The Best Mistakes — and Corrections — of 2012
In a year of mistakes, some corrections stand head and shoulders above others. Let us celebrate the honest and witty souls behind them.
In a year of mistakes, some corrections stand head and shoulders above others. Let us celebrate the honest and witty souls behind them.
The New York Times is now publishing short e-books, another step down the path to monetizing content directly instead of through the sale of advertising.
Even in the digital age, some print products are hard to give up. What is the allure?
“Big data” isn’t what the Nate Silver story highlights. It highlights data curation, management, analysis, publication, iteration, and integrity, none of which “big data” guarantees.
Facebook’s IPO has disappointed many, but to think that it presages a complete meltdown of the online ad market is a bit of an overstatement.
A nifty little experiment across a two-part New York Times column shows that some aspect of authority resides in not only your words, but the typeface they appear in.
A lurid story of intramural hijinks at the FDA shows how far from mission an organization can drift when it gets its priorities wrong.
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
Boiling down the social Web to create a measure of influence? Not as easy as it looks.
They’ve made a movie about a newspaper’s travails in the Internet age.
Blogging still gets no respect. Is that because we’re more hidebound about our communication advances than the 16th century was?
The New York Times is likely to introduce institutional pricing now that it is beginning to charge for consumer access.
New publishing initiatives link concepts like “importance” to social metrics like popularity and sharing. Is this logical? Can these metrics be easily gamed?