91–97 of 97 posts
> The New York Times on the Web, as the electronic publication is known, contains ..., reporting that does not appear in the newspaper, ..."
The electronic newspaper (address: http:/www.nytimes.com) hilarious, but—then again—the colon-double slash still isn't clear to most people.
Remember when people coming from the DOS/Windows world would say "reverse-backslash"?
It's pretty impressive how good a job the NYT has done of maintaining historical articles. You can even find quite old articles from key historical times and they're presented just like articles today. For example, the famous Crittenden Compromise is at http://www.nytimes.com/1861/02/06/news/the-crittenden-compro...
There's so much opportunity for Orwellian abuse in this new archival model. Sure there's archive.org - but in the old model, you'd say something in print, copy it a million or so times, then distribute it on paper around the world. If an evildoer wanted to change a claim from say, 20 years ago, they'd have to create a forgery that looks like it's 20 years old, then secretly swap out all the archival copies in librari…
> If an evildoer wanted to change a claim from say, 20 years ago, they'd have to create a forgery that looks like it's 20 years old, then secretly swap out all the archival copies in libraries and get large-scale mass obedience from librarians or manually make the swap at each library individually.
It has happened: http://www.unz.com/plee/india-v-china-border-games/ (the relevant bit begins at "India’s claim to AP is complicated in an interesting way.")
You're correct, of course, that it's become easier in the modern model. But people who feel strongly about the more adversarial issues of the modern day already archive enemy publications themselves, lest they mysteriously change in the future. The climate change issue is full of this sort of thing.
Even the fact that forged "original copies" are easy to create can be overcome; you just need to contemporaneously deposit a copy somewhere that creates records of when you make deposits and withdrawals. Again, the amount of adversarial forethought required has changed enough to make a significant difference.
I wish archive.org wouldn't delete old material based on new robots.txt policies, though. :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue Nothing I mentioned was abouut trends or short term page view revenue. It's about making their site more functional, improving their content by taking advantage of multimedia (hardly a trend by now) and making their excellent content mo…
Video is popular nowadays not because that's what users want but because that's what generates more ad revenue for media. There are certain cases where video storytelling is better than textual/visual storytelling but very rarely so. In case you have forgotten, there's this thing called "TV" that has been in the video space long before Internet came along. That didn't mean NYT had to turn themselves into CNN. I would…
We should be fluent enough to use whatever medium best gets across the next idea in the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts Perhaps, but it's not implemented in production; that is, it's not implemented in the vast majority of their content. I know Snowfall was a big deal to some, but I'll bet most readers of the Times have no idea what it is. I've never heard it discussed outside news/tech insiders. Also, dynamic content and page layouts are not multimedia. >* The font…
>Also, dynamic content and page layouts are not multimedia. Maybe you didn't see it, but a lot of those articles have multimedia. >They are tied to 1851 and say it loud and clear. Others do update their branding. They have modernized it, but it still acknowledges their past, which is in line with their branding. I don't think anyone looks at their typeface and is turned off by it.
Neither of us have any idea. Old newspapers are the only ones using that design, so I expect people will associate it with the old, fading industry.
The electronic newspaper (address: http:/www.nytimes.com) hilarious, but—then again—the colon-double slash still isn't clear to most people.
Remember when people coming from the DOS/Windows world would say "reverse-backslash"?