![]() Unless explicitly stated, software is copyrighted by the author. Open-source, referring to software, refers to a «source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.» ( source: Wikipedia) You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to the question has been posted long time ago, and received some answers (none accepted), I am adding my answer to complete previous answers. ![]() If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. ![]() We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.īut you know what? We change lives. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.” My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. “Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. Google might have been able to avoid a mild racket, but the reaction to Reader's shuttering is more of an uproar.Ībout a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”: The Next Web has called the petitions "pointless," and predicted that Google will stand by the cancellation of Reader. The big question, of course, is whether Google is going to pay heed to all the criticism. It betrays itself as not understanding that "social" isn't just about numbers, it's about people – people who might be hard to sell advertising to, but who create the conditions in which advertising can work. ![]() But by angering and disenfranchising the very people who keep the internet fruitful and productive, it is poisoning its own fields – and those of others. It isn't in the business of supporting small groups of specialists, except through general purpose tools. Google exists, it says, to encourage everyone to use the internet. Google, Goodwins fears, is shifting its focus away from Reader in part because the platform isn't particularly profitable (as opposed to Google+, which he says can be more easily used to sell advertising). Perhaps the most scathing criticism of Google's decision to power down reader came from a freelance journalist named Rupert Goodwins, who penned an acerbic column for the Guardian. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |