Apologize for your mistakes. Transparency is all it’s cracked up to be.

You admitted that journalists in this country had failed as the Fourth Estate. The flat-out bad reporting when ex-President Bush took this country to war against Iraq was in-excusable. The argument for war was based on lies. To this day, the media hasn’t made a resounding statement saying as much. You didn’t apologize. You blamed us, the people, for creating “conventional wisdom” for you to ‘float along’ with. If you want us to trust you, we’ve got to have an honest relationship! Tell us when you get something wrong. We’ll be mad, but we’ll trust you more because you came clean.

The smell of ink doesn’t justify its cost.

You said that print still has “a lot of life left in it.” I’m not sure if that was the diplomatic answer but I think most of us would have been more impressed to hear that you were actively looking for ways to move your operation digital; that print was on its way out as the foundation of your business. Make a commitment to doing journalism online because the myth that, “the best of online journalism is rooted in mainstream media,” won’t last long. I’m not sure what you define as “mainstream,” but you ought to consider re-evaluating your premise. The MSM isn’t the only group of people capable of doing journalism.

You’re not the last bastion of resistance. Stop resisting.

The Daily Show segment ‘End Times’ that made you look “faintly ridiculous” according to your wife should be the last time you try to look like an arrogant douche, not the last time you try to be a good sport! Let me give you a clue: depicting The New York Times as, “the last ship afloat, we [at the NYT] have all these lifeboats floating around underneath us and people dying to clamber aboard,” does not make it sound like you ‘get it.’ It sounds like you believe your own hype. There are plenty of other companies out there doing journalism. And frankly, some of us are pretty sure that your ship has been left behind. “The people who are eager to dance on the grave of the times and other major news organizations” aren’t eager, just willing. We wouldn’t “feel a profound sense of loss if suddenly there were no organizations that were sending reports to afghanistan or policing Wall Street or Washington,” because we’ll still have that. Journalism isn’t being threatened Mr. Keller. Just your business.

I do have a bureau in Iraq. You would too, if you were actually listening.

I’m totally lost on your obsession with foreign bureaus. Your report from the ground in Tehran, during the recent Iran elections was little more than a summary of events. There was nothing in that piece I couldn’t get elsewhere. Again: there was nothing in that piece I couldn’t get elsewhere. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying that bureaus are necessary for reporting. The number of stories about Iraq as dropped off drastically in your paper. Having people on the ground there isn’t helping. If you’d drop your idiotic social media policy, you might be able to present new information, instead of simplistic anecdotes that I can just as easily find on twitter. Please don’t fail your job as a our watchdog again because you lacked a bureau. You may “think there is a little bit of a sense of war fatigue… while the country is going through a bit of a transition.” But, I think that sounds like you’re worried about selling papers. Trust me, every family with a solider over there grasps for any information they can get. You can’t stop being a public trust because its inconvenient for your private shareholders.

So… what’s the difference?

The Times had no problem leaking state secrets, claiming the truth required that they be published. Yet it had no qualms lying about the kidnapping of one of its reporters to protect his safety. What is the difference?

—Bob Dame, time.com

Yes, that’s an inflammatory question. But, I’d still like an answer. What is the difference? Not all of us are convinced that withholding information from the public is the journalistic thing to do. Please don’t skirt the question by saying that you save lives.

ALL Iranian journalists are being oppressed.

Yes, Iran’s policy toward journalists is “self-destructive.” Glad we agree. But, if you recall, Iran of all places, is a perfect example of Iran oppressing all journalists. We’ve proven that the random guy on the street with a cellphone camera can show live video to the world. That’s faster reporting than the New York Times has ever delivered. Let’s not just worry about Iran oppressing journalists. Let’s praise the Iranian people for picking up the slack.

Okay, so do we have a free press?

“Do you think there should always be freedom of the press?” is a bit of a weak question. But, telling us that libel laws mean we don’t have “absolute freedom of the press,” misses the point. Again, Mr. Keller, you’ve not answered the question. Yes, absolutes are impossible. Yes, the press is regulated, but jeebus man! How about a resounding, “YES! Journalism will always be here!” Is your faith that shaken?

Mr. Keller, answer the question please.

“One of the most important disciplines in journalism is to challenge your working premises,” is not an answer to: “Do reporters avoid writing un-flattering things about sources?” It’s a cop-out. It’s avoiding the question. It’s horribly non-transparent. The sheer number of times you quote from a “high-ranking administration official,” in your paper is ludicrous. The answer you were looking for was a simple, “yes.” The correct answer ought to include phrases like “we’re a part of the community we report on,” and “people know they’re always on the record when they talk to us,” and “yes, it does happen, but only for really good reason.”

Sir, you’re right, objectivity is impossible. So stop trying!

It’s amazing the pains you go through to remove yourself from your own articles. Stop that. I have no problem with knowing that you were, ya’ know, actually there. I forgive you. Really. Stop worrying about The Gray Lady having a liberal tint. As you rightly imply, most of the folks calling you liberal likely think creationism is science. The rest of us are perfectly willing to accept you for doing a the best job you can. Be honest, and we’re willing to accept that you’re just as human as the rest of us.

Society’s relationship with journalism has changed.

“Quality journalism not the quite the same as info, it is in greater demand than it’s ever been and it’s in shorter supply than it’s ever been.”

—Bill Keller, time.com

I’m sorry, what!? Yes, information is in greater demand than ever before, and yes, journalism isn’t the same as pure information, but to argue that supply of either has gone down shows a level of ignorance I didn’t think possible for a man in your position. We have more of both than ever before. Don’t go insinuating that your poor newspaper is society’s last hope for useful information. That’s at best disingenuous, and at worst, wrong.

Mr. Keller, I’m calling you to account.

I tired of seeing an older generation of managers ruin this business for the rest of us. I’m not waiting to dance of the grave of the New York Times. I hope that the institution continues to exist for a long time to come. For that to happen, you’ve got to re-learn your entire industry. This is not the industry that you grew up with. We’re experiencing the greatest change to information distribution since the invention of the printing press 500 years ago. Your 40 years of experience are nearly irrelevant in this new business. Take the time to re-learn and re-think everything you thought you knew. ‘New media’ is a bit counter-intuitive. Take the time to think about the new rules of the road. And, perhaps consider a hiatus from giving interviews until you can be a good sport again. Your heartfelt supporter, —Joey Baker

I hit the publish button on this post knowing two things: 1) Interviews are damn hard. It’s near impossible for a journalist, who is used to asking the questions, give the right answers all the time. 2)I will never be asked to work for the New York Times.

Update: I’ve tweaked this post for typos and added a few links to provide more examples.

Update: Apparently, calling the NYT social media policy, “idiotic” might have been premature. According to Jacob Harris, the social media policy that Poynter reported is wrong. I’ve asked if the correct policy is public facing, and haven’t yet received a reply.

harrisj

(Jacob Harris)

@joeybaker One thing I will correct. The social media policy is not idiotic; you and Poynter are wrong on what the internal policy is.

On 13-7-2009 16:01:48 from Tweetie in reply to Joey Baker

• They Do Care, Right?
• Micropayments Lead to Piracy
• Some Photogs Can Write
• Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Did Happen to That War?
• How Newhouse Can Become Relevant Again

Google CEO Eric Schmidt

TWiST Episode 1

• Paid Content = Paid Wifi
• Links for January 8th Through January 9th
• LINKS | Micropayments Don’t Work, but Everyone Has a Better Idea
• Links for January 16th Through January 19th
• The Internet Broke the Economy

• The design is nice and clean with a solid red motif, but the widgets are sorta hard to tell apart, they don’t really have a bottom.
• I know that Newsweek is a partner of MSNBC, but promoting that connection so heavily may not be so smart. MSNBC should get equal billing (see: Slate and WaPo), or be totally integrated.
• The choice to push the blogs so heavily is interesting (They have a widget and a nav bar). Not bad, just interesting. I’m curious to know if that works out.
• Serious Fun is all kinds of UI hell. The side arrows to mean neutral is just down right confusing , and it’s got very prominent placement on the F pattern of user reading. I’m all down for turning polls into something more of a game, but rethink the UI here.
• Props for having links to other newsorgs. That’s a valuable service that Newsweek is developing. The fact that you get to the other site through a frame is, again, interesting. Cheers to experimentation.

Newsweek Homepage Critique

A few css issues on the new redesign. I recommend: max-width :)

Update

Looks like there are still some css issues to be worked out too. This is a close up of the top slider section.

Update2

Looks like the content of the change isn’t that great either.

• A Web Design Critique of Google News
• Rev2oh | Classifieds: Use a Tiered Selling Strategy
• ‘Olympicpix’
• Google Tries Tighter Aim for Web Ads – NYTimes.Com
• MobileMe Reviewed

You should really hear my brother and me argue. It sounds sounds a lot like we disagree on everything, but sit and listen to us, and you realize that we often have the same point of view, just different ways of expressing it. My brother is the guy who got me inspired/angry enough to write You Can’t Make Abundancy Scarce. Phill Baker (who has no online profile to link to), who studies economics and engineering at UPenn and was assigned a massive project – to write a 80 page paper on an industry effected by technological change. I’m pretty certain that his decision to write on the newspaper industry was in part to piss me off, but in reality, I’m glad he’s doing it. It’s interesting to see how an economist approaches the industry from a macro perspective. He’s asked me to publish the paper when he’s done, mostly to see what the “industry insiders” think. I’ve agreed, so look for it in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we’re in the process of another email exchange, in which I play futurist and defend us blogging “ilk.” What follows is excerpts from his email (small edits), interspaced with my responses. Any emphasis or links are my own.

Uh, yea, definitely, as to the last point you made. It’s interesting b/c this is a ‘classic’ example of how success breeds failure under the pressure of technological change. There’s some fascinating literature in that topic, but the poignant example is Kodak: they were so focused on being a film camera company, that they completely missed digital. They thought they were in the business of film (they were a pretty sophisticated chemical engineering company), whereas they should have seen themselves in the photography business. Where we differ is the extent of the change. So the business model has lost its exclusivity and newspapers missed the boat. Now they’re facing established competitors in their markets with serious competitive advantages and the benefits of network effects through first mover status (e.g. if the NYTimes had been craigslist, we wouldn’t be hearing of the end of newspapers). Newspapers are not going anywhere. Print will not disappear, there’s simply too much demand. 15% profit margins (20% is a bit high, actually the industry average is about 17%), should disappear (they can be maintained at the cost of cutting everything in the paper, but that’d be stupid). Circulation will likely stabilize in the next few years as the cannibalization of the print edition by the internet edition faces diminishing returns. What’s fascinating is that their business model has been co-opted by search. I don’t think, and the research backs me up here, that display advertising online will ever come close to replacing the lost advertising revenue that was enjoyed in print. The ‘national’ papers, or those that are big enough to scale and aren’t trapped under burdens of debt due (some serendipity comes into play there), will likely find stability first as they can portray themselves as the replacements to the four TV networks. At the head of long tail, they’ll be able to differentiate themselves from commodity news through designer websites, cool visualizations, (hopefully) good journalism and (hopefully) their brand names.

• Agreed. Ads will very likely not be able to fund the entirety of a newsorg in the future. I can say this with maybe… 90% certainty.
• Newspapers enjoyed a profit margin of 20% and higher.
• The issue here is largely mindset. Newspapers are used to thinking of themselves as …newspapers. As they realize that they are really just a specialized subset of the tech sector, they’ll come to have a revenue model that is more inline with the industry. Which is to say, one that relies on multiple sources of revenue.
• We really agree on your last three points here. Newsorgs need a great UI, ability to inform using data, and to maintain a solid reputation.

It remains to be seen whether online news will Balkanize like cable TV, I tend to doubt it because the specialization of content and advertising on channels lends itself more to paid search advertising than content. Although people can unbundle stuff on the web, news is still a pretty broad category and lends itself to similar reporting: local, regional, national, international; political, financial, environmental, sports, technology, society, etc. Part of the inherent complexity of the subject is that it is, by definition, an unknown unknown, and hence being able to specialize completely is practically impossible as content would not be filtered appropriately. I don’t know if newspapers will be the ones to successfully challenge TV online. They have the original reporting advantage, but broadcast news has some distinct features that give them a leg up.

• TV ads are more valuable. There’s a lot more money behind TV. If the average American watches 5 hours of TV a day, and just over a minute on newspapers a day, it’s unreasonable to assume that newspapers, in their current form, can compete with TV ads in terms of value.
• TV has an entertainment value that newspapers haven’t been able to replicate. Newspapers have a reputation for delivering bad news, TV is about entertainment. Which would you choose to use? Which is more likely to get you to pay attention to ads?
• TV is already paying for the right to cover sporting events, newspapers rely on free access. As newspapers use the internet to move to live coverage, something will give. It’s quite possible that they won’t enjoy free access forever. (h/t to Andrew Burton for pointing this one out to me.)
• TV is used to the 24/7 news cycle, their websites are a testament to this.
• TV can do video. They can do it live. They can stream it. Ouch for newspapers.

From my literature review, what shocked me the most was survey results considering trust: apparently people trust other people more than they trust the experts, by a wide margin. This might apply to product reviews and movie ratings, but I’d be shocked if the smart people at the Times couldn’t find a way to prove that their trained, intelligent and talented journalists actually produced more informative, accurate, well-written, better sourced content than some bloke. Information along with basic facts that come off of the wire. That probably should stay free, and might be the way to help the long tail papers – the smaller metropolitan papers that can’t get the scale necessary to survive online. Although it seems their readership is more loyal, so they could conceivably milk their print editions for a while longer, they will probably have much great long term problems finding sustainable models than those companies at the head of the tail.

• I’d really like to have a link to that data. Really. (later: Phill promised me PDFs of the data, I’ll look through it for anything good.)
• I’m working on compiling a list of axioms for hwe to do news, and one of my first ones is “trust the crowd.” If two heads are smarter than one, many are smarter than one.
• I think that what people trust is relationships. If they have a relationship with an expert, they’ll trust him. i.e. people watch pundits b/c they feel they have a relationship with them.
• I wager that sites like digg are successful because ‘content is king,’ and to a lesser extent because users believe that other users are trustworthy.

One reason I don’t like your ‘ilk’ is that you make up new terms of art (that paper I sent you does too), and run around screaming like chickens with your heads cut off. Maybe it’s different ’cause your ‘inside’ the industry and have to do that to get yourselves heard, and to try to fight against the inertia that’s holding folks back, but, you’re not the first, and you won’t be the last. This is the churn and creative destruction of capitalism/technological progress. That you dismiss print so quickly disturbs me. Folks have proclaimed the death of radio after 1.) the record, 2.) the tape-cassette, 3.) cable TV, 4.) the VCR, 5.) the CD, 6.) the internet, and 7.) internet radio, they were never right. Most of the time, these are not zero sum games, nor are the goods perfect substitutes.

• I don’t think Print is going to die. I do think it will continue to decrease. Print will become a luxury good.
• Just as the horse was replaced by the car, the candle by the lightbulb, film replaced with digital, the old method will be around, just in a luxury, antiquated, kind of way.

That experimentation is important is certainly true – except you claim to know what won’t work. So your definition of experimentation is like Ford’s: you can have it in any color you want, as long as it’s black. When previous technological discontinuities have occurred (e.g. aviation, PCs, automobiles, etc.), it typically takes a few years of rapidly evolving experimentation before a dominant design emerges. What’s interesting is that the innovation is much more on strategy and organization rather than technology, but it’ll be interesting. One of the quotations that I saw in my reading was that there won’t be one big solution, but many small ones. Benkler outlines many of these. I don’t understand what you specifically disagree with him about. You dismiss the 5 outcomes he outlines by claiming some internal contradiction in his analysis of the positive effects of the outcomes – you don’t argue why the outcomes will or will not happen.

• It’s not so much that I’m claiming that you can only have black, as much as I’m saying that I know pink and green pokadots is an ugly color choice.
• There are fundamental rules being developed for this new paradigm, we know some of them, and are attempting to define the rest.

I think one possibility Benkler doesn’t give credence to is the possibility of a ‘new’ business model – or really something that’s already done but hasn’t been applied to the newspaper industry. It might be possible that newspapers could become like rockstars – give the content away for free and charge for live performances, or in the case of papers, some type of consulting or analysis for companies. Or perhaps they can sell products based on it. Or perhaps there is nothing else.

Yup, I’m with you – newsorgs can charge for a great user interface, and should charge for access to their ‘new media’ skill set.

I don’t really want to debate the positive effects of this change, because in a perfect world we wouldn’t need the Fourth Estate and likely this will reduce some of its power. I think you’re still misinterpreting Benkler’s argument. He’s arguing that newspapers have always been an imperfect Fourth Estate, and that they will continue to remain so. The internet will neither destroy it nor perfect it – it will simply change its form and probably move the needle in one direction or the other depending on the magnitude of various countervailing factors that are still in flux.

Agreed.

 

 

• They Do Care, Right?
• No, No, Newsprint IS Dead
• Myth: The Smaller News Hole (at the NYT)
• Newsorgs Should Offer Freemium Live Interviews
• REPOST | Defined: Newspaper Platform

The A1 main story would be about summer jobs/internships in this economy. What students are doing since many places (seem) to not be hiring, any odd jobs, prospects for the future so its newsy/feature. Ideally, we would like a pull-out where each part (decibel, splice, spice rack, tech, health) would be its own section, where it would get into text to what it was.

Decibel: Major CD releases/List of hot concerts in major cities

Spice Rack: Restaurants worth visiting around the U.S. (they’re are some pretty famous ones), Quick summer drink recipe (alcoholic and non)

Tech: Cool gadgets for the summer-new phones, computers, etc.

Finally, it would be cool to have an inside truck of the United States with flag staffs in certain places pointing out neat places that are worth visiting like landmarks, big zoos, etc.

• Links for January 6th
• Jay Rosen Quietly Defined Crowdsourcing at TEDx
• Hear Hear
• Make Money by Removing Ads
• Micropayments Lead to Piracy

Eight reasons why College Publisher is a problem

The advantage of moving off College Publisher

The College Publisher site, The Daily Illini, is frequently referred to as the best designed CP site.

• Our website reaches primarily to alumni and parents (even if we do see a healthy on-campus readership). We ought to be selling ads that market toward them. Moving off College Publisher should open us up to this by enabling us to take advantage of national ad networks. Online ought to be viewed as a great new opportunity to find new advertisers, not a problem of not being able to attract old, local, customers to a new product. I suspect finding sponsorship for Thirsty Thursday is an example of this.
• Want to increase campus readership? Give us students a website we can actually use. The current one is so far behind the times and so user-unfriendly that people avoid it. THIS IS NOT CUSTOMER SERVICE.
• We all agree the current site sucks. And we can agree that CP is at fault. And we can agree that it is possible to make the site look better, but ultimately we’re still going to be restricted. If the dailyillini is the best we can hope for… well… we ought to aim higher.

This is an infrastructure problem

• BATTLE | What We Need, Is a Plan
• ESPN Shouldn’t Use Their Monopoly to Take Advantage of Students
• ‘New Media’ Chaos
• Hear Hear
• BATTLE | Google Juice Your Blog (Repost)

• BATTLE | What We Need, Is Infastructure
• Connecting Another Dot(s)
• ‘New Media’ Chaos
• LINKS | Micropayments Don’t Work, but Everyone Has a Better Idea
• LINKS | Please, Please Don’t Charge for Free Information

I’ve challenged myself to battle the management at my school’s newspaper The Daily Orange with a new ‘new media’ topic every week. I’ve been doing this for a few weeks now, and have a bit of a backlog of posts on the subjects we’ve been talking about. The following is a post that I just published at copress, that was originally intended for BATTLE. Expect to see more of these posts.

Bloggers are the anti-journalist.

Or at least that was the thinking at newspapers several years ago. Now that blogging has gained at least tacit acceptance among “true” journalists, newsrooms are encountering the very two same problems that have plagued bloggers since the dawn of… blogging: consistently producinggood content, and getting that content the exposure it deserves. The good news, however, is that creating content comes relatively easy for journalists who are already used to having to meet a daily deadline. Once they accept the idea that a blog can be true journalism, they can adapt it as a less formal news article, a summary of their notes, sharing of a pitch that didn’t work out, a conversation with their readers, a series of relevant thoughts, or whatever gets ‘em blogging; most journalists seem to take to the new tool with gusto.

Look at me! Please?

Part of the problem with blogs is that they have developed a stigma among the public — very similar to the way journalists used to feel. Therefore, getting your audience to click to a new area of your site that doesn’t necessarily have the latest “news” can be a challenge. Case in point: at The Daily Orange, we’ve recently relaunched our Sports Blog network. The sports department has not only taken to the whole blogging experience, but they’ve really embraced the platform as a way of publishing a ton fantastic content that just does not fit into normal news articles. See this great video post example. The issue here is that the blog network receives relatively few visits when compared to the main site. It also suffers heavily in the search rankings because it doesn’t have the Google juice of dailyorange.com.

Possible Solutions

What follows is a summary list of ideas that we’ve been brainstorming at The Daily Orange for getting our content noticed online. I’ve expanded it a bit to serve a general purpose audience. Write for your niche audience. Don’t worry about entertaining the “average” viewer. Blogs are for the folk who want to know all there is to know about a singular topic. It is important to include your personal voice. The occasional post to let your readers see a “behind the scenes” view generates a lot of loyalty. College Publisher users will note that there is no blogging system built into the platform. The best way (read: only way) to make up for this is to run a separate blogging platform. The problem with this is that, as a separate website, you loose all the previously mentioned Google Juice that your main site has gained. There are ways to help with this:

• Link to the blog in the main navigation bar of the College Publisher site
• Put a tease for the blog (including links to the most recent posts) on the front page of the main website (this can easily be done with a widget)
• Link back to the main site on the blog
• Mention relevant blog articles in main news articles (with links, of course!)

Adopt Facebook. Love it or hate it, Facebook is the best platform to reach college students online. Positive steps include:

• Start a Facebook Page for your blog or news organization, and be sure the videos and blog posts auto-post to that page
• Have someone in charge of that page! You can rotate the responsibility if you like, but just as it’s important for your blog to have constant content so that it feels live, your Facebook page needs to have the same tender lovin’ care. All it takes is getting the status update changed a few times a week, or just sending out a message every week pointing people to a good blog post
• Be sure that all your relevant content reposts to your Facebook Page. This includes blog posts, videos and news articles. It’s also a good idea to link to content that you don’t generate. (Do what you do best, link to the rest.)
• Send out messages to your fans. Topics could include: a contest to ask for photos of some theme of the week (mid-terms, craziest fan costume, etc). Promise to run the top photo on the blog and in the print edition. You can also send out breaking news alerts via Facebook; the truth is that you’ll probably get more viewers on Facebook than on your main site.

Get on Twitter. If your newsroom is low on Twitter acceptance scale, (we’re at stage 1 at The Daily Orange), believe me when I tell you that will not, and can’t last. Twitter has proven on three separate occasions (Mumbai, Plane crash in Denver, Plane crash in the Hudson) that it’s a valuable news source. Welcome to the future. More importantly, Twitter is a hot-bed of early adopters right now. Want to get noticed? Want Poynter,Romenesko, CICM, and others to recognize your work? Twitter is a great medium for that. Twitter is much like your Facebook profile: it must be personable. This takes someone deciding to truly use the tool. Shoveling links on to it, is poor form, and really doesn’t encourage people to follow. @latimes and @missoulianphoto do a fantastic job of using Twitter. Check ‘em out if you wanna see how it’s done. If you don’t want to manage accounts at Twitter and Facebook and [enter social network site here] check out Ping.fm. They can help make a lot of the status updating automatic. You’ve got great content, now be great bloggers. No matter how you feel about it as a medium, blogging is going be here for quite sometime, and it’s got it’s own rules and culture associated with it. Linking is key. I’ll go ahead and write that again so that you don’t miss it:

Linking is key.

You’ve got to fill up the glass of Google Juice with links. Bloggers figured this out a long time ago, it’s why we’ve got things like blogrolls and Technorati. Some of the best ways of getting noticed are to start commenting on other related blogs. Say something relevant (“nice post” doesn’t count) and perhaps point them back to one of your own blog posts. If your local city paper covers the same content, leaving a comment there can make the local community aware of the fact that you even exist. Generating a conversation between blogs is beneficial for both parties, and serves the audience by inciting conversation. It’s a win for all involved (not to mention, good journalism). Visuals are not optional. People like pretty pictures. If your blog is pure text, you stand the risk of looking very user-unfriendly. You’ve got a photo department – use ‘em. Oh, and shooting video is cool too. A 3 minute recording of two reporters wrapping up a sporting event is easy, it’s something they do anyway, and will give a ‘behind the scenes view’ that your viewers will enjoy.

Ideas?

This has by no means been a comprehensive list of ways to get your content noticed, but at 1,200 words, I figure we’d better call it quits. If however, you’ve got a strategy you’ve used to get your blog readership up, please share in the comments on the CoPress blog.

• You’ve Noticed the ‘Links’
• TIME.Com: Cheers
• Wow, That Took a While.
• REPOST | Defined: Newspaper Platform
• Links for January 5th