By Kyle Austin
By Kyle Austin
The Hampton bound aristocrats are in for a surprise when they reach into their bags for a beach read this weekend and turn to the cover story of the Sunday New York Times Magazine. You can hear them muttering “Who is Emily Gould?” over gin and tonics at the Maidstone Club already.
Emily Gould, Gawker’s former co-editor, graces the cover and details (in a painfully long-winded fashion) what she “gained and lost by writing about her intimate life online.”
The piece entitled “Exposed,” which went online on Thursday, has created an instant bloglash causing the Times Magazine editors to defend giving it the cover – before it even hits the front doors of homes across the country on Sunday.
Gerry Marzorati, editor of the Times Magazine, tried to explain his decision yesterday to MediaBistro’s Fishbowl New York:
“Putting Emily’s story on the cover was not a tough call. One of the things we are most interested in at the magazine are those lifestyle issues — what we call Way We Live Now issues — that blend personal narratives with larger political or ethical or philosophical concerns. These are the kinds of things readers are engaged by on Sunday morning (or anytime, in cyberspace). How the Internet is re-describing how we understand privacy, intimacy and personal history is, I think, such an issue, and the fact that the story — an 8,000-word story — has already, in 6 hours or so, attracted more than 600 comments (most of them having nothing to do with why we published the piece as a cover story) leads me to believe a lot of folks agree.”
Fair enough. Sounds like a digital age answer. As Ryan Tate of Gawker puns:
“That’s such a forward-thinking, blog-ish way to think. Gawker-esque, some might say.”
One problem though. If you’re admitting that the goal of the “thinking-piece” cover story is to create discourse in social circles both in the real world and online then why did they close the comments section on the story when it reached 727 and then suddenly re-open them a few hours later?
Second thoughts?
If you’re going to be bold and tab an Internet-memoir as your cover story, it’d probably be wise to fully embrace the public discourse (even if it’s overly negative) on your own site. As Tate also mentions, and the Times undoubtedly knows, the discourse will continue all over the blogosphere and through Twitter accounts, regardless of if they house it or not.
Maybe someone upstairs pointed out that discourse really is a good thing after they shut it down. 720 comments (no matter how negative), creates quite a few new pages – which the Times Co. can leverage advertisers on.
While the critics aren’t going to stop bickering about what a travesty it is that the editors gave her the front page of the New York Times Magazine to place the longest-blog-post-ever on, it’s a business after all and you might as well take advantage of it.
Today, the majority of that business and revenue is coming from the very thing the editors chose to spotlight in print for “everyone” to see – The Internet. That’s why it’s really on the cover after all, isn’t it?
May 23rd, 2008
By Ginger Lennon
Today, the first p2p network for scientists – ResearchGATE – was launched to give researchers a global web-based community to interact, collaborate on projects, and exchange resources and information.
This Web 2.0 community – labeled the Facebook for Scientists – allows scientists to create profiles similar to those found on Facebook. ResearchGATE members fill out an “about me” section to describe their research skills, submit their CV – Research Vitae, and list recommended scientific resources to connect with other members with similar scientific interests and projects.
One of the most significant aspects about this social network, which was created by researchers, for researchers, is that members can search for partners for research collaborations and grant applications. This search functionality is guaranteed to change the way researchers connect with one another, giving them the opportunity to identify the ideal person to work with on a collaborative project that they might have not found otherwise.
Providing researchers with free global access to one another, quickly and easily connecting some of the world’s brightest minds on collaborative projects could mean limitless possibilities for the scientific community – this is definitely a site to keep an eye on.
May 23rd, 2008
By Ben Haber
By Ben
Help a reporter out (HARO) is the creation of Peter Shankman, a self-described CEO, entrepreneur, and adventurist. It’s a way for reporters and public relations people to work together, as reporters who are searching for experts on a particular subject can send Shankman their request, which he then emails to long list of subscribers. It’s a great tool that allows reporters and PR people to work together, and is a win-win situation for all.
However, over the past month there have been some issues with off topic pitching, where PR people have emailed reporters information that’s not specific enough, or at all close to their request. These off-topic pitches did not sit well with Shankman, and the first issue occurred on April 30:
Unfortunately, my quest to root out idiocy and heal the rift between PR people and journalists took a setback today, when one reporter who posted a query got three pitches that were so off-topic, and so not-even-remotely-close to what she wanted, that I had no choice but to ban them. It was such a no-brainer, it was sad.
I’m not going to out the agencies publicly. (Although I’m not ruling it out in the future…) But know that I’m serious about this, people. You screw up like that, and you’re history. Go pay the other service $6,500 a year and SPAM to your heart’s content.
Then, on the morning of May 13, it happened again. Shankman wasn’t sure quite how to deal with off-topic pitches, so he decided to leave it up to popular vote:
Last night, I sent out a query from Fortune Small Business. I made SURE to mention that I knew the reporter, and mentioned it would be helpful to be extra careful when pitching. You know, make sure you were on topic, and all that jazz.
Seven of you are not getting this email this morning.
Hopefully we’ll get it one day. Maybe. Until then, I’m beginning to think that simply kicking you off the list isn’t worth it.
Perhaps…Well, perhaps it comes down to publicly outing you?
Think about it this way: If you’re outed here, it might prevent you from winding up on the Bad Pitch Blog, or the PR Spammer’s Wiki, you know?
On May 15, we had a winner:
So here’s the deal… By a VERY small margin, “Just kick them off the list” beat “Out them publicly and kick them off the list.” So, I won’t out you publicly if a reporter emails me and tells me that you totally violated list rules and off-topic pitched.” The first time. But know that if you continue to do it, then it could happen.
So rather than risk it…Why not just pitch on-topic? Seriously.
The most interesting part of this is how close ‘outing them publicly’ came to winning the vote. A few reporters have recently begun to do this (see Chris Anderson, Gina Trapani), a method that has been met with some controversy and hard feelings.
May 23rd, 2008
