DISQUS

This is an excellent point. Further, there has been crap that has been quite surprisingly let through. If anything, the iApp police are being lenient. There is a reason PCs have a long and sordid history of hanging up and crashing - there is no central command for the software. Apple is doing quality control. Now, I disagree with some of their policies (No Skype), but they cut the deals they have to. DISCLOSURE: I am an insane Machead who would buy a tin monkey from Apple if Steve Jobs told me it "changed everything."

A. I'm Jewish.
B. I have found this to be one of the funniest memes the Web has yet to produce.
C. It is precisely because of its absurdity and tastelessness that makes it so.

Well, here we have the interesting question of "what's a blog?" followed by the more interesting "does it really matter, anyway?" PC is a blog, insofar as it constantly updates itself in the blog format, invites comments, has trackbacks and other features bloggy. So I don't see arguing that it's not a blog, simply because it lacks opinion.

However, I think the more interesting debate is "What's a blog?" and "What does it matter?" PC uses the blog format... to deliver news. Unlike most blogs, it doesn't use news as a starting point for discussion. More news websites should be like this - they should feature a constant river of information as it happens, rather than waiting to post a finished product.

It's my guess that MSM will adopt blog style more and more.

Good one, Matthew.

It really smacks of trying to have it both ways. If you're gonna pull a prank, say "Hey, we pulled a prank. Deal with it. Discuss." I'd respect that, even if I didn't think the prank was funny, which is subjective and can be argued to death.

It's bad logic to argue you are "A" because at least you didn't do "B." So? Argue "A" on its own merits.

The way to prove you're not "in bed" with companies is to report on them fairly, question their products and review their work in an unbiased manner. Agreed that these things can be a wank - but what's the message? Gizmodo is at least a wee bit guilty of biting the hand that feeds it. Agreed?

In any case, I certainly wouldn't give you s**t for bringing it up in the first place. Do people not understand basic reporting?

Thanks for the shoutout. I agree, the "limited ambition" wording could be more clear.

But here's my interpretation: stations still look at the web as a necessary evil. They reluctantly have a website, but few have a web business. They have a brand-extension site, but nobody wants to innovate.

So, there's no investing going on for the web.

At the same time, there is a lot of "woe is me"-ing going on. Why won't people watch us? We're the #1 Doppler! Local TV is now truly trapped in magic thinking.

The limited ambition comes when you do something because you have to, not because you want to and you're passionate about doing so. As for "diminished capacity" - I don't but it. There is plenty of money spent in newsrooms. What they need to do - now - is reallocate resources and become 24/7 news and information operations instead of 1/2 hour news sausage factories.

The funny thing is that nobody really doubts this anymore. It's that - as is the classic dilemma of local news - nobody wants to be different.

That's how I read it. You?