Font Awesome: Stacking Text and Icons.
April 7: How to display title-less feed items.
Frédéric Filloux: Time to Rethink the Newspaper. Seriously.
Spoiler-filled recap of last night's Mad Men.
If you want the attention of reporters, you really either have to work for someone with a lot of money, or be someone with a lot of money. If that were to change somehow, I think the world would change. Not sure if it would be better or worse, but it would be different.
In 2005 when she was Managing Editor, and I was a fellow at Berkman Center, there was a roundtable conference, about 50 people, at the Kennedy School, about the convergence of blogging and journalism. The purpose of the conference was to put bloggers and pros in the same room and have them get to know each other.
My impression: We all talked over each others' heads. Abramson engaged with me at one point, with everyone watching, and asked if I knew how much the Times spent on their Baghdad bureau. I didn't know. She said it was $2 million per year. I didn't say anything. I wasn't surprised. I had run a couple of companies, and I know how much employees cost, and office space, and could imagine that expenses for people working in such a dangerous place would be high. I was actually surprised they could do anything at all for $2 million per year.
I decided not to get into an argument, because the distance was too far. But if I had this is what I would have said. We have hundreds of people on the ground in Iraq, and in every other war zone, all of them sharing their personal experiences. Most of them a lot more newsworthy (imho) than what your excellent correspondents are reporting, because everything they witness is in the context of an American far from home in a dangerous strange place. A valid perspective for sure, but far from the only one.
At the meeting, I felt that we bloggers generally respected what the pros do, and certainly never questioned their right to exist (I don't, I want more news not less). They responded to us as if everything we did or said was a challenge to their existence. We felt unappreciated. We wanted to work with them, but the doors were closed. That was my experience with Jill Abramson. Someone who was very sure of herself, and impressive in that, but not a good listener. The barriers were way too high. The curiosity, in my experience of her, not accessible.
In Nick Bilton's NYT column today, Marc Andreessen says it's time to grow beyond 140. Amen. As I've said many times here, it was a good idea and necessary to boot up Twitter, in the beginning -- but the limit has outlived its usefulness. For a million reasons, it's time to grow.
First increase the limit, optionally -- so every user can stay with the limit if they like. They have a choice whether or not to see greater-than-140 messages, or have them truncated, or wtf go ahead and raise the limit. Eventually every one who's paying attention will do it.
And also, very important, open the limit to external apps, so Twitter can re-capture some of the potential they lost when they shut down the devs. Let a thousand content-type flowers bloom and let Twitter carry them all.
In a Facebook thread, news pro turned academic John Robinson observes that the Jill (Abramson) vs Art (Sulzberger) story hasn't made it to national level yet. To which I responded...
John they haven't decided what the story is there. It's a problem. People need to be able to "debate" something, and by debate I mean express their view of the world as being unjust to people such as themselves (and the person we're talking about if they are like them, or the people who are oppressing them if not). The world is a perpetual moral play, in which the audience gets to throw virtual vegetables and fruit of their outrage at their target of choice, from the comfort of their desk or with the latest innovation, a mobile device! Gives them something to do between Tinder meetups.