Newspapers vs. News Sites

I thought this Adaptive Path post did a decent job of capturing the issues surrounding TimesSelect, op-eds, restricted access to content on news sites, as well as editorial "manipulation" in the context of "blogging":

"I believe now that it’s possible to evaluate the maturity of an organization’s online strategy by the overall “awareness” its actions betray; a truly mature communications strategy conveys awareness that the greater value lies in contributing to, rather than attempting to own or manipulate the conversations it engenders."

Apparently, the New York Times still needs some work. But then I accidentally came across an article published on a think tank website via a predefined Google News search (think tanks? news?) and noticed at the top of the think tank version of the article that it had also had appeared on washingtonpost.com. Really? So I visited the news site, and had to register to get access. I didn't feel like registering, so I searched for the article in Factiva: no luck. What? They're supposed to include the Washington Post. But wait: this is washingtonpost.com. So I went back to washingtonpost.com and registered--for free--only to find the article in a special section called Think Tank Town (really?), which is restricted to registered users. Interestingly, Google News lists the washingtonpost.com article as Washington Post content: hrm.

In defence of news sites, NYT is NOT a blog, and washingtonpost.com is not really the Washington Post. As I was able to register on the washingtonpost.com site, I got a glimpse of their social software at work: they link directly to what bloggers are saying about their articles. What concerned me is that I could access neither GM's or anyone else's response to Friedman nor AEI's piece in Factiva. Who's going to archive that stuff other than the publisher? How are database vendors such as Factiva going to deal with that kind of content?

It does kind of cut the discussion short when you can't find out what all the fuss is about without forking over dough, or without registering. But these problems aren't new, and newpsapers as well as news sites are going to try to make their money, because that's what they do. But TimesSelect might want to take a look at washingtonpost.com's use of web 2.0. [Source: Adaptive Path]

'Canada wrests oil from sands', while residents wrestle with the stink

Canada wrests oil from sands, but at what cost? explores the environmental effects of getting oil out of sand, and includes passages like "Syncrude thinks problems with a flue gas desulfurizer -- the very unit designed to cut sulfur dioxide emissions -- were behind residents' complaints regarding a smell described as a mixture of cat urine and bodily odor." Also includes a description of the companies' (PR?) efforts to restore ecosystems after making a mess, including the loud popping sounds made by cannons to scare away waterfowl from contaminated ponds. Idyllic, really. [Source: Reuters]

Canadian Environment Week, June 4-10, 2006

Well, apparently it's Canadian Environment Week, which is kind of funny given the Conservatives' stance on Kyoto goals and their preference for voluntary targets. At least Jean Charest has said he plans to go it alone (this makes me quite proud of my home province, Quebec). Anyway, Clean Air Day is June 7th and Canadians are encouraged to unhinge themselves from their cars and trucks for the occasion. By the way, anyone who's under the illusion that Canadians are good citizens of the environment is sadly mistaken.

Advisories, Warnings, Information Updates and Foreign Product Alerts: RSS Feeds

This site includes access to Drug Advisories for Health Professionals/Consumers, Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter, Consumer Products, Drug and Medical Device Recall Listings, and Food & Nutrition. Also included is a link to report adverse reactions. The really nice thing about this page is the RSS feature, which allows you to get advisories and warnings via your feed reader or aggregator (for example, Bloglines, a popular reader in librarian circles). I was able to subscribe to the News feed quite easily, but the Advisories and Warnings feed seemed to contain a syntax error, which I've reported.

A Call to Contribute to the Encyclopedia of Earth

In an effort to create an authoritative source of information to counter forces such as Wikipedia (which does have some inherent risks of inaccuracy), experts are being asked to apply to contribute as authors and topic editors to the Encyclopedia of Earth. Call to action by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). [Source: Science Magazine]

Piece from Information World Review