Newspapers // Current TV

Chuck Jones’ comic strip dream revived in Crawford book! (Video Interview)

Animation fan Kurtis Findlay uncovered a bit of comic strip history thanks to a... more

andelman
added this
16 days ago
|
0 comments

Will the last journalist in America please turn out the light? (Newspaper staffs at 34-year low. And news execs want us to pay for crappier ‘content’?)

It's horrible already and getting worse by the day. Want to know WHY we have so... more

hoosierdaddy
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

John Darnton leaves NYT, turns Black, White, Dead All Over! (2008 Audio Interview)

2008 audio interview with former New York Times journalist turned novelist John... more

andelman
added this
2 months ago
|
0 comments

Meet Gil: A big-boned comic strip of divorce and optimism! (Video Interview)

2012 video interview with Norm Feuti, creator of the daily comic strips Gil and... more

andelman
added this
3 months ago
|
0 comments

The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-Winner, Anthony Shadid, Has Died in Syria

CNN... . New York Times reporter dies in Syria By the CNN Wire Staff... more

EthicalVegan
added this
3 months ago
|
24 comments

NY Times Lies About Imaginary WMD...Again

After promoting war on Iraq through false weapons of mass destruction stories the New... more

maasanova
added this
5 months ago
|
0 comments

Top 10 films to restore your faith in journalism

It’s a pretty rough time for journalism, as the phone hacking scandal rumbles... more

StrangeConversation
added this
8 months ago
|
0 comments

News of the World Downfall mash-up

A Downfall mash-up has never been more appropriate than now.

sbacker
added this
11 months ago
|
1 comment

London band Them Changes release new video `Lie To Me'

Them Changes, a relatively new talented three-piece from North London have just... more

leelondon
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Is newspaper journalism dying? New documentary about New York Times

This is the first official trailer for Andrew Rossi’s Sundance-screened... more

sbacker
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Ten Steps telling you how to write an amazing article

ten steps about article writing gives you the right way to write an article in... more

smasra
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

It's Cheap to Kill People

Cost of buying a gun in April of 2011 from a local newspaper advertisement 1 min video

frankpatton
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues: ABQ Journal

Monday, March 21, 2011 Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues... more

bluehelen [removed]
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues: ABQ Journal

Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues

N.M. Tech News Service
HOBBS – Nuclear energy, small-scale reactors and safety in the industry will take center stage next month at the 2011 national energy conference in Hobbs.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle Conference on Wednesday and Thursday, April 27 and 28, will focus on potential developments and implementation of small-scale reactors.
The conference features top leaders in nuclear technology, including Babcock & Wilcox, New Mexico Tech, URENCO USA, Washington TRU Solutions, Uranium Resources Inc., Energy Solutions and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The "uranium fuel cycle" begins with mining, continues with enrichment, followed by use in a reactor, and ends with processing and storage. Hobbs is in the center of the developing Eastern New Mexico Energy Corridor, which is involved in all aspects of the nuclear energy fuel cycle.
"Almost the entire cycle is contained in New Mexico, from mining to waste storage. This conference is an important step in bringing together key players in the area and continuing a dialogue about energy and our national policies," said Van Romero, Ph.D. and vice president of research at New Mexico Tech.
A new enrichment facility is now operational near Eunice, N.M. A deconversion plant is in the licensing stage in Lea County. Also located in the region are Waste Control Specialist LLC and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, which is a long-term storage facility funded by the Department of Energy. While not currently being mined, vast deposits of raw uranium ore exist in west-central New Mexico.
What's missing? The small-scale nuclear power plants.
"Communities in southeast New Mexico have expressed an interest in nuclear power," Romero said.
One area the conference will focus on is the commercial deployment of small nuclear reactors in eastern New Mexico. Representatives of Babcock & Wilcox will present their strategy to how to deploy a light-water reactor system to provide energy to communities in New Mexico.
Babcock & Wilcox is the leading international company in development and deployment of small-scale nuclear reactors. The company unveiled the B&W mPower reactor in 2009. The mPower reactor, with its scalable, modular design, has the capacity to provide 125 megawatts to 750 megawatts of electricity for a five-year operating cycle without refueling. The reactor is designed to produce clean, near-zero emission operations, according to the company website.
Following the Babcock & Wilcox presentation, Romero will lead a discussion on "Small Reactor Research and Readiness." Then, a representative from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy will talk on the status and outlook for nuclear energy development.
The two-day conference is hosted by the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy, a division of New Mexico Tech, the Economic Development Corp. of Lea County and New Mexico Junior College.
Online registration is under way at www.energyplexnm.com or by calling 575-397-2039.

Read more: ABQJOURNAL BIZ: Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/212143529029biz03-21-11.htm#ixzz1Jmt91Adv
Subscribe Now Albuquerque JournalHobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues N.M. Tech News Service... more

bluehelen [removed]
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

The Obama administration, Libyan intervention and knowing the truth, what the so-called progressive left is not telling you.

Greetings to all, I have received many e-mails requesting that I rant on several different subjects over the last week, and although I certainly appreciate that so many of you nice folks enjoy my "rants" I always think of rants of having an inherent negative connotation, if anything, I would like to think as what I post as lectures, at any rate, thank you, here we go.

There is a certain degree of feelings of futility associated with redundancy, I'm sure that many of you have experienced the same effect yourself, as when someone is speaking at a hall to a large group of people, let's say the person in this case has momentarily had the complete attention of all those in the hall, and makes a statement that is very important, very truthful and affects the lives of people everywhere. After the statement is made, there is perhaps a very long moment of silence (complete silence with only the sound of chirping crickets in the background) then, to the speaker's amazement, the crowd almost simultaneously begins chattering loudly to one another again, with peripheral conversation that seems to indicate, that SOMEHOW the entire crowd were not listening or did not understand what the speaker was saying. If you can empathize with this feeling, then perhaps what I'm about to say may make it through to you.

What is going on with the Obama Administration concerning Libya, or our own domestic policy is actually staged and designed, it is designed to give the citizen the illusion that your thoughts and concerns matter when in reality, they don't. What is taking place is a game within a game, the real game is World Empire and its resources, both human and otherwise that are being played out by the world's richest people who consequently, control the government's of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations.

The goal in short, is to continue the second part of the game and make it as convincing as possible, that is, by controlling the media to such an extent that you make people actually BELIEVE that what they think matters, or by occupying them with caring about sports, show business personalities or personal fulfillment by being an endless consumer, accomplishes the primary goal, the marginalization of the average citizen, those in control don't really care what you think, the point is to keep you bickering amongst yourselves about things in general, that in real terms, are either inherently meaningless, or as I already stated, you have no control over in the first place. Here's a very small example. Many times I'm sure you've heard, news pundits point out a leaders popularity ratings, either how popular that leader is at this time, or how popular a given policy or policy decision is on something which is apparently very "controversial" but what-in practical concrete terms- does that mean?

If for instance such a person’s popularity had an actual concrete consequence, i.e. polls were taken from week to week and the person could actually be fucking fired if their performance or likability didn't maintain a certain percentage, then it would make sense, but in reality because there is no real concrete consequence, it makes no fucking difference whatsoever, if that were the case, George Bushes ass would've been out of office a long time ago, and if true democracy existed, would've been in prison at bare minimum. Another meaningless cliche stated repeatedly by those in positions of power and/or "celebrities" as well, who have been caught doing something illegal, immoral or again soap opera style "drama" is-I take full and complete responsibility for my actions- okay, I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall here, isn't there supposed to be a penalty phase here? With that kind of logic, any criminal (after guilt has been determined) could say to any judge for any crime-Your Honor, I want you and the court to know, that I take full and complete responsibility for my actions-there's a long pause of silence of the courtroom, then the judge says-well, you heard it folks, this person takes full and complete responsibility for their actions- bangs the gavel and calls for the next case, where's the fucking penalty?

The spokespeople (I know how much you want to love them-I once did as well) for the left and progressive movement are guilty of perpetuating this process of marginalization, very well paid celebrity progressive talking heads such as Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and yes… Keith Olbermann (please put the knives away) are extremely good at what they do, in a very laser beam like focused manner, they accurately point out lies and inconsistencies in all manner of the political arena, and as I said, they're very good at it. But the bottom line, is that the net effect for us as individuals and society as a whole, is an honest open and accurate critique of who's doing what to who on a given soap opera show. In other words, it's what they're not saying that's important, which is part of the marginalization process that they actively participate in, (The CPB and NPR) are particularly guilty of this action, but that's a whole other story, just follow the outlandish salaries that many of the people that you have grown to trust and identify with (such as celebrity cult of personality Keith Olbermann-please put the knives away) and remember, he who pays the piper, calls the tune, always.

So in short, here's what's going on, plutocratic governments around the world have their own game going and intend on only doing barely enough for their citizens to placate them from open revolt, your true purpose as a citizen in a plutocracy, is to shut up, work endlessly for as little as they can pay you, and be a loyal fucking consumer, who’s patriotic and conditioned to accept perpetual war (or "interventions" which sounds nicer), and nothing more from the cradle to the grave. That my friend is the current reality, or as business criminals like to say, the bottom line, of our existence. I remain V.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n4EDKUB9uo&feature=related

To all vacuous villain's dismay, remember remember the 1st of May!Greetings to all, I have received many e-mails requesting that I rant on several... more

VFORVENDETTA
added this
1 year ago
|
157 comments

Take that, Cupertino! Google undercuts Apple’s subscription plan with a cheaper one of its own

Back in 2009, we broke word that Google was working on an e-payment solution for publishers that would be based on its Google Checkout platform. Google’s proposal (pdf) to the Newspaper Association of America said that the company’s “vision of a premium content ecosystem includes”:

Google’s got plenty of targeted advertising options (#5), and First Click Free is old hat by now (#4). But Google took a big step toward fulfilling the rest of that vision (#1, #2, and #3) today with the announcement of Google One Pass, “a payment system that enables publishers to charge consumers for articles and other content.” And coming on the heels of Apple’s less-than-publisher-friendly subscription announcement yesterday, Google’s alternative may seem like a breath of fresh air.

First, Google is selling flexibility. No requirement to offer the same deal through a Google One Pass payment system as through other means — which means bundling with print subscriptions is a whole lot simpler than with Apple. Print customers can enter a coupon code to get free access to a website. Want to try a metered model, or experiment with putting more, less, or different content behind a paywall? No problem. It’s device-agnostic — so if you want to sell an all-access, all-platform subscription, no problem there either. (It’s also a micropayment platform, for the few still living who believe in per-article micropayments as a viable model.)

Second, as Lee Shirani writes in the announcing blog post: “With Google One Pass, publishers can maintain direct relationships with their customers and give readers access to digital content across websites and mobile apps.” That sentence isn’t detailed any further in the initial announcement or docs online, but it sure sounds like a nice way of saying, “We’ll let you keep all the customer data Apple isn’t letting you have.”

And, most key of all, Google isn’t demanding the 30 percent cut Apple does. The announcement doesn’t share cost details, but the FT is reporting Google will take 10 percent of any subscription revenue. So selling a $15/month subscription via Apple would net $10.50 versus $13.50 via Google.

The announcement’s a lot to digest, but three quick thoughts:

— With the timing, it’s easy to see One Pass primarily as a competitor to Apple’s subscription plans. But note that the focus is primarily on web access, not app access. (Note that the word “Android” — Google’s mobile platform — is mentioned nowhere.) While mobile apps get a shoutout in the announcement, Google notes that it’ll work only “in instances where the mobile OS terms permit transactions to take place outside of the app market,” which likely means it’ll only work in Android apps, which are still a secondary priority for most news orgs, for better or worse, and where getting users to pay anything for apps has been a challenge. At least for the moment, One Pass is more of a direct competitor to Journalism Online’s Press+ than it is to Apple. It’s an infrastructure play.

— Frankly, I’m a little surprised Google’s even taking 10 percent. The transaction costs themselves shouldn’t be any higher than what Google Checkout regularly charges, which is 2.9 percent plus 30 cents a transaction (plus volume discounts). Sure, building and maintaining the record-keeping system for subscribers and the tools for distinguishing free/paid content will cost something. But Google’s consistent model has been to undercut paid competitors by making good free offerings, and I’d have thought just keeping the Checkout fees would have been the play, to soak up as much of the market as possible.

— What Apple is selling publishers is not just an easy payment system — they’re selling the 160 million user accounts with active credit cards attached. That’s about 70 million more than PayPal. How many of you have a credit card on file with Google Checkout, which has struggled to gain relevance and market share?Back in 2009, we broke word that Google was working on an e-payment solution for... more

jasonshurb
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Copyright jackal Righthaven sues young blogger

Being a citizen journalist is getting really scary, with copyright trolls lurking in... more

uswgo_master
added this
1 year ago
|
41 comments

News of the World phone-hacking scandal threatens more newspapers

With the increased pressure over the phone hacking scandal for NoTW and the departure... more

Mcellie
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Falls Church News-Press hires Helen Thomas; says she's no bigot

Former White House correspondent Helen Thomas has come out of a seven-month retirement... more

maasanova
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

WikiLeaks’ Assange threatened to sue Guardian and for Violations of Agreement other Revelations

Vanity Fair's Sarah Ellison has a comprehensive piece online detailing the relationship between WikiLeaks and The Guardian. The story gives an up-close look at how Julian Assange provided his leaked cache of classified documents on Afghanistan, Iraq, and U.S. diplomacy to the British newspaper and other news organizations last year.
The alliance between the old-media outlet and the Web-driven document clearinghouse proved rocky at times. It grew particularly strained recently after the paper turned its lens on Assange. (This was pretty much the same dynamic that upended WikiLeaks' relationship with the New York Times.)
What's more, Ellison notes, the Guardian and WikiLeaks were by no means committed to a shared agenda or pursuing common journalistic aims just because each organization wanted to make information public:
The partnership between The Guardian and WikiLeaks brought together two desperately ambitious organizations that happen to be diametric opposites in their approach to reporting the news. One of the oldest newspapers in the world, with strict and established journalistic standards, joined up by one of the newest in a breed of online muckrakers, with no standards at all except fealty to an ideal of 'transparency'—that is, dumping raw material into the public square for people to pick over as they will. It is very likely that neither [Guardian editor-in-chief] Alan Rusbridger nor Julian Assange fully understood the nature of the other's organization when they joined forces."
Ellison's account offers a great tick-tock chronology of last year's set of WikiLeaks dumps, together with several revelations regarding WikiLeaks' media strategy.
How The Guardian got involved: Reporter Nick Davies has written about his involvement with Assange before, but Ellison adds new details to the timeline. In June, Davies read a short Guardian piece on the arrest of Bradley Manning, the army private who's believed to be a principal WikiLeaks source and who's been kept in solitary confinement since his detainment. Davies was determined to track Manning down. Davies learned Assange would be in Brussels, so Brussels-based Guardian reporter Ian Traynor spoke with the WikiLeaks chief and learned he had two million documents. Davies headed to Brussels and "went to the Hotel Leopold, woke up Assange, and began a conversation that lasted for the next six hours."
How the New York Times got involved: Davies and Assange discussed bringing in the Times while in Brussels, and back in London, Rusbridger called Times executive editor Bill Keller. Times reporter Eric Schmitt flew to London to see the material, reported it was genuine, and the Times came aboard. Assange then brought in Der Spiegel on his own.
How Channel 4 got involved, and Assange split with Davies: In July, Assange provided Britain's Channel 4 network with the Afghanistan documents. Ellison writes that Davies was "livid" over the breach of Assange's presumed first-look arrangement with The Guardian and that the two haven't spoken again. (Slate's Jack Shafer has a good take on Vanity Fair piece, including the expectations reporters sometimes have for the sources they've "cultivated.")
How The Guardian got the cables from Assange: Investigative editor David Leigh agreed to a delay in publishing articles related to the Iraq documents because Assange wanted to bring in the nonprofit Bureau of Investigative Journalism to work with Channel 4 and Al Jazeera. In exchange for a six-week delay, Assange provided "package three" -- the State Dept. cables -- to the Guardian. In doing so, Assange got a letter from the Guardian agreeing not to publish anything on the leaked cables until he gave the go-ahead. But...
The Guardian got the cables from a second source: This bit of news fills in an interesting gap and explains friction between Assange and The Guardian. The British newspaper agreed to Assange's embargo on a release date for the cables, because WikiLeaks was its source. But in October, The Guardian received the full cache of cables from freelance journalist Heather Brooke. She had obtained the cables independently from an ex-WikiLeaks volunteer. (Brooke suggested on Twitter today that there's more to the story). Regardless, The Guardian now had the full database from a different source and believed it was free from the embargo agreed upon with Assange. The Guardian then provided those documents to Der Spiegel and The New York Times. These news organizations planned to published on Nov. 8--with or without Assange's input.
Why Assange threatened to sue: Assange and his lawyer met in Rusbridger's office and threatened to sue if The Guardian published anything from the cables ahead of the embargo. Ellison writes that Rusbridger, Guardian investigations editor David Leigh, and editors from Der Spiegel "spent a marathon session with Assange, his lawyer, and [WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn] Hrafnsson, eventually restoring an uneasy calm." They agreed to delay publication a few weeks while Assange brought in two more media partners, Le Monde (France) and El Pais (Spain).
So what's next? Last week, The Cutline raised some questions for WikiLeaks in 2011. In Ellison's piece, Davies notes that Assange has discussed having files on all Guantanamo Bay prisoners. (Wired zeroes in on this detail). Assange has also spoken about having documents that could take down a bank or two. But it remains to be seen exactly what Assange has and also how he may choose to work with news organizations going forward. As Ellison explains, it hasn't always been an easy relationship.
Since readers have asked me about neglecting specific revelations from the WikiLeaks docs, just a reminder: this is a media blog so the focus is on the media relationships and strategy. For more on WikiLeaks revelations, check out The Guardian, New York Times, a very good new CBS round-up or WikiLeaks itself. And for daily updates on all-things-WikiLeaks, The Nation's Greg Mitchell is a must-read.Vanity Fair's Sarah Ellison has a comprehensive piece online detailing the... more

gerardange
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ Newspapers

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2012 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2012 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved