> MyChanceRomance Marries Chatroulette and Online Dating http://ow.ly/16RqU2
- Jim Wilkerson“In my America, nobody tells people when they can masturbate.” ~Jon Stewart http://is.gd/aOOA6 /via @AlterNet
[Direct Link]i got to watch this last night. hilarious! Jon Stewart Parodies Glenn Beck ~ http://j.mp/aGdfJr
[Direct Link]
I was interviewed by Derrick Ashong from Oprah Radio, part of the Oprah Winfrey Network. He was smart, personable, fast-moving, and definitely a great person for this space. The experience left me thinking about how FastCompany magazine said that Ashton Kutcher is the new one to watch on the salvation of media and entertainment. To me, the potential savior list looks a bit different:
* Oprah
* Jon Stewart
* Conan (especially if he doesn’t go to Fox)
* Rick Sanchez from CNN (from the news perspective)
To me, the thing they’re all missing is a deeper integration to social media tools for two-way conversations, for a deeper sense of loyalty and connectedness. Jimmy Fallon does that stuff reasonably well, but then, his show isn’t all that interesting to me. He’s got the social thing figured out a bit better, but the payload isn’t there.
Derrick Ashong, the guy who interviewed me from Oprah Radio made a good moving coming out to South by Southwest, because he showed, in that gesture, that he knew where the stories were, that he could get information from the ground-level stuff that we all uncover, and that he was there to learn as much as he was there to pluck stories from the air.
I think what’s next for media and entertainment will be a hybrid, not a fast shift away. But I think it will also be gatekeeper-free.
What say you?
Oprah Needs More Social http://bit.ly/a2s8BL
- TorbjornJon Stewart on ChatRoulette: http://tinyurl.com/y9bdkjk
[Direct Link]