As Americans, we all know you're not anybody until you have a magazine dedicated to your hobby/craft.
So, in that spirit, I give y'all "Blogger & Podcaster: For Aspiring New Media Titans."
God, I love that. Let's say it again: "For Aspiring New Media Titans."
Makes me want to buy up coastal property for my reclusive mogul estate.
I haven't had a chance to see if the content's any good. I understand you can download a digital copy for free (or something close to free) and the podcast doesn't cost anything, either. Print copies will set you back a bit, though. (Quite the business model they've got going over there, eh?)
If anybody reads it and forms an opinion, let me know what that opinion is.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Belated Awesomeness
I'm way late on this, and for that I apologize, but Roy Bragg and Cathy Rosenthal were on the spot last week in getting online reaction, respectively, to the Virginia Tech shootings and another (relatively) local incident of pet poisoning.
This is best practice, y'all. If something happens — even nationally — in an area you feel qualified to blog in, Blog about it!
I mean ... it'll help to have something to say, of course, but moving quickly puts your blog front and center for a period of time, and that's always a good thing. Remember, we're building community here, and you can help make that happen by making your readership grow and interact. A good way of doing that? The two examples above.
(Good taste prevents me from handing out "pwned" awards for these two tragic occurances, but consider this the higher-browed alternative.)
This is best practice, y'all. If something happens — even nationally — in an area you feel qualified to blog in, Blog about it!
I mean ... it'll help to have something to say, of course, but moving quickly puts your blog front and center for a period of time, and that's always a good thing. Remember, we're building community here, and you can help make that happen by making your readership grow and interact. A good way of doing that? The two examples above.
(Good taste prevents me from handing out "pwned" awards for these two tragic occurances, but consider this the higher-browed alternative.)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Offbeat Podcasts" taking over
Per USA TODAY: We've only the one podcast, so far, but will that be changing?
>In the rapidly expanding parallel media universe of podcasting —
downloadable audio (and sometimes video) shows posted on the Internet —
this largely entertainment-dominated format has been embraced by the
techno-chic. But now some previously obscure academics, educators and
amateur enthusiasts — who once had only each other with whom to share
their specialized passions — are becoming improbable podstars, complete
with national media attention and swelling fan bases.
>"In the digital world, there's an audience for even the most obscure
thing," says Charles Hodgson, a Canadian writer whose podcast, Podictionary,
examines the history and origins of one English word five days a week.
Don't laugh: His podcast has been downloaded 2.3 million times in less
than two years. In a medium in which shows are lucky to attract a few
thousand regular listeners, it's a hit.
I point this out mainly as a way of saying times are changing, the future is hard to predict and it's probably not a bad idea to start thinking in new ways.
>In the rapidly expanding parallel media universe of podcasting —
downloadable audio (and sometimes video) shows posted on the Internet —
this largely entertainment-dominated format has been embraced by the
techno-chic. But now some previously obscure academics, educators and
amateur enthusiasts — who once had only each other with whom to share
their specialized passions — are becoming improbable podstars, complete
with national media attention and swelling fan bases.
>"In the digital world, there's an audience for even the most obscure
thing," says Charles Hodgson, a Canadian writer whose podcast, Podictionary,
examines the history and origins of one English word five days a week.
Don't laugh: His podcast has been downloaded 2.3 million times in less
than two years. In a medium in which shows are lucky to attract a few
thousand regular listeners, it's a hit.
I point this out mainly as a way of saying times are changing, the future is hard to predict and it's probably not a bad idea to start thinking in new ways.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Monday, March 26, 2007
How to ... Use Inviso-text
I put this together to show a Geek Speak blogger how to hide a spoiler in a post about "Spider-Man 3," but I figured why hide it?
In short, it creates text that doesn't show up unless you highlight it with your mouse. I first noticed it at AintItCoolNews.com, which does all its spoilers this way.
Anyway, here's the code:
<font color=white>This is text that will be invisible unless highlighted</font> This is text that will remain visible.
In practice, it'll look like this:
This is text that will be invisible unless highlighted This is text that will remain visible.
(Note: This doesn't work QUITE as perfectly on this yellowish background as it does the crisp white of our own home, but you get the general idea.)
You can also use this code to change text colors, too. Like this, or this, or even This.
But that last one's not recommended.
Anyway, just substitute the color of your choosing instead of "white" in the initial code.
In short, it creates text that doesn't show up unless you highlight it with your mouse. I first noticed it at AintItCoolNews.com, which does all its spoilers this way.
Anyway, here's the code:
<font color=white>This is text that will be invisible unless highlighted</font> This is text that will remain visible.
In practice, it'll look like this:
This is text that will be invisible unless highlighted This is text that will remain visible.
(Note: This doesn't work QUITE as perfectly on this yellowish background as it does the crisp white of our own home, but you get the general idea.)
You can also use this code to change text colors, too. Like this, or this, or even This.
But that last one's not recommended.
Anyway, just substitute the color of your choosing instead of "white" in the initial code.
More food for thought ...
Debate on whether to post user comments, per Romenesko, from the Washington Post:
Pro: "The medium allows for readers and journalists to engage in conversation, and to say we're not going to take advantage of that doesn't make a lot of sense to me," (Washingtonpost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady) says. "I'd rather figure out a way to do it better than not to do it at all."
Con: Post reporter Darryl Fears is among those in the newsroom who believe the comments should be junked if offensive postings can't be filtered out in advance. "If you're an African American and you read about someone being called a porch monkey, that overrides any positive thing that you would read in the comments," he says. "You're starting to see some of the language you see on neo-Nazi sites, and that's not good for The Washington Post or for the subjects in those stories."
Pro: "The medium allows for readers and journalists to engage in conversation, and to say we're not going to take advantage of that doesn't make a lot of sense to me," (Washingtonpost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady) says. "I'd rather figure out a way to do it better than not to do it at all."
Con: Post reporter Darryl Fears is among those in the newsroom who believe the comments should be junked if offensive postings can't be filtered out in advance. "If you're an African American and you read about someone being called a porch monkey, that overrides any positive thing that you would read in the comments," he says. "You're starting to see some of the language you see on neo-Nazi sites, and that's not good for The Washington Post or for the subjects in those stories."
Interesting debate ...
Yes, I'm back to the Lost Remote well again, but I just thought this was a cool discussion.
Background:
• Red Sox P Curt Schilling starts his own blog and interacts with his fans.
• A Boston Globe writer makes fun of both Schilling and the fans who post comments on Schilling's blog.
The Question:
Is the reporter an elitist who "doesn't get it"? Or is the reporter jealous and lashing out a bit reflexively at something that he sees as infringing on his turf?
Those are the options, it would appear, on the Lost Remote commentary thread.
Should sports writers regard "official" league journalistic initiatives as more of a threat? (Check out MLB.com for an idea of just how sophisticated these endeavors are becoming.)
Background:
• Red Sox P Curt Schilling starts his own blog and interacts with his fans.
• A Boston Globe writer makes fun of both Schilling and the fans who post comments on Schilling's blog.
The Question:
Is the reporter an elitist who "doesn't get it"? Or is the reporter jealous and lashing out a bit reflexively at something that he sees as infringing on his turf?
Those are the options, it would appear, on the Lost Remote commentary thread.
Should sports writers regard "official" league journalistic initiatives as more of a threat? (Check out MLB.com for an idea of just how sophisticated these endeavors are becoming.)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Everything you know is wrong!
Well, not really. But when people ask me how to write for the Web (i.e. "blogs") I always tell them, shorter items and bullet points organized under good headlines.
Here's a cool study that explains why that's a good thing.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070312ruel/
This is, admittedly, pretty geeky stuff (and it does include the now infamous eye-tracking photo that demonstrates guys look at crotches ... no matter whose ... more than women do), but it's illuminating if you're trying to learn how to snag readers.
A note of caution on this (as with all things Web), don't read too much into it. My firm, if only partially-baked, view on all this is that people read different content in different ways.
In other words, they might skim a news article, but luxuriate in every word of a particularly well-written, funny piece from a writer they enjoy. (Example: I have a friend who hops around news stories like nobody's business, but he pores over the work of ESPN writer Bill Simmons, who writes MONSTROUSLY long, yet still entertaining, articles.)
So go figure.
But this is interesting stuff. Enjoy.
Here's a cool study that explains why that's a good thing.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070312ruel/
This is, admittedly, pretty geeky stuff (and it does include the now infamous eye-tracking photo that demonstrates guys look at crotches ... no matter whose ... more than women do), but it's illuminating if you're trying to learn how to snag readers.
A note of caution on this (as with all things Web), don't read too much into it. My firm, if only partially-baked, view on all this is that people read different content in different ways.
In other words, they might skim a news article, but luxuriate in every word of a particularly well-written, funny piece from a writer they enjoy. (Example: I have a friend who hops around news stories like nobody's business, but he pores over the work of ESPN writer Bill Simmons, who writes MONSTROUSLY long, yet still entertaining, articles.)
So go figure.
But this is interesting stuff. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)