Look for My Article on Privatization Trends in the Upcoming Issue of the Florida Defender

The Florida Defender is published quarterly by the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 

I'm honored to have my article, "The Vital Necessity of the Office of the Florida Public Defender: Resisting the Temptation to Privatize," where I share a byline with Terry Lenamon, published in a periodical noted for its contributors and for its scholarly readership. 

Look for it in the Spring 2011 Issue of The Florida Defender. 

What is Great Writing: The New Rules for Judging Great Content Because the Traditional Rules are Dead

As promised, Ben Elowitz at Paid Content has defined the four rules that he thinks must be used to judge great writing in the digital age in his May 2010 article, "The New Rules for Judging Quality in Published Content."  

This is the second part promised in his earlier article discussing how the traditional methods for judging great writing don't work in a world where content appears on the screen instead of on the page.  Making such broad statements as being published in the New York Times isn't a big deal anymore did bring Mr. Elowitz some flack.  After all, weren't we all raised to think that having your work appear in the NYT was the ultimate accomplishment?  Well, at least one of them?

Elowitz's Four Rules for Great Writing on the Web

I wasn't too sure if I agreed with Elowitz after reading his first piece.  However, I'm in total agreement with the four rules he provides us as the "New Rules," which are -- in my words, not his:

1. relevance to the reader, not the editor -- the content needs to be focused upon the reader's wants/needs.  What do those surfing the web want or need to know? 

2. technological component -- content can, and should, creatively include those benefits that the web has to offer (visuals, links, etc.) (Elowitz calls this co-dependence an "experience").  Consider the podcasts, videos, audios, etc.  I just saw an article in the Texas Tribune, for example, that made audio excerpts of an interview available at the end of each content paragraph, in case you wanted to listen to the question and answer as well as read about it. 

3. perspective -- the same information can, and will, be provided in many different places on the web, so great content must have its flair - a twist that makes the reader want to read its version of the story over another option out there.  He uses Huffington Post as an example here.  I'm thinking it's the reason why TMZ survives right alongside E!, Popsugar, and all the rest. 

4. buzzability -- the content has to invite sharing on the web via tweets or stumbles or diggs or "like it!" as well as being search engine index friendly (SEO is important, people!!!!).  It's true that content I find interesting is something that I want to share -- and I'm annoyed if it isn't easily tweetable.  It's also true that great content that isn't search engine optimized probably isn't getting read by anyone, because no one knows it's there to read in the first place.

Is Elowitz right?  Google and Yahoo seem to think so .....

Before you dismiss Elowitz as trendy or foolish or naive, consider that Google News now allows its readers to personalize the version of the Google News page that they see when they click on the site.  Readers are choosing what they want to read on the news site, not editors. 

And, consider Yahoo!'s new blog, The Upshot -- where eight journalists are essentially going through the Yahoo! News results, and blogging about the upcoming, trending stories.  The journalists aren't deciding what's going onto the blog -- the people surfing the web and going through the Yahoo! news search engine are collectively deciding its content. 

Me? What do I think about Elowitz's Four Rules of Great Writing?

I think Elowitz is right on the money.  And, as for Google vs. Yahoo ... well, I've personalized my Google News page.  I have never read much less bookmarked the Upshot.  I don't feel the need for a blogger to feed me the news via blog post. 

Why not?  I can surf thru the stories just fine, all by myself.  Which is the attitude and ability that is fueling this entire metamorphosis, isn't it?

What is a Thought Leader? A Rose By Any Other Name Should Use the Other Name

The term "thought leader" is attributed to former Harvard Business Review editor in chief Joel Kurtzman.  When Kurtzman was editor-in-chief of the magazine Strategy + Business, he first used the phrase in 1994, labeling those he interviewed for their forward-thinking, savvy business ideas as "thought leaders."

Today, "thought leader" is a phrase that has been so overused and misapplied that many find its use suspicious.  Use it, and be ready: for many, it sets off the internal "BS alarm." 

Last year, Rob Cottingham at Read.Write.Web. suggested that "thought leader" be one of those buzzwords we no longer use.  Once useful, Cottingham finds its had all its life sucked out of it by overapplication.

I agree.  Don't get me wrong:  I like the phrase.  I like it.  Problem is, so many have used it and so many have stuck it on folk that are so obviously NOT thought leaders that it's just not valuable any longer - at least not in a good way. 

It reminds me of fajita tacos.  Boy, were they great when they first arrived.  We'd all go to the restaurant downtown and await the hissing cast iron skillets as they sojourned through the dining room to our white linen tabletops.  Beef, chicken, onions, bell peppers, charred and lovely and steaming. 

Now, you drive through any taco franchise and order a couple of fajita tacos and they arrive in a paper sack, with some salsa and guacamole on the side if you're lucky.  Still tasty, but just not the same.

What is Great Writing: How Digital Content is Judged Differently Than Print

Ben Elowitz at PaidContent has just published the first of his two-part analysis on what constitutes great content, now that we're well into the digital age.  Taking the four pillars used by traditionalists -- credential, correctness, objectivity, and craftsmanship -- he opines on each, and how these criteria do not work in today's internet age.

For example, Elowitz discusses how the heady feeling of having your work published in The New York Times (credential) isn't as important now.  Readers are looking for content that helps them -- focusing on the content itself -- much more than they are concerned with the source of that information. 

What Elowitz is putting out on the table needs to be read.  He's thought about these issues, and he has points to make.

However, I don't know that I can go so far as to agree with him that these tradtional methods are "useless."  That may be going too far. 

Credentials still mean something to me, for example -- and I think they still mean something to readers, too.  I do check the source of the content I'm reading and a reputable source does carry more weight with me.  I believe that The New York Times still stands for something. 

Credentials may be less powerful than they once were, but they still exist and still count. 

My E-Book Road: 6 - Amazon Looking Good

Well, well, well.

Amazon seems to have a method in its madness, and maybe self-publishing through Amazon makes more sense than ebooks ...
check out my post over on Rebecca Kennedy.

In a nutshell, Amazon is looking to cut out all the middlemen with a future where it's just Amazon and its authors. Means lots more money in the author's pocket.

And, Amazon purportedly will be targeting self-publishing authors first -- get them into the Amazon fold, and then Amazon is allegedly going to go head to head with the traditional publishing houses.

Now, all the BookSurge and CreateSpace and Kindle information is making much more sense ....

Wal-Mart's Purge of 1000 Magazine Titles

When I first read about Wal-Mart's decision to discontinue sales of a huge number of magazines, I wrote about it and promised to update that post with the actual purge list once it was released.

Today, I updated that post with the latest info I could find on the actual magazines that have been culled from Wal-Mart shelves.

Meanwhile, I've been pondering the known titles on the list, such as:

The New Yorker
The Economist
The Robb Report
Town & Country
Ski
Saveur
Forbes
Fortune.

Here's my big question -- at the store that brings us the Four Dollar Prescription Program and the WalMart PrePaid Debit Card "...for the underbanked...," how many of its customers actually BOUGHT these titles anyway?

Thinking About This as a Reader

I admit to wandering into the nearby Wal-Mart occasionally (for one thing, it's the only place that sells bags that fit my garbage compacter). I also know that I would never buy The New Yorker at Wal-Mart, although it's a magazine I've read for years, and I might easily pick up a copy at Barnes & Noble on a Sunday afternoon.

No, I haven't dedicated much time to analyzing why that is ... but I have thought about it long enough to realize that maybe this purge list isn't the big hit to magazine publishers and writers that it's being made out to be.

And, yes, I do wander through the magazine and book section of the store. I have bought a magazine or two, as well -- I clearly remember Wal-Mart was where I first saw Rachael Ray's new magazine debut. Maybe my magazine purchases at Wal-Mart are tied somehow to the store's environment, or my reason for being there (organic foods, compacter bags, a space heater to put under my desk)? It may be telling that I am somewhat surprised that Better Homes & Gardens and Ladies Home Journal have been booted.

What Does the 20% Really Mean to Us?

I recognize that MediaBistro is reporting that Wal-Mart is responsible for more than 20% of retail magazine sales in the United States.

I sure would like to know what magazines make up that twenty percent. And, I'd like to know more about that sales figure -- is this reflecting sales made to Wal-Mart, or sales that Wal-Mart made to magazine readers?

It's as a writer, not as a reader, that this news concerns me

As a reader, and magazine buyer, this purge list isn't causing me concern -- it's only from a writer's perspective that I'm spending any time on this topic.

I'm thinking that maybe Wal-Mart is simply cutting out magazines that were gathering dust on its racks and if that is true, then it's an understandable move.

And, I'm still chuckling that the Robb Report and The Economist were being sold at Wal-Mart in the first place. I mean really.