It's officially news now, TechCrunch has written about it. As well as too many other organizations for me to type "a href" for -- even the BBC. Now isn't that the dog's bullocks?I just wish more of them could have done the fine job that the SF Chronicle did by harnessing the power of histograms.
I believe the oft-repeated statement that the only story gaining traction on social news sites was the iPhone -- while it is an attractive sound byte for traditional media -- is a misrepresentation. Not all news sites -- "social" or otherwise -- are the same. They are reflections of their communities.I hope that most folks would discern a difference in the reporting from Fox News and The Guardian*. Granted, I could have said the quality of reporting, but I'll leave that judgment up to you.I've said it before -- I was told that if you say something often enough, it becomes fact -- so I'll say it again. Sites where "empowered readers determine the news" are only more efficient means for doing exactly what "editor-selected news" companies have aimed to do for years.The news is business. I hope no one really believes social news means the downfall of society -- it's a better means of giving consumers (in this case, of news) with what they want. What's phase 3? Profit. (We're working on that)This tremendous flow of relevant information feeds the Britney gawkers just as much as it feeds those of us Americans who miss habeas corpus. And some of us even miss habeas corpus just as much as we miss the old Britney.
*Oh, and perhaps I should also mention that The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, a charitable foundation (read: it's not legally bound, nor is it actively trying, to make a profit). Coincidence? Yeah, probably...
*Oh, and perhaps I should also mention that The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, a charitable foundation (read: it's not legally bound, nor is it actively trying, to make a profit). Coincidence? Yeah, probably...