Month: January 2015

The End Of Blogging?

Here is Noah Millman commenting on Andrew Sullivan’s decision to retire. What is the future of blogging?

Forgive me if I see Andrew Sullivan’s departure from blogging as more than just a routine retirement by a pioneer in a new media field. Rather, I see it as an extremely negative omen for that very field.

Andrew Sullivan was not just one of the pioneers in creating the blogging form, and in demonstrating how you create a personal brand on the web. Beyond that, he was one of the first to understand that what he was doing, most fundamentally, was not writing, or even editing, but curating – organizing the vast trackless swamp of the internet into material that his audience would be interested in.

And beyond that, he was pioneering a business model that I believed held the best hope for anybody getting paid for producing “content” in the age of on-line distribution. He asked his audience to pay, to subscribe to what amounts to “the web as I see it.”

I say that that is the best hope for anybody getting paid for producing content based on the following syllogism.

First, there are only three ways to monetize traffic. Either you give everything away for free and sell advertising. Or you get people to pay for specific content. Or you get people to pay for a subscription to a whole suite of content.

The problem with the first is that on-line advertising is massively deleterious to the on-line reading (and watching and listening) experience. And it doesn’t work very well in terms of motivating purchases. And most efforts to mitigate the one or the other are massively corrupting of the creative or journalistic enterprise (as Sullivan was well-aware).

The problem with paying for specific content is that you don’t know whether the content is worth purchasing until after you’ve purchased it, which creates a substantial barrier to purchase. If you’re talking about a feature film for which you can consult Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes or whatever to learn whether it’s likely to suit, that’s one thing. But if you’re talking about a news article, or a web short, or a poem, that’s not an option.

The problem with subscriptions is that, generally, the way they are enforced is by creating a paywall around the content. Nothing gets inside the wall unless it was worth paying for up-front. And once it’s inside the wall, the only way to access it is to be a subscriber. This creates a two-tier world where most people are producing and distributing stuff without compensation, hoping to get them “hosted” by sites that don’t pay them, and eventually to “graduate” to paid work. But the prevalence of so much free work means that there is constant, brutal pressure on compensation for content-creators.

Read the whole thing here.

Robyn Urback: Women should speak first in classrooms, says SMU prof. Really, do the men have to speak at all?

My eyes are on the floor!

National Post | News

The classroom of progress, according to Saint Mary’s University management professor Judy Haiven, might look something like this:

Professor: “Class, can anyone tell me the three “R’s” of marketing?”

Jenna, Jane and Tommy put up their hands

Professor: “Yes, Jenna?”

Jenna: “I don’t know, but traditional marketing thrives by reinforcing oppressive heteronormative ideals.”

Professor: “Excellent answer, Jenna. Yes, Jane?”

Jane: “Can I go to the bathroom?”

Professor: “Yes, Jane. Anyone else? Sally? Mary —Yes, Tommy, I see your hand — Jessica? Kathy? No? OK, well, l guess you can go ahead, Tommy, but keep your eyes on the floor.”

The future is just so enlightened, isn’t it?

At a panel at Dalhousie University last Thursday, Prof. Haiven shared her method for elevating women’s voices in the classroom. It’s simple: let the ladies go first. Addressing the crowd at the “Forum on Misogyny,” which was formed in response to the…

View original post 435 more words

Brian Hutchinson: Free-speech rights not protected on university campus, judge tells pro-lifers

National Post | News

VANCOUVER — Pro-life and pro-choice groups clash frequently at the University of Victoria, and the results can be messy. The pro-life crowd claims it’s been a one-way street; they say they’re subject to verbal abuse on campus, and their events are sometimes disrupted by opponents, some of whom have hurled more than just epithets. Stink bombs, for example, in one alleged incident two years ago.

In September, an information booth set up by a University of Victoria student group called the Youth Protecting Youth Club (YPY) was vandalized: Used cat litter was thrown onto a YPY display table and the group’s anatomical fetus models were snatched.

Free speech and freedom of assembly are threatened at the university, or so the campus pro-lifers claim. The staunchly pro-choice B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) agrees.

Last year, the BCCLA and a former YPY president filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court, asking, among other things…

View original post 638 more words

Christie Blatchford: When push comes to shove, isn’t it curious how it’s always about the Jews?

Blatchford – again

National Post | News

It’s curious, isn’t it, how for some people, when push comes to shove, it’s always about the Jews?

Does anyone believe for a minute that when Amedy Coulibaly, in presumed solidarity with his alleged associates the Charlie Hebdo killers chose to make a grand gesture, he randomly picked a Hyper Cacher supermarket on the eastern edge of Paris?

Hyper Cacher translates to Super Kosher; hours before the Sabbath, it would have been a guaranteed big fat target, packed with those awful criminals, civilian Jews (and perhaps some Muslims too, looking for halal products) engaged in shopping.

[related_links /]

As one Jeffrey Goldberg (a correspondent with The Atlantic) Tweeted Friday, “Selling kosher food is a provocative and vulgar act, sure to arouse the hostility of aggrieved extremists.”

Anti-Jew and anti-Israel sentiment is the thrumming subtext to so much of this. Many more Jews than is usual have left France in recent…

View original post 760 more words

Conrad Black: Defending the Christian West

National Post | News

As I was sitting down to write about the atrocity in France, my wife Barbara hove into view, always a delicious sight, and announced that she was writing elsewhere on the same subject and that I could not do it. So I will not, other than to say that France had to admit more than a million Algerian Muslims in the mid-sixties, who had been loyal to France in the savage war of independence in that country, as well as a million European Algerians. It has been comparatively indulgent of Muslims since then, but this incident, or a few others like it, will motivate France to lead the Western counter-attack against militant Islam that should have been launched by our united civilization many years ago. Just as the French periodically become bored with life in their legendarily rich country of fine weather, food and wine, and tear up paving stones and…

View original post 1,178 more words

David P. Goldman on the dilemma now facing France

Here is a short insightful piece by David P. Goldman (aka Spengler) at PJ Media on the choices and decisions France faces in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attack in Paris.

What Can France Do Now?

Posted By David P. Goldman On January 8, 2015 @ 9:55 am In Uncategorized | 56 Comments

Along with journalists and writers everywhere, I mourn our murdered colleagues at Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly that had the courage to poke fun at Islam, and paid a horrendous price. This is a new and terrible step on the part of the terrorists: they have threatened individual journalists for years and forced a few into hiding or witness protection. But the assault on the premises of a news organization and the massacre of its staff is an entirely new thing. We have never seen anything like this before in the sorry history of terrorism.

How will France respond?

France now faces an existential dilemma. By most independent estimates France now has a Muslim population of 6 million, or almost 10% of its 65 million people. If we assume that just 1% of this population are radicalized to the point of engaging in or providing support for terrorist activities, that is a pool of 60,000 individuals. We are not speaking of 60,000 potential bombers or shooters, but a support network that will allow a much smaller number of terrorists to blend into the broader population. In the “no-go” zones of France now effectively ruled by Muslim gangs, moreover, the terrorists can intimidate the Muslim population. France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory, which means that it cannot conduct effective counter-terror operations

To put that number in context, the whole prison population of France is less than 70,000, of whom 60% are Muslims. It only takes a few dozen trained terrorists with an effective support network to bring ordinary life to a stop in a major city. France has had the toughest enforcement policy against radical Islam among the major European nations, as Daniel Pipes observes. But French security clearly has been overwhelmed. The use of assault rifles and (reportedly) a rocket launcher by highly-skilled gunmen in the center of Paris is a statement of contempt towards the authorities on the part of the terrorists.

The means by which France could defeat the terrorists are obvious: To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of deportations, revocation of French citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to terrorism. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living.

There is no good outcome here, but the worst outcome would be the degeneration of France into a hostage state.

Christie Blatchford: Terrorists have cowed us all into a ridiculous self-censorship

Blatchford at her best

National Post | News

Charlie Hebdo Charlie Hebdo

What a day to be a journalist: To reprise an old Cold War-era saying, better read, it appears, than dead.

Every newspaper in the free world should today be reprinting one or another of the brilliant cartoons that may have provoked the wrath of the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, or the original offending cartoons of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 which set the Muslim world to rioting and puking in 2006 and which every paper in the free world ought to have reprinted way back then, but mostly didn’t.

[np_storybar title=”Andrew Coyne: How remarkable that a humour magazine has led the fight against fanaticism” link=””]
Among the dead in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, we read, were not only the magazine’s editor, the cartoonist Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier, and seven members of his staff, but also his police bodyguard. The magazine itself had already been attacked…

View original post 1,134 more words