What if you had to pay for all the resources that you now enjoy for free on the internet, all the articles that used to be yours for a few clicks? It is no secret how cyberspace has transformed research in just a matter of years.
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Dark Side of William Golding
Upon reading Lord of the Flies, I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t leave any children with the author. But upon reading his memoir, I’m fairly certain that I myself wouldn’t be left alone with him.
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
Jealous, Whoopi?
Whoopi Goldberg really doesn't like Sarah Palin. Though, I think Sarah Palin needn’t worry. Even after she lost the vice-presidency, Palin remains the most-googled public figure 9 months after the election.
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Beauty in the Eye of the Employer?
Would you be willing to undergo the knife to get or keep your job?
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
