A Quote by Rachel Kramer Bussel

I think blogging and the ability to instantaneously respond to news items has changed the way we approach all media. We're seeing people talking back to columnists, and going much further in the sexual realm than most papers, even alternative weeklies, will publish. I'm surprised more papers aren't having people do what you're doing with an online only column, and to be honest, I read almost all the media I do read online, and plenty of other people do, too, so I don't know what's stopping them.
I don't read the papers; I stopped reading the papers. I read the papers only during periods of crisis, and I think papers are too long on a regular day and too short days when we have a crisis.
Now, academics are not always the easiest people to talk to, and the scholarly papers aren't always the easiest papers to read, but frankly, psychology papers, especially papers and books on terrorism, are very easy to read, and journalists should be reading them.
OKCupid's model is almost entirely based on advertising, which is the way most online media is monetized these days, whether it's the news or whether it's sports, and we think online dating is going to evolve in the exact same way.
The news media are, for the most part, the bringers of bad news... and it's not entirely the media's fault, bad news gets higher ratings and sells more papers than good news.
The days of print media are numbered. Some papers will be around for a few years, but everyone knows news is going online. Then you have to ask, who pays for it? How do you deliver it? Is there any money for proper investigative reporting?
Unfortunately, there is something of a flaw in this idealized picture of the way the scientific community discovers truth. And the flaw is that most scientific work never gets noticed. Study after study has shown that most scientific papers are read by almost no one, while a small number of papers are read by many people.
I'm not ashamed of any of my papers at all and I'm rather sick of snobs that tell us that they're bad papers, snobs who only read papers that no one else wants. I doubt if they read many papers at all.
I've always read the papers but didn't feel I knew enough in the past. But doing the research and looking at newspapers and online websites gives you a 360-degree view of the news.
Anyone can go online and write anything they want about people they don't even know, and most of the time, that is fueled by hate. The sad part is that people actually believe what they read online.
News - communicating news and ideas, I guess - is my passion. And giving people alternatives so that they have two papers to read (and) alternative television channels.
People would publish their websites; other people would read them. But there was no real back and forth other than through e-mail. Web 2.0 was what they called the collaborative web - Facebook, Twitter, the social media.
Most people I've talked to are convinced that they're not getting valuable information from news media anymore. I'm not talking about tinfoil-hatters either, these are intelligent people who believe their news media has failed them.
You have to be really careful with what you put out on social media and who you're talking to online... You can't just trust someone that you meet online. People aren't always who they say they are.
People who travel in China tell me that the mood there is still very upbeat, because their media is different from our media. Chinese media emphasize how well things are going and suppress the bad news and publish the good news.
The papers that flourish will be papers that serve a national audience. Papers that have figured out how to make the transition to the electronic platform that aren't simply providing a duplicate experience of the words on paper experience, but are doing something that arises organically from the new electronic medium. It's really just a matter of finding the right platforms for the way people want to read newspapers. I mean, maybe it will be the iPhone. But one way or another, newspapers on paper are just not really going to exist to any significant degree within a decade.
The quicker we can transfer our online connections to offline ones, the more meaningful social media becomes; rather than just leaving them there and chatting to people. So I really believe in the transfer of online to offline and I think that can make a huge impact.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!