Image courtesy the Daily Mirror

Newsflash!

According to rock star Prince: “The internet’s completely over.”

I guess it’s time for us Web journalists to pack up our netbooks, shut down our blogs, and go back to dead-tree news, just as God intended.

The 52-year-old rocker sat down this week with the Daily Mirror’s Peter Willis for a rather bizarre, though not un-Prince-like interview, during which he proclaimed to the reporter:

The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.

Let me write that down. Numbers…are…bad. Got it.

Still, I shouldn’t make too much fun of Prince.

All general weirdness aside, I learned a long time ago that even if someone is misguided in his opinions (understatement of the year here), he usually has a decent reason or two for feeling the way he does.

Thanks to Napster, I was one of millions of 1990s teens on dial-up connections who could download up to one whole song in an afternoon! Ah, progress. (Corporate logo courtesy Napster)

It should come as no surprise that Prince, like many artists who struck it famous before the Napster Age, is a big opponent of internet file-sharing. Although he regularly gives away innumerable free copies of his own CDs, the artist takes an ethical stance on blatant piracy. Basically, he’d rather give his fans a gift than have them pry it from his hands. That’s an opinion I can respect.

Most recently, Prince gave the Daily Mirror copies of his forthcoming CD, “20TEN,” to insert into the paper this Thursday as a free gift to subscribers. Obviously, “20TEN” will be released in CD-format only, and will not be licensed to iTunes, Amazon MP3, or any other internet-media stores.

Unfortunately for Prince, however, just because he says the internet is a dead medium, that doesn’t make it in any way true.

He’s free to avoid iTunes–more power to him–but he must understand that as long as he produces listenable music, people will distribute it online.

Even the iTunes Store stopped using digital-rights protection technology in 2009, partly because Apple executives finally realized that DRM is virtually useless–there’s always a workaround.

If UK Daily Mirror readers get their hands on “20TEN” on July 8th, you have my word that someone, somewhere, will start distributing it by the 7th.

It’s the internet. On this playing field, smart, pimple-faced, pro-free-information teens have the advantage.

It’s good to be king. Or, at least it would be if your rivals weren’t trying to assassinate you at any given opportunity. But that’s how it goes when you’re head honcho on the internet, where users can be as fickle as fashion and everyone knows it.

A few days ago, Digg founder Kevin Rose Tweeted and then quickly deleted some intriguing (though not particularly surprising) gossip:

Ok, umm, huge rumor: Google to launch facebook competitor very soon “Google Me”, very credible source

Rose hasn’t commented further on the could-be social-networking site, but his post is ironically still visible through Google’s caching feature, which has preserved the snippet for prosperity.

The Tweet has created juggernaut of rumors and speculation, and now others are coming out of the woodwork to confirm that “Google Me” is very real.

Former Facebook executive Adam D’Angelo posted the following today on his own site, Quora:

Here is what I’ve pieced together from some reliable sources:

* This is not a rumor. This is a real project. There are a large number of people working on it. I am completely confident about this.
* They realized that Buzz wasn’t enough and that they need to build out a full, first-class social network. They are modeling it off of Facebook.
* Unlike previous attempts (before Buzz at least), this is a high-priority project within Google.
* They had assumed that Facebook’s growth would slow as it grew, and that Facebook wouldn’t be able to have too much leverage over them, but then it just didn’t stop, and now they are really scared.

Now, Google has tried and failed at creating the “next big thing” in social networking a handful of times already. Buzz is useful, but who do you know who uses it? What about Wave? And Orkut…? Well, I’ve said everything I need to say about Orkut already. (See “Why EVERYONE Loves Facebook” / March 28, 2010)

That said, I don’t doubt Google’s abilities to give people what they want. They still run the best and most-used search engine on the internet, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

So what must “Google Me” do to win over Facebook’s user base?

Here’s what I think:

• Guarantee Privacy: Users will only take so many months-long privacy fiascoes before finally jumping ship. Facebook needs to accept that while people love to share, they also love the freedom to choose what they’re sharing and with whom. I understand the temptation to sell our information to advertisers, but just don’t do it. A happy user is a loyal user.
• Don’t Enforce Awkwardness: Remember the good old days before the internet when we could simply avoid the people we didn’t want to talk to? We were communications ninjas: “Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed your call”; “Did you come by? I wasn’t home.” Now, if we don’t want to be someone’s pal anymore, we have to declare it. We must “ignore” their friend requests or, if they’re already our Facebook “friends,” we have to physically delete them. It’s all so drawn-out and dramatic. And don’t even get me started on the concept of “frenemies.” (See “My Social Media Blackout: Confessions of an Addict” / April 18, 2010)

  If Google can create connection tiers (acquaintances, coworkers, friends, family, etc.) and make it easy to create privacy settings specific to these different groups, I’ll be the first to sign up. Sure, you can do this through Facebook to some degree via “friends lists,” but the feature can be difficult to use. Plus, because Facebook calls everyone a “friend,” someone you barely know might be offended when they realize you’ve hidden your wall from them. It’s not particularly logical, but it’s true.

  At least with tiered connections, you’ll have the chance to set your boundaries with people from the beginning.

• Don’t Be Creepy: If I want to connect with my junior-high band director’s uncle’s neighbor, I’ll find him myself. Don’t get all creepy on me and search through my connections’ connections’ connections for people I probably have no desire to “friend.”

  Don’t get me wrong: This recommended friends thing is a great idea on paper. But at the very least, give me the option to disable it if I don’t like it.

That’s it from me for now. What do you guys think?

We interrupt the not-so-regularly scheduled blog postings to bring you a site update:

It’s been a pretty terrible technology month for me. My beloved first-generation iPhone died while I was at a conference in Las Vegas two weeks ago. Then last week, my server at TopClassHost suffered a major hardware failure, essentially killing News-Geek.com. The long and the short of it is that a drive containing all of my site information died and, while downloading all the data, the backup drive died, too.

I can’t say that this site is my life. My husband is my life. My family and friends are my life. Nonetheless, this site contains a huge chunk of my existence. It illustrates my skills and accomplishments, and it serves as a living archive of what I’ve done and an indicator of what I am capable of. It is not melodramatic to say that News-Geek.com is truly a part of who I am.

Last Thursday started off nicely. I posted a pretty fun piece on GEEKWARE, which my friends and readers seemed to enjoy.

I noticed the outage a couple of hours later, but only began to worry that evening. Down time is nothing new; every site experiences it sometimes. But my site had never disappeared for more than an hour at a time since I launched it five years ago.

That night, I sent out a couple of concerned e-mails and received confirmation that my data was gone. I felt like I’d gotten the wind knocked out of me. Fortunately for me, however, I’m not a moper. In fact, I feel like I went through the five stages of grief in two hours and one night’s sleep. As they say, “A house pulled down is half rebuilt.” By Friday morning, I was ready to rebuild this house of my works. And that’s what I’m doing now.

As you can see, I’ve restored my posts, pages, widgets, and layout. There are a few files that I’m still trying to track down, but the site is mostly back to it’s old self.

“A house pulled down is half rebuilt.”

…Well, sort of. There’s still no official release date for Adobe Creative Suite 5 (see my previous entry), but video/graphics/photography/design geeks such as myself should be able to get their hands on it by late May.

Today, however, is special in its own way: Adobe has finally “officially” announced CS5 and is offering a bevy of information on all sorts of exciting new features. It turns out that I was right about some of the new HDR features that will allow users to simulate high-dynamic-range photography even with a single image file. For more information, check out the Adobe CS5 launch site:

Keep watching the above for further updates!

Edit: I’ve changed the embed URL to a page that doesn’t auto-play sound and video! This should make my blog far less annoying to visit now.

Adobe fans will get to sink their teeth into some powerful new features when the company’s next Creative Suite bundle finally comes out later this year (though the official launch date is still TBD). Until then, Adobe is working hard to generate excitement. This Monday, April 12, users will get a quick introduction to CS5 during an global, online launch event featuring software experts experts Terry White, Greg Rewis, Jason Levine and Julieanne Kost.

These “Adobe evangelists” will show off some cool new tools for art, design, development, photography and video that will be sure to get users very interested in what CS5 will have to offer.

In the meantime, Adobe is actively teasing devoted followers with “hints” of features to come, particularly with Photoshop. Here are some of my favorites:

High Dynamic Range

Speculation: It looks like Adobe Photoshop is going to offer some easy-to-use methods for simulating high dynamic range (HDR). HDR photography allows photographers access to a greater range of light levels between the darkest and lightest areas of an image. If you’ve ever taken a picture of a sunset over the mountains and bodies of water, you might notice that the area where the sun appears is very bright and washed-out, while the mountains and streams are very dark. HDR techniques can fix this and make the rock and water much more visible, while toning down the sun.

I suspect that Photoshop CS5 might have an “Auto HDR” feature that takes images–or even just a single image–like the one above-right and uses algorithms to emulate HDR photography (above-left). My hope, however, is that if such a feature exists, it will offer users the ability to adjust just how bright or dim specific parts of the final image will be.

Content-Aware Fill

The above video tells all. With CS5, Photoshop users will be able to synthesize textures in photographs with just a few mouse clicks. I guess I won’t have to use the clone and smudge tools quite so much anymore! Excuse me while I retrieve my jaw from the floor.

Puppet Warp

Puppet Warp: It’s as cool as it sounds. This new technology will allow users to distort and warp images with astounding accuracy as seen in the video above. Imagine using this in combination with Content-Aware Fill!

There goes my jaw again.

Ahh, the World Wide Web. It’s a marvel of modern technology, to be sure. And like the steam engine and the jet engine before it, the Web-based search engine has allowed man to explore the vast reaches of the world around him–and the many worlds beyond.

Furthermore–ah, forget it. All I wanted to say was OMG CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY PARKING JOB OUTSIDE MY GYM!!!!12$@!~

Nice Job, Jerk Outside My Gym!

Because, why render just one handicap parking spot useless when you can screw with both?

Parking. FAIL!!!

House and Senate leaders introduced legislation yesterday that would establish a federal ban on bisphenol A (or BPA, a toxic chemical linked to heart disease and diabetes) in all food and beverage containers.

Click to view a NOVA audio slide show I conducted with BPA expert Dana Dolinoy

This move came just one day after Sunoco, a gas and chemical company, announced that it is now refusing to sell BPA-containing containers meant to store food and liquids for children younger than 3. The company told investors that it cannot be certain of the chemical compound’s safety. Playtex, Gerber and four other baby-bottle manufacturers have also announced that they will stop using BPA in bottles.

The quest to ban BPA is nothing new. San Francisco lawmakers proposed barring the product in children’s producs in 2006, and while they eventually backed down, their efforts have inspired similar proposals in California, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon. Canada banned BPA nationwide in October.

But we hear mixed messages about dangerous chemicals all the time. Sometimes, one group of scientists will tell us that something we’ve been eating/drinking/standing near will kill us, while another group encourages further exposure! Remember all of the drama surrounding the cholesterol in our eggs? And don’t even get me started on this pro-corn-syrup campaign. Suffice it to say, I think it’s misleading.

So what is it about BPA that we know makes it so harmful? Last year, I interviewed Duke University scientist Dana Dolinoy about her research on the chemical and its effects. Click the image above (or here) to watch an audio slide show I created showing what her team has found so far.

The headline says it all. My multimedia journalism student, Ashlie Anctil, is streaming live from spring break at Walt Disney World. The show begins at 3:45 p.m., EST.

Online TV Shows by Ustream

In case you haven’t heard, the members of U2 are taking cues from The Beatles these days and putting on “secret” concerts. Bono and the gang played one show last night at Davis Square’s Somerville Theatre, a mere ten-minute walk from my home and one of the tiniest non-bar venues the band could have chosen for this occasion. Were it not for the internet, I suspect the event would also have been just as “low key” as the later Beatles shows were.

Justin Meisinger, a teaching assistant for the JO540 New Media discussion section, reported on the concert for CNN’s citizen journalism service, iReport. The report (as well as an interview with Meisinger) eventually found its way to Headline News. You can watch the segment below:

Thanks to my colleague Steve Garfield for putting this video online.

I’ve learned several surprising things in the two days since asking, “What’s so appealing about Twitter?” Among them:

1. Lots of celebrities use Twitter and if you follow enough of them, some will eventually start following you back. This is the case with Yoko Ono, who not only supposedly reads my Tweets now but who has also sent me a direct message via the site. Now, I’m almost positive she uses a third-party site to auto-contact all of her followers–but she also sent along another, more special note just for me. Being the huge Beatles fan that I am, the experience of hearing from John Lennon’s widow has left me feeling a little star-struck. I’ll admit I’m a little embarrassed by that.
   If you’re interested, you can search the Web for reliable lists of celebrity Twitterers, but some of my favorites are Shaquille O’Neal, Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson and, of course, the truly amazing John Cleese.
2. Experienced Twitterers can come up with really clever ways to say a lot while staying within the meager 140-character limit. That might not sound too impressive to some of you social-networking veterans who have mastered succinctness in your status messages, but if you’re a journalist, you’ll understand that brevity–effective brevity–is nothing less than a fine art. There is a reason they call it “the soul of wit.” Twitter even has awards for the best “short content” creators.
   There are, of course, some Twitterers who haven’t fully embraced the concept of brevity just yet. If 140 characters isn’t enough for them, they’ll just continue their message in a second, third, fourth or even fifth post. Yes, I’m looking at you, Dr. Drew.
3. Congress Tweets. And texts. And chats. And… does pretty much everything with their phones except take notes on important events? Here’s an excerpt from the The Washington Post’s article on what, exactly, our leaders were doing during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress last night:

President Obama spoke of economic calamity and war last night in that solemn rite of democracy, the address to the joint session of Congress. And lawmakers watched him with the dignity Americans have come to expect of their leaders: They whipped out their BlackBerrys and began sending text messages like high school kids bored in math class.

“One doesn’t want to sound snarky, but it is nice not to see Cheney up there,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) announced as Obama entered the chamber.

“I did big wooohoo for Justice Ginsberg,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) broadcast, misspelling the name of the ailing Supreme Court justice. McCaskill could be seen applauding with BlackBerry in one hand.

“Capt Sully is here — awesome!” announced Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.), spotting the US Airways pilot in the gallery.

Then there was Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), in whose name this text message was sent at about the time the president spoke of the need to pull the country together: “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” A few minutes later, another message came through: “Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer.”

Wow. Seriously? My students pay far better attention in class! And as special as I think each and every one of their smiling faces happens to be, none of these students is ever going to have the effect on my taxes, bank account and general livelihood that Congress will.

Do we need to start confiscating their cell phones?

A few months back, I downloaded a few Twitter applications for my iPhone. Yes, more than one. I do that a lot with (free) apps since it’s the only way I can figure out which ones are right for me. When you use as many Web tools as I do (as often as I do) speed and usability become paramount.

The problem is, I never bothered using any of them. I’ve tried to get into Twitter, but micro-blogging has never really appealed to me–well, until now, anyway.

Long story short, I’ve recently come to accept two important facts of internet life:

1. Twitter isn’t the passing fad I thought it would be. To the contrary, it’s still gaining in popularity more than 2 years after its release. According to a February ‘09 report from Web traffic analysis site Compete.com, Twitter is now the third most popular social networking site behind Facebook and MySpace.
2. Twitter is a symbol how internet users are now essentially online all the time. Smart phones and WiFi have really changed where we connect, when we do it, and how often we can do it. We can both have lives and yet stay in constant connection with the Web and our peers, which is a huge shift from just a couple of years ago. Sure people still have their stereotypes: To a lot of folks, if you’re online, you must be at your computer in your mom’s basement, drinking a 2-liter Mt. Dew and arguing with strangers over which “World of Warcraft” characters are the coolest. But regardless of stereotypes, things are really changing. Look at teenagers: Even the cool kids are always texting, Facebooking, Twittering, etc.

As a self-respecting multimedia journalist, I know that I should accept Twitter as the increasingly popular tool that it is. Yet it’s that journalistic part of me that really needs to decipher what’s behind the popularity of this whole micro-blogging thing. Both Facebook and MySpace offer “status update” tools in addition to myriad cool features that Twitter doesn’t have. So why do we Twitter?

While even Twitter CEO Evan Williams can’t answer that question (as he’s stated in multiple interviews) perhaps the Times of London can. Just yesterday the Times published an article in which they asked several experts about the Twitter phenomenon. The conclusion was this: We Tweet because we have an underdeveloped sense of the self. Ouch.

From the article:

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. ‘Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.’

‘We are the most narcissistic age ever,’ agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. ‘Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.’

For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, Twitter represents ‘a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.’

Those are some pretty strong accusations. But what do you think? Are those of us who Tweet or update our statuses on Facebook and MySpace narcissistic? Are we insecure? Do we need validation?

For me… I just think it’s fun. No harm, no foul. But what do you think? Are we truly just a bunch of big, fearful, attention-seeking babies?

Let me know. And while you’re at it, follow me (and my lacking sense of self) on Twitter. You can do that at right.

This week, my students are learning the importance of storing data on maps. Not only do maps offer readers additional visual entry points into Web content, but they can also make mundane or unwieldy data interesting.

If I gave you a chart showing what Twitter users tweeted about during the Super Bowl, what would you learn? That Cardinals fans were talking about the Cardinals and Steelers fans about the Steelers? That “Springsteen” overtook both teams as the most commonly tweeted word during halftime?

Sure, I could tell you about that. But it would break one of the cardinal most important rules of multimedia journalism: “Show. Don’t tell.” (Sure, this phrase exists in fiction writing as well, but the meaning here is much more, well, literal–sorry, that was one pun I couldn’t escape.)

If you don’t know what I mean, visit the New York Times’ Web site and check out their Super Bowl Twitter map and time line. They’ve really got the “Show. Don’t tell” mantra down. Try clicking the links at left (emoticons, ad talk, etc.), hit “play” on the time line, and then take note of how much you’ve learned in how little time.

Thanks to Steve Garfield for pointing me toward this link.

I’m neither the first journalist nor the first blogger to reflect upon our nation’s past with an eye toward her future. To say that tomorrow’s inauguration will mark an important day in our history is like saying the sun will rise and water will flow. The importance here is obvious.

Regardless of whether you (my readers) support President-elect Barack Obama’s ideas and goals, I suspect you all understand their significance.

You see, my generation never had a Jack Kennedy. We barely had a Ronald Reagan. By the time we came of age, Bill Clinton’s philandering was old news, and any respect for the office of President ceased to exist when journalists started vying for book deals. As for patriotism, we were too young to appreciate the nationalistic effects of the Cold War. Sure, we’ve got textbooks, archived footage and even the Rocky movies to show us how things used to be–for better or worse–but it’s not the same. Even the American solidarity we saw following the September 2001 terrorist attacks quickly faltered as we focused our hatred onto the Middle East, almost as if the entire region swarmed with enemy combatants.

Growing up in the early ’90s, bands like Nirvana told us to be apathetic. As the decade continued, television and films said that we should be sarcastic and condescending toward anyone with a positive outlook on life. The naught years told us to be excessive–to party hard, revive the yuppie spirit, and to first and foremost look out for ourselves.

I didn’t buy into it, and neither did my friends. And now it seems the tides might turn in our favor. “Hope” is no longer an idea that inspires childish snickering. People seem to have regained their optimism.

Perhaps it’s a pipe dream, but maybe tomorrow will mark the day when Americans started looking out for each other again. It’ll be a long road… but do you think we can do it?

“Yes We Can”

The artist Will I Am created the above video and song from Barack Obama’s speech at the New Hampshire primary. You can watch the speech here. If you’d rather read the entire transcript, click here.

The National Weather Service (NWS) reports that “arctic blasts” will hit Boston this weekend. Is it just me, or is meteorological terminology super scary this winter? “Arctic blast” sounds more like a video game villain’s special power than it does a weather condition.

They might as well say something like: “This weekend, you should look out for periods of white death falling from the sky, followed by murder pellets. If you’re walking or driving, be careful–the sidewalks and pavement are covered in slippery demise.”

Since I had the great pleasure of walking all over the city today, I thought it might be interesting see how temperatures are fairing so far. It isn’t particularly pretty:

This map lists the apparent temperatures (or how cold it felt) at 10 a.m. today. In cold weather, apparent temperatures are derived from a combination of actual degrees Fahrenheit and wind chill. Click to enlarge.

If you’re hanging around New England this weekend and plan to be outdoors, be sure to bundle up and grab your copy of the Health and Safety Program Manual from McMurdo Station, Antarctica. (The manual should help keep you out of harm’s way–it’s required reading for all visitors to McMurdo who intend to venture out into the snowy wilderness.)

The Associated Press reported today that Joe The Plumber is headed to Israel to serve as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site Pajamas TV. In the off chance you don’t remember, Joe (actually Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) gained national fame during election season when he asked President-elect Barack Obama about his tax plan. The McCain camp used a clip of the unflattering Q&A in an arguably well-fought attempt to gain support during the campaign’s final weeks.

As for Joe’s recent news, he plans to spend 10 days (and perhaps the rest of his 15 minutes) covering the Israel-Gaza conflict. His angle? Letting “‘Average Joes’ share their story.”

Now, I like the concept of reporting on Israelis’ daily lives and how war affects the average citizen. And, as a multimedia journalist, I also like the idea of regular citizens getting involved. The Web–including social networking sites, CNN’s iReport, Fox’s UReport, and blogs–has changed what it means to even be a journalist. It has grayed the line between “professional journalism” (e.g. the Associated Press) and “citizen journalism” (e.g., someone’s uncle’s blog on local UFO sightings or any other instance where non-professionals collect, report, analyze and disseminate news and information).

For better or worse, there is no Hippocratic oath for us in the media. And as much as I love my Society of Professional Journalists membership card, it’s not a license. Any argument against average citizens reporting the news is purely opinion-based. Surely any citizen, if he or she reports the truth, is a better journalist than Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were in the end.

On the flip-side of things, I admit that I am more than a little uncomfortable at the prospect of Joe the War Reporter. To say the Israeli-Gaza conflict is a “serious topic” would be a gross understatement, and so I’ve got a lot of concerns: Does Joe have any journalistic training? Will he be fair to all parties involved in the conflict? Does he know the difference between objectivity and editorializing, and does he care? Will anyone be there to fact-check his work?

I’m leaving this one up to you guys. What do think about this issue? You don’t have to be a journalist to fill out this poll. In fact, I’m hoping to get a healthy mix of responses. If you do choose to take the poll, please elaborate upon your answer in the comments section.

Note: I could be completely wrong to attach a time limit to Joe’s fame–a lot of Americans really seem to love him. Considering his personality and political leanings, he could wind up being the next Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly, after all, didn’t start out as a reporter either.