Sorry, I attempted to embed the video but the NY Times embed code doesn’t seem to get along with WordPress. Follow the link for the video, its worth it.
This is a brilliant remembrance of Colin Levy’s grandfather. More on this story here.
The New York Times has a dance documentary channel on youTube: Dance In The Real World which is brilliant.
Here are two of the five up there now:
Dance in Trinidad: Moko Jumbie on 9-Foot Stilts
Dance in New York City: The New Vogueing Scene
Note: I have and love the movie mentioned in this one: Paris is Burning about the vogueing and ball scene in New York City.
[via The Kid Should See This]
This is a brilliant virtual tour of the show at the Museum of Modern Art that is now ending.
Anne and I saw this show early on and it was fantastic, almost overwhelming. I highly recommend taking some time and looking at this virtual tour. Zoom your browser window as large as you can get it.
More on Henri Matisse.
This is a great start up story which takes about 18 months and ends as many know with Facebook buying Instagram for $1 billion in cash and stock.
Many Instagram users who want to make a statement about their “hatred” of Facebook have left the service. While I’m no fan of Facebook and don’t use it I still use and enjoy Instagram. I plan to keep using Instagram until they require a Facebook login or mess it up with more Facebook integration. It remains an excellent tool for posting images to Twitter and flickr and if you use Facebook, that service too.
Pogue lays out the situation calmly and clearly. Its worth a read.
Some people are O.K. with the goals of the bills, acknowledging that software piracy is out of control; they object only to the bills’ approaches. If the entertainment industry’s legal arm gets out of control, they say, they could deem almost anything to be a piracy site. YouTube could be one, because lots of videos include bits of TV shows and copyrighted music. Facebook could be one, because people often link to copyrighted videos and songs. Google and Bing would be responsible for removing every link to a questionable Web site. Just a gigantic headache.
But there’s another group of people with a different agenda: They don’t even agree with the bills’ purpose. They don’t want their free movies taken away. A good number of them believe that free music and movies are their natural-born rights. They don’t want the big evil government taking away their free fun.
The second group of people is the group I don’t want to be associated with. This is what clouds my support for the entire protest.
For those who don’t know it: The New York Times is going to be charging users of its online content and their pay scheme is complex and expensive. Here are the details:
I saw a tweet from The New York Times this morning and I followed it. It was a wonderful little op/ed by Andy Selsberg called “Teaching to the Text Message” on the value of concise writing, a more positive look at writing in the age of 140 character limits. I was going to add it to instapaper, re-tweet it, and maybe write a blog post about it (add my opinion to the mix) with a link back to it. I thought about the new subscription model noted above and thought:
1. My own personal NY Times counter will start clocking my visits and revisits
2. How many people who will follow a re-tweet of mine or follow a link on this blog will have a subscription to the Times, or, if they don’t, will pause as they consider whether they want to follow my link and add to their NY Times view count (up to 20 free, after that pay)?
The fact that I paused to rethink pointing people to New York Times content because of their subscription model reminds me of the fact that over the years I’ve been pointing people at their content, many folks can’t get to content because of login issues. Even I can’t get to their content at times because their site forgets who I am (I have an account with them).
I’ve had enough.
New York Times editor Bill Keller’s odd thoughts on aggregation were and are telling. The New York Times, at least its management, is living in some kid of bubble, maybe breathing a bit too much of their own exhaust. I think The New Yorker magazine is too. Neither has found a graceful way to make money from online content while in fact, they both have the potential to do so because they have great content loved by large numbers of readers all over the world.
The clumsiness of their struggles are telling and add to the idea that both institutions are elitist. I don’t think of them that way (content-wise) but the way they protect their content seems out of step with the rest of the online world.
I appreciate print publications’ struggle to figure out how to make money in a world where the expectation is that if it’s online its free, but The New York Times’ various experiments in making money leave me cold and I won’t bite. I’ll find other news sources before I get entwined in their confusing pay schemes.
When Salon invented “Salon Premium,” their subscription model, I bit on it as it was simple and it worked. When flickr offered “Pro” accounts I signed up for 5 years because it was simple and it was a great deal given what the service offered me.
In a world where people make real money selling 99 cent apps one would think that the geniuses over at The NY Times could come up with a subscription model that made them money and was reasonable for their online readership.
Right off the top of my head: $25 a year, single login for any number of devices. $50 family/household rate for up to 5 users under a single roof (like Apple’s Family Pack). If it gets gamed, don’t sweat it. Enough people will bite to make them serious money.
I’m not hopeful and in the end, the clumsiness of this paywall scheme will hurt The New York Times more than it helps them.
The New York Times has never gotten it right, ever. They have the best news in the business and the best brand and they cannot seem to figure out how to get money out of users.
It’s simple: do what Salon does. Charge a yearly subscription and paying it gives you an ad-free reading experience. Simple. Salon charges $3 a month and the New York Times could easily charge a bit more (but not much more).
[via Daring Fireball]
This is a New York Times online feature and happens to be one of the best of its kind I’ve ever seen.
This is an incredible collection of still images built as slide shows with voice overlays of the people being documented. Everyday New Yorkers telling their stories. Great photography, well edited and well produced. There are 54 already and new ones will be added over time. Brilliant series.