|
3086. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2007 6:37:29 PM Slate is looking for suggestions to rejuvenate The Fray.
Should Alistair submit the Mote design? 3087. jexster - 4/2/2007 6:44:41 PM HELL YES!
We ARE the Fray..the Holy Remnant! 3088. jexster - 4/2/2007 6:47:03 PM We can also discuss the role that homosexuality played in the formation of elite ancient Greek city-state military units.
We homos are very familiar..part of our lore and our fantasies 3089. arkymalarky - 4/3/2007 8:18:51 PM I don't think from the beginning that the Fray was much more to Slate than a minimally necessary headache in order to give "readers" the impression of having some kind of interactive value. That was well and good until the blogosphere really took off, and now people are finally getting real, free, quality investigative and analytical journalism PLUS a means of participating in a real and valued way. Slate created the Fray just so they could position themselves above it, and it was more trouble to them than it was worth--natives being naturally restless and all. That's why they shifted to their crappy format--give the people a lot less while making it seem they're getting a lot more, running most of them off (in a "don't let the door hit you" kinda way) in the process.
For groups like ours and the Salon and Atlantic forums that were already going well, we made a way to continue the online community without any real attachment to an online magazine, and most of them decided the maintenance wasn't worth their while, which is funny, since they have been maintained with more freedom and less problem than they were under the magazines. The successful forums that have been created since have been a result of the blogosphere, which is the first real competitive threat to Slate. Now they find a real need for a real system, and they are and will continue to be their own worst enemy in their process of discovery, because their attitude is still there, and trying to imitate the competition won't work. Ironically for them, their previous format or our current one work better for what's becoming popular now than anything going.
What we need is a fulltime blogger or two or three to attach ourselves to. I say we open up a meta-discussion about it. ;-> 3090. judithathome - 4/3/2007 10:33:33 PM I may have a place sort of like that to promote in the coming months...a place like Huffington Post that is being created by some people I know (and I'm to be a contributor on things "odd", I guess.) More to come as things take shape... 3091. arkymalarky - 4/4/2007 1:48:55 AM Sounds great! 3092. arkymalarky - 4/4/2007 7:46:15 PM Another observation wrt Slate's efforts, is that their own MSNBC seems to work much better with comment posts directly under a given article, as opposed to being part of one large forum. I don't know why they don't just adopt that and be done with it. I know they think putting all together will encourage people to view more of their magazine, but after ten years they should realize that that isn't going to work for them. Make the network function from the articles outward, with related links, etc, rather than trying to depend on a dysfunctional forum to pull people to the magazine. 3093. Wombat - 4/6/2007 3:46:41 AM Andrew Sullivan links to a study of a typical day of Acey's thoughts!!! 3094. judithathome - 4/6/2007 5:41:00 AM ...a day's rants at Ace of Spades, one of the more conspicuously drooling froth-monsters of the bloggy right. 3095. Ms. No - 4/6/2007 3:27:54 PM I really hope somebody is paying the man for this. How in the world do all those bloggers have time to write so much and so often?
( This, coming from the woman who's never been able to consistently even keep a hand-written journal and full-well realizes it's lack of dedication on her part that results in the failure. ) 3096. arkymalarky - 4/6/2007 9:34:20 PM I did it during our rural ed stuff about two or three years ago, and it was a lot of work, but it also helped a lot, I think. On the national level one of the main leaders now blogs and his are more along the line of the best ones I've seen (except with a narrow subject focus, of course), in that he takes a lot of good info, including the organization's, contrary articles, columns and editorials, and his own fantastic insights to create a really good supplement to and defense of our cause. There's that, there's "real" journalists, and there are steam-blowers who occasionally grab attention with their "out-there" remarks. In addition there are those for whom blogging has become a fantastic niche (like TPM) that attracts a good interactive group and has an active role in uncovering and illustrating the relevance of news--much better than the big media with all its money has been able to do, in many cases. 3097. arkymalarky - 4/6/2007 9:38:00 PM I thought I'd pick back up this year with the legislative session and all, but there was no way. I was reading bills, laws, articles, research, and opinion columns CONSTANTLY and that fed my blogs. I would have simply been one of the steam-blowers this year and could not have backed up a daily or even weekly blog entry with the needed support material. To do that in an advocacy group would do FAR more harm than good. I may not have linked material directly in previous blogs, but I had it at my fingertips. Even then, I had to go back and correct things now and then. 3098. wonkers2 - 4/9/2007 4:45:29 PM Proposed blogger code of conduct
3099. jexster - 4/9/2007 5:15:39 PM Screw IMUS...I only watch for Cardinal Egan, Bill Clinton, Dr. Phil and Gen Patton 3100. jexster - 4/9/2007 5:16:09 PM Ooops..Mote Cafe 3101. Magoseph - 4/14/2007 1:58:13 PM Wabbit, the item, “the Topics of Interest:--Don Imus, Al Sharpton, and Rutgers women “ on the left side bar leads to The Mote Café’s post “21504. Magoseph - 4/9/2007 6:49:27 AM”, but it shouldn’t anymore since the conversation continues in “News & Current Events”. Maybe we should regale the numerous readers of the Mote with the profound and intelligent posts we spout about the matter. (tic)I would suggest respectfully that the title of the discussion should change. (tic)
Now, one more thing, can any of you guess what the initials (tic) mean to me?
3102. wabbit - 4/14/2007 7:58:34 PM I usually just link to wherever a conversation begins, and this one started in the Cafe, hence the link. By changing it, people who might be interested would lose the start of the discussion. Perhaps instead of changing that link, I should add a link to the beginning of the posts in News? 3103. Magoseph - 4/14/2007 9:42:41 PM That would do, Wabbit--we may get a new Motie that way. 3104. wabbit - 4/14/2007 10:31:31 PM Done. Hopefully I caught the continuation post. 3105. judithathome - 4/14/2007 11:02:47 PM Mags, I thought it meant tongue in cheek?
|
