Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Didn't find what you were looking for?
E-mail this blog's author, Bruce Umbaugh:  |
|
 |
Friday, January 14, 2005 |
Iraq news coverage dwindles. The international spotlight on the Iraq debacle is shrinking daily, reports news agency, Agence France Presse. Tyranny of the press, in this case, is the widespread threat of violence to journalists, certain to thin out the coverage of the upcoming Iraq election. "News editors point out that correspondents in Baghdad cannot leave their hotel rooms without incurring major risks. The United States is organizing military escorts so that journalists can cover the election, but this also would restrict their freedom of action." [Salon.com]
9:49:19 PM 
|
|
Oh Yeah? Says Who?
No more anonymous reviews, please.
By James Bowman, in the WSJ.
Why . . . is the reviewer allowed to hide his face in the
cloak of anonymity?
The Kirkus Review is one of two trade magazines for publishers and
booksellers that employ anonymous reviewers. The other, much larger,
one is Publishers Weekly. Both have licensing agreements with
Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, so that not only booksellers but also
many ordinary book buyers will be guided by the opinions of, well, who
exactly? A librarian in Dubuque? A schoolteacher in Detroit? A graduate
student at Duquesne? Whoever else it may be, it is unlikely to be a
world authority on the subject, as writers are paid about $50 per
review.
. . .
There are nearly 500 books a day published in America, or enough in a
year to fill an average-size college library. No one could possibly
read reviews of them all, let alone the books themselves. Even the team
of Stakhanovite readers at Publishers Weekly can cover only about
10,000 books a year.
Faced with this annual tsunami of literature, we all must grasp at any
bit of solid support that comes to hand. We have no choice but to seek
advice. That's one reason why Publishers Weekly and Kirkus cling to
their policy of anonymity: It suggests a magisterial, objective,
authoritative source, unsullied by personal biases.
Yet the opinions actually on offer in these magazines are every bit as
quirky, perverse and prone to bias as they are in publications where
the writers must take responsibility for what they say. And as the
experience of Mr. Weigel and other "right-wing nuts" reminds us, the
magazines' politics tend to be predictably liberal.
3:40:18 PM
|
|
How Well Is Your Library Serving these Kids?.
Millennials & Libraries
…When asked how frequently they used their local public libraries, most reported that they didn't read books for leisure that much (but they do read lots of magazines!) and don't use their libraries that often (there were two notable exceptions -- both young women who said they used their public libraries because they loved to read but couldn't afford to buy books or magazines). When asked what would draw them into their public libraries, they all said the following:
- Wireless internet access
- Remote/electronic access to all library materials
- A more comfortable environment -- couches, coffee, and food all ranked highly
- "More staff who are helpful and who show you where stuff is" -- a direct quote
- Better marketing -- tell the public about what you've got going on!
- More choices in materials
- A movie screening room (this recommendation from an aspiring filmmaker, who was also the only panellist to indicate an interest in becoming a librarian) [Pop Goes the Library]
[The Shifted Librarian]
7:59:04 AM
|
|
Technology and the Democrats. Howard Dean is a good bet when the Democrats select their next National Committee chairman in February, but a couple of party operatives from Silicon Valley are running, too, and offer intriguing alternatives to the same-old, same-old. [Wired News]
7:57:51 AM
|
|
Also CNET: Opera free for universities. Opera Software says it's giving away browser licenses to protect academia from flaws in "more vulnerable browsers."
7:50:32 AM
|
|
|
