<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Simon Owens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/simon-owens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:08:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Who Actually Clicks on Those Pesky Links Anyway?</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/07/who-actually-clicks-on-those-pesky-links-anyway/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/07/who-actually-clicks-on-those-pesky-links-anyway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bloggasm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huffington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news aggregators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Posner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simon Owens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=10602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Considering how, "in recent months, news aggregators like the Huffington Post have received heated criticism from some who believe they’re stealing valuable traffic and ad revenue from newspapers," with even "appeals court Judge Richard Posner recently wr[iting] a widely-linked post arguing that copyright law should be changed in order to bar linking to websites and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering how, "in recent months, news aggregators like the <strong>Huffington Post</strong> have received heated criticism from some who believe they’re stealing valuable traffic and ad revenue from newspapers," with even "appeals court Judge Richard Posner recently wr[iting] a widely-linked post <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/30/someone-who-could-have-been-a-justice-is-wrong-on-the-internet/">arguing</a> that copyright law should be changed in order to bar linking to websites and paraphrasing their content," media blogger Simon Owens (<strong>Bloggasm.com</strong>, <a href="http://bloggasm.com/how-much-traffic-will-a-prominent-link-on-huffington-post-bring" target="_blank">7/6/09</a>) has conducted an experiment to evaluate the premise of corporate media management "that news aggregators simply repackage news so there’s little incentive to click on the actual link":</p>
<blockquote><p>So how much traffic does a large news aggregator like <strong>Huffington Post</strong> bring? I’ve been linked several times within <strong>Huffington Post</strong>, but typically on its users blogs, which only send a few hundred readers at most. But on early Friday I was fortunate enough to be <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/03/npr-ombudsman-refuses-to-_n_225399.html" target="_blank">featured prominently</a> on <strong>Huffington Post</strong>’s front page with a banner headline linking to one of my articles.</p>
<p>How much traffic did this link bring? Lots. For the first three hours I received approximately 4,000 unique visitors an hour to just that one article. Traffic for the rest of the day remained strong, not once dipping below 2,000 uniques an hour as the link began traveling down the front page. By midnight that night, <strong>Huffington Post</strong> had sent approximately 30,000 unique visitors to that one article.<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
But though the first day’s worth of traffic was the heaviest, the <strong>Huffington Post</strong> continued to send me strong traffic for two more days as the link moved down on its main page but remained prominent on its highly-trafficked Politics page.</p></blockquote>
<p>"All together," Owens tells us, he "received a <a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d20/simonthedude/huffingtonpost-2.jpg" target="_blank">grand total</a> of 37,739 unique visitors from a prominent link on the <strong>Huffington Post</strong> over a three day period," while days later "still seeing relatively strong traffic from there"--which all sounds like decidedly good news for linked-to big media outlets, <a title="Extra!: Did Google Kill the Newspaper Star?" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3829">doesn't it</a>?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/07/who-actually-clicks-on-those-pesky-links-anyway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NPR Ombud Dodges &#039;Torture&#039; Reporting Critic</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/06/npr-ombud-dodges-torture-reporting-critic/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/06/npr-ombud-dodges-torture-reporting-critic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:35:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alicia Shepard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Greenwald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR Check]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simon Owens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=10536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Salon's Glenn Greenwald has an update (7/2/09, ad-viewing required) on "several noteworthy developments since I wrote on Tuesday about the refusal of NPR's ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, to be interviewed by me about NPR's ban on using the word 'torture' to describe the Bush administration's interrogation tactics":
Given the utter vapidity of her rationale ("there are two [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Salon</strong>'s Glenn Greenwald has an update (<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/02/npr/index.html" target="_blank">7/2/09</a>, ad-viewing required) on "several noteworthy developments since I <a title="ad-viewing required" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/30/shepard/index.html" target="_blank">wrote</a> on Tuesday about the refusal of <strong>NPR</strong>'s ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, to be interviewed by me about <strong>NPR</strong>'s ban on using the word 'torture' to describe the Bush administration's interrogation tactics":</p>
<blockquote><p>Given the utter vapidity of her <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/26/02" target="_blank">rationale</a> ("there are two sides to the issue. And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture?"), I was momentarily amazed to learn that she actually teaches "<a href="http://scs.georgetown.edu/departments/11/master-of-professional-studies-in-journalism/faculty-bio.cfm?a=a&amp;fId=1092" target="_blank">Media Ethics</a>" to graduate students at Georgetown University....</p>
<p><strong>NPR</strong>'s "torture" ban and its ombudsman's incoherent defense of it has now turned into a significant controversy for <strong>NPR</strong>--and rightfully so. <!--preview-break--> Yesterday, the <strong>Huffington Post</strong> trumpeted the controversy in a <a title="ad-viewing required" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/02/npr/index1.html" target="_blank">prominent headline</a> all day long, focusing on Shepard's refusal to be interviewed here. The media reporter Simon Owens wrote a long <a href="http://bloggasm.com/why-wont-nprs-ombud-speak-to-salons-glenn-greenwald" target="_blank">column</a> on Shepard's refusal to discuss her rationale with me despite my having been a primary critic of <strong>NPR</strong>'s policy. (Indeed, this controversy began several weeks ago when I <a title="ad-viewing required" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/06/nyt/" target="_blank">noted</a> the <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/26/self-serving-propaganda-no-problem-on-npr/">ample</a> documentation from <strong><a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/06/npr-justifying-and-sanitizing-the-us-torture-regime/">NPR Check</a></strong> of <strong>NPR</strong>'s steadfast <a href="http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/2009/05/riddle-wrapped-in-mystery.html" target="_blank">refusal</a> to use the word "torture" and the embarrassing contortions it employs to accomplish that.)</p></blockquote>
<p>Despite Shepard's avoidance of him, Greenwald notes that she "went on another <strong>NPR</strong>-affiliated show" for <a href="http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/06/26/calling-a-spade-a-spade-use-of-the-word-torture/" target="_blank">a segment</a> "that included several good questions" and "a very well-compiled, illustrative and cringe-inducing montage of <strong>NPR</strong>'s repeatedly going out of its way to avoid calling Bush interrogation tactics 'torture,' juxtaposed with an excerpt where <strong>NPR</strong> explicitly accused Iraqis in Sadr City of 'using torture' against detainees."</p>
<p>Read more on <strong>NPR</strong>'s longstanding problematic reporting on U.S. torture--and Alicia Shepard's inconsistent defense of it--in the FAIR publication <strong>Extra! Update:</strong> "Tortured Justifications for Bad Journalism" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3413">12/07</a>) by Jim Naureckas &amp; Candice O'Grady.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/06/npr-ombud-dodges-torture-reporting-critic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

