Jay Rosen

  •  (1) |
  • 1 (11) |
  • 2 (408) |
  • 4 (1) |
  • 5 (2) |
  • 9 (15) |
  • A (1526) |
  • B (1087) |
  • C (1824) |
  • D (973) |
  • E (1211) |
  • F (771) |
  • G (701) |
  • H (978) |
  • I (999) |
  • J (467) |
  • K (107) |
  • L (611) |
  • M (1140) |
  • N (592) |
  • O (243) |
  • P (1951) |
  • Q (51) |
  • R (1232) |
  • S (1145) |
  • T (742) |
  • U (240) |
  • V (367) |
  • W (567) |
  • x (3) |
  • Y (39) |
  • Z (14) |

In the "top ten" of the "The web's Top 50 most influential people in New York"

NowPublic is one of the fastest growing participatory news networks in the world. Time Magazine voted it last year one of the top 50 websites and The Guardian UK declared it's one of the top 5 most resourceful news sites in the world.

They have come up with a way to measure "news influence" on the web. They insinuated that traffic to one's site and/or blog is not one of the lead indicators, but how the people listed are connected to others (especially other influencers) through social media like YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook and others.

I honestly don't know what to make of this list. I am at the same time amused and disturbed.

I already published at The Daily Gotham how it's weird that Arianna Huffington comes in at #2 because I thought she lived in California, not New York City. Then there's the grand daddy of the New York blogeratti, Nick Denton, coming in at #34.

It is though rather refreshing to see friends and colleagues on that list : Anil Dash, Nancy Scola, Joshua Levy, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, Jake Dobkin and Jen Chung and one of my biggest inspirations as a web designer and developer, Jeffrey Zeldman.

Yet, and I repeat what I already said at our New York site, the most disturbing data point of this list is that I come in at #9.

Yup.

I am, as per NowPublic, one of the "top ten" news influencers in the New York new media market.

I will definitely have more to say about this new metrics system. Suffice it to say that I think it is not only thought provoking but vindicating.

It's cool that someone has been able to measure what I've been up to for the last two years : Building a sphere of influence through networked broadcasting and outside of the metrics of traffic volume or popularity.

As a former student of neo-baroque aesthetics and its network effect in arts, culture and communications, I felt inspired of the potential I saw on the web 12 years ago. It was a potential that I saw unfolding in the Net Art movement. And it was a potential that I saw come to a halt when Big Business, Big Media and Big Politics threw themselves on the net as a way to accelerate their hierarchical and teleological standards of growth and success.

Think of the 3 Bigs thwarting the growth of the net by imposing the growth of the walled web gardens a la Facebook, Daily Kos or The New York Times.

Yet networks are networks and old standards of influence and success will succumb to the net effect; not to the old measures as a result of the false scarcity and uniqueness created by popularity.

So, even though I truly believe this is a flawed index, it is by far the best attempt at measuring influence based on assumptions that are native to the technology and structure of community and communications on the web.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Hansell lies, AP spins and the blogosphere smears [ UPDATE ]

The whole backstory to the AP vs. Rogers Cadenhead fiasco is already posted at the Media Bloggers Association site. Go read it. And here's Rogers version, by the way.

In discussing all the whisper campaign unleashed by the enemies of Barack Obama, I mentioned once to some fellow bloggers that The Rumor is The Smear. You don't have to have evidence of a tape of Michelle Obama backing cookies in the shape of a sickle and hammer. The Rumor is the Smear.

With The Rumor alone you can destroy an opponent with never having to demonstrate a shred of supporting evidence. The Rumor calls the rather strong heard-instinct in Americans. The Rumor is like a Siren-song and whomever creates the strongest Rumor, will be able to command the attention and control the point of view of the majority of the herd around them.

The Rumor taps into this country's collective need and penchant for psychopathic collective hysteria. Remember the Salem Witch Trials. Enough said.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 1503 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify