According to senior White House advisor David Axelrod, Fox News has been blurring the line between "news and anti-Obama advocacy." Now, the White House is giving Fox News the cold shoulder.
Fox News Sunday was left out of Obama's round of appearances to talk about health care. And things really got heated when the Treasury Department tried to exclude the network from a round of interviews with executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.
Of course, all presidents have their favorite (and least favorite) news outlets. What's new this time is the White House's openness in attacking Fox's credibility as a legitimate news source. White House communications director Anita Dunn told CNN that Fox is "widely viewed as...part of the Republican Party," and urged the media and the public "not [to] pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Surprisingly, other news outlets have lept to Fox's defense. One criticism is that the White House complains about right-wing bias while ignoring (inviting?) liberal bias (Campbell Brown made this argument comparing Fox and MSNBC). News organizations have also criticized themselves for not being quick enough to follow up on stories that Fox had been covering aggressively, such as the Acorn scandal, so perhaps their vehemence towards the White White House now is a sort of mea culpa for that.
Come on.
The Acorn story? Yes. Legit. But the Obama birth certificate brouhaha? The Michelle and Barack fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab"? Glenn Beck's accusation that Obama is a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people"? The stink over the guy's middle name? I have to agree with Anita Dunn: Let's not pretend that Fox worries itself with presenting any sort of "Fair and Balanced" view of the president, his policy, or his personal life.
It seems to me that what the media are really reacting to is the audacity of any outside party trying to force a news outlet to behave in a certain way. But if that "certain way" of behavior is simply the expectation that you'll at least try to live up to your own motto, and dispense with the outrageous and unfounded rumors, is that such a bad thing? Since when are the media the only ones allowed to criticize bad behavior? I say, if Fox won't play fair, the White House is in the right to take its ball and go home. I guess Obama's the ball in that metaphor?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
A lesson in Usability from The Onion
An amazing article from The Onion about older folks and the Internet. Reminds me of trying to teach my dad how to use Microsoft Word last time I was home...
Good thing to keep in mind in terms of usability when designing a Web site: Make it for this woman!
Getting Mom Onto Internet A Sisyphean Ordeal
ROCHESTER, MN—Karen Widmar, 33, who for the past two months has been trying to teach her 60-year-old mother how to use the Internet, called the endeavor "a Sisyphean ordeal" Monday.
Widmar said she introduced her mother Lillian to the Internet at her request."It's funny, I was always trying to get her interested so I could e-mail her," Widmar said. "Then, one day, she called me up and said she was watching Today, and they had a guest on who made potatoes, and the recipe was online, and was that the same as the Internet? When I told her it was, she got really excited. Maybe I should've lied."
According to Widmar, the troubles began immediately.
"Trying to show her how to use the mouse took almost a week," Widmar said. "For some reason, she got it in her head that you had to hold the button down to make it move. Then, when I explained that the computer communicates over the telephone via her built-in modem, she kept asking where you hold the receiver. And she wouldn't stop calling the keyboard 'the typewriter.'"
Read more...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
My Space
I am thrilled to announce that I now have my very own Web site. It's a little sad right now (actually, I was just watching the movie Shattered Glass and it looks a bit like the site Stephen Glass created to back up his phony computer hacker story), but it'll get better as I learn more html code and figure out Dreamweaver.
My hope is to eventually have an amazing online portfolio for my published clips, resume, and professional blog. I've been trolling the Internet for inspiration. Here are some of my faves:
Meranda Writes
Pamela Ferdinand Journalist
Steven Gray
Nick Trost
Rachel Youens: Multimedia Journalist
Obviously, these are all pretty design-y and out of my reach right now, but something to think about...
My hope is to eventually have an amazing online portfolio for my published clips, resume, and professional blog. I've been trolling the Internet for inspiration. Here are some of my faves:
Meranda Writes
Pamela Ferdinand Journalist
Steven Gray
Nick Trost
Rachel Youens: Multimedia Journalist
Obviously, these are all pretty design-y and out of my reach right now, but something to think about...
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Reincarnation
When Domino folded, I was sad. Really sad. Looking around my apartment, most of what I see was lifted from the mag's lovely, oh-so-imitable pages. While I suppose "reincarnation" isn't quite the right term - since Design*Sponge was founded in 2004 while Domino was still alive and well - this new-to-me blog feels like the magazine's rebirth. With its sweet design, structured editorial calendar (different types of posts go up on certain days of the week) and fun categories (mini trends, DIYs, and before & afters), exploring Design*Sponge feels like flipping through the department pages of my former favorite mag.
Grace Bonney (from Design*Sponge)
If forced to say something negative about Design*Sponge, I suppose I found the numerous navigation links across the top and down the left column of the page a bit confusing at first. And the blog's editors might actually do too good a job of merging borrowed content from other sites with original content, as it's sometimes difficult to tell which is which. But really, I'm an unapologetic fan of this blog as of right now.
This shouldn't be surprising, since Design*Sponge's editor, Grace Bonney, was a Domino contributing editor (as well as a freelancer for a host of other mags, including In Style and House and Garden). In additon to Bonney, Design*Sponge's staff includes a handful (well, a couple handfuls) of editors, writers and photographers who produce mainly original content for the blog, though some photos and articles are pulled from other sites or magazines.
Grace Bonney (from Design*Sponge)I think the strength of Design*Sponge is that it avoids the thrown-together look of many popular blogs (as it well should, with its design focus). Although I'm a loyal Trent fan, my eyes glaze over after even a quick scroll on Pink is the New Blog, and one look at Drudge Report is enough to send me into a rage. Design*Sponge's layout and design is well-targeted to its predominantly female, fashion-y audience concerned with aesthetics. And though it seems to cater to women in their 30s and 40s with money to burn on ceramic goat statues and velvet upholstered chairs, it does nod to us 20-somethings with a "budget" tab filled with "under $100" goodies.
Is this the future of magazines? If so, would that be such a bad thing? Blogs are cheaper to produce, and they probably fit better with today's over-booked, attention span-deprived lifestyle. I know that, personally, I don't have time to sit and read an entire magazine cover to cover. Or, more accurately, I feel guilty for taking an hour out of my insane schedule of school, teaching, and internships to indulge in 100 pages of "fluff." On the flip side, I also feel guilty about the magazines piling up in the corner of my living room. But easy to read, prettified daily blog posts that take 30 seconds to read? That I can handle.
If forced to say something negative about Design*Sponge, I suppose I found the numerous navigation links across the top and down the left column of the page a bit confusing at first. And the blog's editors might actually do too good a job of merging borrowed content from other sites with original content, as it's sometimes difficult to tell which is which. But really, I'm an unapologetic fan of this blog as of right now.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Fall of the Wall
I sat in on an editorial meeting at my magazine internship yesterday. Like most publications, this one has recognized the importance of developing an online presence though Twitter, Facebook and blogging.
Its marketing department has likewise recognized the need to attract advertisers for its Web site.
After hashing out the details of who would blog about which topics, when to tweet, and how often to post items on Facebook, the editor and chief brought up a new advertising initiative that made everyone on the editorial staff uneasy: The marketing department's recent sale of "brand channels" on the publication's Web site.
Although such "advertorial" content is nothing new, its translation from print to the Web is troubling. Rather than a single paid ad made to look like editorial copy but produced by the advertiser, the new brand channels are to be populated with both marketing material from the companies and editorial content produced by the magazine's editorial staff.
The debate got heated: How should such content be labeled? How can editorial content be differentiated from straight advertising content? Can content produced specifically for a brand channel even be accurately labeled "editorial content"? Must all editorial content on the page be unequivocally positive? If it isn't, will advertisers have a legitimate right to insist that it be changed? If the initiative takes off, will writing advertorial content begin to detract from the production of content for the magazine itself? Will readers lose trust in us if they perceive that we are favoring companies who pay for brand channels?
The editor and chief acknowledged the danger inherent in setting such a precedent: "I'm very well aware of where this is headed, and eventually we're going to have to draw a line in the sand." However, he argued that, if carefully labeled, the advertorial content shouldn't pose a threat to the magazine's integrity.
One of the senior editors felt differently, insisting that he is "not at all comfortable" producing content that "we wouldn't have written if we weren't being paid to do it."
I'm sure that we aren't the only magazine facing this dilemma. Does this signify the beginning of the end for the "wall" between editorial content and advertising? Will it be possible to produce brand channel content that we can stand behind that also satisfies our advertisers? I hope so, but I think we'll have to wait for someone to draw that "line in the sand" to find out.
Its marketing department has likewise recognized the need to attract advertisers for its Web site.
After hashing out the details of who would blog about which topics, when to tweet, and how often to post items on Facebook, the editor and chief brought up a new advertising initiative that made everyone on the editorial staff uneasy: The marketing department's recent sale of "brand channels" on the publication's Web site.
Although such "advertorial" content is nothing new, its translation from print to the Web is troubling. Rather than a single paid ad made to look like editorial copy but produced by the advertiser, the new brand channels are to be populated with both marketing material from the companies and editorial content produced by the magazine's editorial staff.
For some of the companies, the magazine already has plenty of editorial content from past issues to fill the page. Smaller companies present a bigger problem: If we don't have enough old editorial copy to populate the page, we'll have to produce new content specifically for the brand channel.
The debate got heated: How should such content be labeled? How can editorial content be differentiated from straight advertising content? Can content produced specifically for a brand channel even be accurately labeled "editorial content"? Must all editorial content on the page be unequivocally positive? If it isn't, will advertisers have a legitimate right to insist that it be changed? If the initiative takes off, will writing advertorial content begin to detract from the production of content for the magazine itself? Will readers lose trust in us if they perceive that we are favoring companies who pay for brand channels?
The editor and chief acknowledged the danger inherent in setting such a precedent: "I'm very well aware of where this is headed, and eventually we're going to have to draw a line in the sand." However, he argued that, if carefully labeled, the advertorial content shouldn't pose a threat to the magazine's integrity.
One of the senior editors felt differently, insisting that he is "not at all comfortable" producing content that "we wouldn't have written if we weren't being paid to do it."
I'm sure that we aren't the only magazine facing this dilemma. Does this signify the beginning of the end for the "wall" between editorial content and advertising? Will it be possible to produce brand channel content that we can stand behind that also satisfies our advertisers? I hope so, but I think we'll have to wait for someone to draw that "line in the sand" to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
