Update: The New York Times announced on January 20 that they will indeed begin to meter content, starting in 2011. Read the Times’ statement here.

Bloggers’ reactions? Mashable predicts that the number of sites linking to the Times will decrease, negatively impacting traffic, while most readers will move on to another news source after they reach their limit. TechCrunch breaks down the numbers and comes to a skeptical, yet optimistic, conclusion. PaidContent.org, an information company owned by Guardian Media Group, justifies the decision.

*****

The New York Times may be close to charging for online content.

According to New York Magazine, the venerable “Gray Lady” is seriously considering a metered system that will allow consumers to read all of the paper’s content — up to a point. Once that limit is reached, the reader must pay for articles. This allows new visitors to explore the site while charging the heaviest users. Seems fair enough, right? The question is whether the Times’ audience will agree to pay or go elsewhere for their news. Read more…

Jack Shafer in Slate makes the case against non-profit foundations becoming the financial base for newspapers.

“In my experience, foundations that fund journalism directly—as opposed to journalistic education—are more interested in promoting what they consider “social justice” than promoting journalism. For them, a newspaper is just a means to an end.”

New York Magazine ‘s Emily Nussbaum recounts the efforts to keep the Gray Lady au corrant with social media.

“On the day Barack Obama was elected, a strange new feature appeared on the website of the New York Times. Called the Word Train, it asked a simple question: What one word describes your current state of mind? Readers could enter an adjective or select from a menu of options. They could specify whether they supported McCain or Obama. Below, the results appeared in six rows of adjectives, scrolling left to right, coded red or blue, descending in size of font. The larger the word, the more people felt that way.

NY Times David Pogue’s review of the Flip continues to attract a lot of reaction. See the follow up post ‘Why There Aren’t more Flips“. Funny how this little thing can create some much reaction. It’s premise is SIMPLICITY (even though sometimes it fails to deliver on that). This principle simplicity seems to the key to success when it come to technology and it’s most iconic example: the iPod.

Read more…

Two weeks ago when David Pogue published a review of the Flip Camera in the Technology section, I contacted him to tell him about our class project and I mentioned our general experience with the Flip. I invited him to take a look to our blog citing that we had produced some videos documenting the experience with the Flip.

The email has paid off. David Pogue blogged about one of Kirk’s most controversial videos (comparison btw HD and the Flip) and Kirk is getting a ton of hits on his blog. Congrats Kirk!

Read more…

Today’s technology section of the New York Times led with a review of or dear (for some) little Flip camera. David Pogue discovered some of its great advantages (plug & play video) and some of its hurdles (yeah, Codecs and the darn button that won’t turn on). I emailed him our class project so hopefully he’ll take a look at our journey with the Flip since he probably didn’t go as far as Brian did — taking apart the camera to explore the mic — and Kirk’s how-to videos are great resource for Flip fans all over. And most of all, I hope he enjoys our five shorts documenting how technology is making the media flip.

Click here to read the full article

Posted by Adri