A year after announcing the that the more commonly used “website” could replace the stuffier “Web site” per their widely adopted guidelines, the Associated Press has now updated the AP Stylebook to allow “email” to replace the rather AOL-ish “e-mail” originally used.

AP style is a bit of a mild stressor for bloggers, because despite generally adopting a more casual tone than old media news sources, we like to adhere to some convention of propriety in tone overall. Consistency is also something most writers appreciate, and it’s a pain in the ass to know something like “e-mail” is officially correct when it looks so dated and passé. (When the AP issued a final edict on the “website” versus “Web site” issue last year, both Steven and I posted glowingly about the change.)

Reaction on the Twitters has been almost universally excited, with tweeters (in a totally non-ornithological context) re-tweeting the message above and thanking God. “Email” wasn’t the only streamlined term gifted to tech writers by the AP- “cellphone” and “smartphone” officially got their special dispensation to be real words, retiring the clumsier-yet-then-preferred “cell phone” and “smart phone.” “Calcutta” has also been updated to “Kolkata” (and I will admit at first I thought this could be a new social network of which I was not yet aware) but this particular change did not spark the same giddiness as the other terms.

Which tech terms would you like to see the AP add to their stable of updates? Have the style gods completely caught up with the latest set of changes?

Triumph for consistency: AP updates Stylebook to allow “email” unhyphenated is a post from: The Inquisitr

Nick Denton has finally acknowledged the backlash from Gawker’s controversial site redesign, in a lengthy post that rubbed a few commenters the wrong way and didn’t seem to deliver much word of actual improved functionality.

Denton’s tone suggests perhaps the issues weren’t so much with the site’s frankly awkward design (although there were dozens of “bug fixes,” he admits) but rather that people just aren’t seeing the vision. He begins by explaining that the site’s lack of official word on the backlash was because they were getting a bigger picture of user opinion on the site’s function:

I should first explain the radio silence of the last couple of weeks. We’d wanted to respond to feedback not with promises of future improvements but with actual fixes. So that’s what I’m doing now—but I regret any impression that we weren’t listening.

The post outlines several revisions of the new Gawker, but comments like this from Denton didn’t go over well with remaining readers, many of whom (myself included) use the Canadian Gawker site to bypass the redesign:

News web sites may indeed become more application-like and readers may grow accustomed to swiping instead of scrolling. But they’re not there yet, as the extensive criticism of the sidebar made clear.

Amusingly, the comment thread brought out some of the old-Gawker snark that has been missing in the comments since the new Gawker stumbled into being. One commenter said:

This thread is like finding a surprise packed disco in the bowels of the Marie Celeste.

In an email to staff, Denton described the new layout rollout as “more bruising” to both Gawker media staff and readers than was necessary, and describes the impact on traffic:

Obviously, the reduction in traffic from Google — as from most design changes — has been significant. It doesn’t affect readers of the site — but it does have a disproportionate effect on uniques. Search optimization of the new layout is a top priority.

What I personally find most interesting about all the redesign hand-wringing is the reader response, which seems to be very old-school message board style. The bastard child of the new layout and ensuing outcry is a snark-site called crasstalk.com, and many of the site’s top commenters have apparently fled for good in favor of it, much like what often occurs when a big message board melts down:

I haven’t been back there since about a week after the glitchy new format hit. I – and about 200 of Gawker’s best and most loyal commenters – are now over at www.crasstalk.com , where we get to not only comment but contribute to the site by writing posts on a variety of interesting subjects.

So, who’s right? Are readers just too pedestrian and behind the times to “get” the new Gawker, or was the site a tone-deaf interpretation of what Nick Denton imagines the future of blogs to be? Do you think the readers and commenters that fled are gone forever?

Denton addresses controversial Gawker makeover, details ‘bug fixes’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’m a New Yorker, and obviously, a blogger by trade. Gawker is like my New York Times.

I saw a bit of buzzing last week about Gawker and blogs dying or somesuch, but I must have tuned out, because it was a bit of a shock for me to fire up my morning tabs and discover someone had completely revised Gawker and now it is really, really weird. It’s not just Gawker- Jezebel, io9, Deadspin, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Lifehacker and Engadget have all undergone the same re-jigger to display a jarring one story per page.

It’s early to pass judgement on the makeover, as first off, it’s buggy. Kotaku and io9 both failed to load for me, displaying sidelinks, but no main content. Opening different posts in tabs failed for me as well, changing the main tab you’re clicking links off of to the link just clicked- a major pet peeve for people who read sites by opening every relevant link in a tab and then working backwards to the first tab.

At the risk of sounding like the people who get spasticated when Facebook changes their layout at all, I’m not very sure this redesign is going to catch on very well. For one thing, it makes catching up to a large backlog of posts difficult, and pages seem far slower to load. Ads at least seem to take up more space- an understandable change, if that observation is correct, but I found the placement to interrupt my reading of the content. Even now, as I flip back to the Gawker tab I have open, the sidebar still hasn’t loaded and is spinning despite the several minutes the tab has “working.” (See image above.)

Nick Denton seems to disagree with me, saying of the new design:

“It just feels inevitable,” Denton says. “We have a crying need to showcase both exclusives and visual posts. The visual posts are now at least half of our top-performing stories. And audience growth on sites like Deadspin and Gawker has been driven by our most sensational scoops.”

Ex-Gawker editor Gabriel Snyder didn’t concur, however- even willing to wager against Denton that the redesign was ill-conceived:

“I’m on the record that I think the redesigns will fail. And I’m now officially opening the betting pool. I think Denton is going to be forced to pull back on this. If anyone wants to wager that the redesign don’t get yanked back (or greatly modified) by, let’s say, June 1… I’ll take your bet.”

Do you think the redesign will win over Gawker blogs readers? Do blog readers want more of a magazine format? Skimming Gawker, it kind of reminds me of what I ‘don’t’ miss about magazines- difficulty finding and sorting content, having to skim away from large images in which I have no interest (rather than clicking to enlarge interesting pics), and a more time-consuming overall user experience. What are your thoughts?

Are you digging on the Gawker Media extreme makeover? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Wow. Holy Crap.

This has to be some of the biggest deal to hit the blogosphere, over shadowing AOL’s purchase of TechCrunch for a rumored amount of $10 million.

Following the Super Bowl Kara Swisher from All Things D got the scoop of a lifetime as AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and Arriana Huffington, Editor-in-Chief of Huffington Post, announced that AOL has purchased Huffington Post for the sum of $350 million.

Here is the video of Kara interviewing Armstrong and Huffington about the announcement.

By the way – this means that Arriana Huffington is Michael Arrington’s boss. I’m sure this is going to go over well.

Holy Crap! $315 Million later and AOL buys Huffington Post [VIDEO] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Alisha Arnold, one half of the couple running the site BirthorNot.com and ostensibly crowdsourcing the decision on whether she and her husband should abort their baby just before the legal limit for abortion kicks in, has been fired from her job for the negative implications the stunt has had on her company.

The Eagan Minnesota software company TempWorks distributed a memo to staff confirming that Arnold was terminated by the company for publicity surrounding the “debate” (several news outlets have since quoted Pete Arnold as saying the couple never would have gone through with an abortion, though his wife is adamant she would have) and furthermore, TempWorks has forbidden all employees from maintaining relationships with Arnold on sites like Facebook. It’s an employer mandated de-friending!

A news outlet local to the Arnolds spoke with a local labor law expert, who said the company is legally within their rights for both mandates:

We showed the memo to a University of Minnesota Labor Law Professor. William McGeveran told us private companies do not have a legal obligation to proect the free speech of its employees.  He also says employees might not like it, but the company can also tell its employees who they can and cannot be friends with on Facebook and other social networking sites. If employees do not like the restrictions, McGeveran says they have the option of leaving the job.

Arnold, who was referred to by the company as a “grave threat,” told press she was “shocked” and “didn’t expect any of this.”

Woman behind BirthorNot.com fired from job for behavior on internet is a post from: The Inquisitr

A married couple who live near Minneapolis- both of whom are 30- are seemingly crowdsourcing the decision of whether they should abort their baby or allow it to come to term and be born.

As Gawker points out, this is 99% likely not to be exactly as it appears. It has to be an attempt to draw attention to something, but exactly what the point is has not yet been revealed. The poll on the site, sponsored by PollDaddy, is currently leaning toward the “don’t abort” side, but when Gawker posted the tale, the results were skewed far more in favor of the “do abort” option.

Interestingly, the couple have not given any reasoning for what would be a relatively late-term abortion (20 weeks) other than that they are not sure they’re “ready” to be parents. Gawker broke down possible reasons the couple, Pete and Alisha Arnold, created the site:

1) It’s is an idiotic prank. Pete and Alisha are intent on becoming famous any way they can, and they’ve hit on an outrageous way to get media coverage. But if this all was a prank, wouldn’t they have gotten the word out before now? They’ve been blogging since September.

2) This is a pro-life stunt. Pete said he’s a non-practicing Catholic, while Alisha is a Methodist. Although the Arnolds describe themselves as political independents with Libertarian leanings, Alisha likes Glenn Beck on Facebook, and a Google search turns up an old pro-Bush comment Pete made on CNN. (Pete said he voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004.) Could this site be a confused parable to illustrate the peril of putting an unborn baby’s life in the hands of voters?

3) It’s true. Pete and Alisha are actually going to choose to have an abortion based on an Internet poll.

You can view the spectacle at the Arnolds’ website, BirthorNot.com. This isn’t the first time social media has participated in an abortion- a woman made headlines a few months back by live tweeting her medical abortion. What’s your take on the whole thing? Attention whoring? Performance art? Political statement? Could anyone possibly be considering a second-trimester abortion for the lulz? I’ll posit a theory touched on but not fleshed out by the Gawker analysis- this is to draw attention to later, elective abortions, with which many Americans are more uncomfortable than earlier or medically necessary pregnancy terminations.

[Gawker, BirthorNot]

Couple crowdsources abortion decision on their website… vote now? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The self-aggrandizing editor of small-town food magazine Cooks Source has replaced the full page apology on the magazine’s website with a passive-aggressive dig at writer Monica Gaudio and a suggestion that Gaudio is at fault for the magazine’s likely eventual collapse.

A few weeks back, Gaudio put editor Judith Griggs on Livejournal blast for failing to pay for a written piece of hers that Griggs sourced off the web, laughing off a suggestion she compensate Gaudio for the work and then suggesting Gaudio should have paid her for the editing work Griggs maintains she did to the piece. (Reading the lengthy missives penned by Griggs leads one to wonder whether she’s capable of even basic editing, though, given a distracting lack of proper punctuation and rampant other errors.) The internet, pretty much as a whole, reared up and breathed fire at the not very remorseful editor after the tale made the rounds.

Griggs, not exactly well-versed in sincerity, attempts again to appear apologetic for her transgression while publicly licking her wounds and blaming Gaudio for siccing the internet on Cooks Source:

Honestly, some of you have been pretty mean. I have been busy for the last week, apologising to these business owners and helping them to get things right again. If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda.

So let me say this now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment [sic] to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong. Please find it in you heart to forgive me. I sent the check  to the University and also, because so many people really need help, serious help, I am sending one to Food bank of Western Massachusetts (sorry, I got the name wrong the first time, even tho [sic] we did write an article on them).

Griggs then pretty much deflects responsibility for the debacle, as well as demonstrating that she still doesn’t understand why stealing the work of web writers for profit might make them angry. She contends that exhaustion lead to the lifting of the piece, something she wouldn’t have done if she thought she might get caught wasn’t working so damn hard all the time:

But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article… Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and “found” something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. I did keep the author’s name on it rather than outright “stealing” it, and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot, between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.

Feeling any sympathy yet, meanies? You can read Gaudio’s response here.

[via, Image]

‘Cooks Source’ editor says internet meanies killed the magazine is a post from: The Inquisitr

Much maligned regional food mag Cooks Source has finally apologized to the blogger whose article “A Tale of Two Tarts” was ripped off for their print edition.

The furor began when writer Monica Gaudio posted an email exchange she had with Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs after the theft was brought to Gaudio’s attention. Griggs brushed off the writer’s request for token compensation and suggested the author pay the magazine for edits made to the piece. This did not go over well with the internet, who proceeded to flood the magazine’s Facebook page en masse, deluged the publication’s advertisers, and made endless jokes about the ill visited upon the world by Griggs.

Below is the statement posted on the website of Cooks Source- interestingly, every other bit of content from the site has disappeared. Is that to draw attention to their contrition, or is it because they can’t verify the sources of the images and text are legitimate? Does the magazine sound truly sorry, or is there more of a focus on how the scandal harmed them than how their actions were wrong in the first place?

We have cancelled our Facebook page on Thursday, November 4th, 2010 at 6:00PM. It has since been since been hacked by unknown parties and now someone else unknown to us has control of it. Their inclusion of Cooks Source issues and photos is used without our knowledge or consent. Please know that none of the statements made by either Cooks Source or Judith Griggs were made by either our staff or her.

We do not, and never have had a Twitter page, so what is attributed as our presence or our statements have nothing to do with Cooks Source or Judith Griggs.

We also cancelled our website on the above date, as our advertisers were listed therein, and with the harassment that has taken place on Facebook, we felt was unsafe for them.

Cooks Source will not be on Facebook again at any time in the future: hacking is too prevalent and apparently too easily performed by disreputable people. The email and Facebook abuse of our advertisers is the prime example: it is hurtful to people who are innocent of this issue, and can ill-afford the abuse — either emotionally or financially. Small business owners are being bombarded with hate mail, and distasteful messages because someone downloaded their contact information on these bogus sites. These small business owners work very hard to keep their businesses going in a bad economy. We respectfully request this harassment be stopped immediately. If you or anyone knows of this abuse, you should go to the bogus Cooks Source (or other bogus pages) Facebook page, look to the left side of the page and press “Report Abuse,” or else go to How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement, http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php The Facebook Corporate phone number are 650-543-4800, 650-853-1300 and 650-543-4811which hopefully will assist interested parties who feels these snipers who are perpetuating hate have gotten out of hand and want to report it. Interestingly, this phone number and any other contact info is not listed on the Facebook site, and has taken four people a number of days to track down.

Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie — Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid.

This issue has made certain changes here at Cooks Source. Starting with this month, we will now list all sources. Also we now request that all the articles and informational pieces will have been made with written consent of the writers, the book publishers and/or their agents or distributors, chefs and business owners. All submission authors and chefs and cooks will have emailed, and/or signed a release form for this material to Cooks Source and as such will have approved its final inclusion. Email submissions are considered consent, with a verbal/written follow-up. Recipes created in the Cooks Source Kitchen are owned by Cooks Source and as such approval is given for chefs and cooks in our area to use them. Artwork used is created by our staff, or is royalty-free or purchased “clip-art.”

However: Cooks Source can not vouch for all the writers we have used in the past, and in the future can only check to a certain extent. Therefore, we will no longer accept unrequested articles, nor will we work with writers or illustrators unless they can prove they are reputable people, provide their sources, and who, in our estimation, we feel our readers and advertisers can trust and rely on for accuracy and originality. All sources will be listed with the articles, along with the permission, where necessary.

To say this has hurt our business is an understatement. But worse, it is harming the very people we are here to assist. Cooks Source’s is a small, free, local food newspaper-type magazine (called ‘magazine’ because it doesn’t generally include what is known as ‘news,’) whose mission statement is to assist small businesses and farms in our area and help readers learn about sustainable food issues. We promote small businesses and farms in our area, offer recipes because our readers request them, and because we are offered cookbooks and excerpts from distributors, publicists, agents and authors, non-profits, ag organizations, chefs and home cooks so as to help them promote their works. Cooks Source is so named because it reports on food sources: the farms, the bakers, the chefs and the foodie producers and purveyors– to the home and professional cooks and chefs in our area.

The misuse of Facebook discussed above also applies to Ms. Gaudio: she did what she felt was the right thing, and doesn’t deserve this kind of treatment, either. Regardless of what has been said, we liked her article very much.

[Image]

Cooks Source finally issues half-hearted apology to blogger they ripped off is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you were awake on the internet yesterday, there’s no way you missed the compelling narrative of Monica Gaudio’s stolen “Tale of Two Tarts.”

Gaudio, a self professed “medieval food nerd,” posted the story of how a for-profit, ad-supported magazine Cooks Source stole an article she’d written about the history of apple pie for their print edition. To briefly recap, when Gaudio contacted the editor to express her dismay, a chain of events that set the internet justice machine into motion was set off that was pretty awesome to witness. The editor in question has not been seen since the vengeance of Fark, Reddit, Boing Boing and even some mainstream media readers was unleashed on their Facebook page. (MSNBC was the lone voice sympathetic to reviled editor Judith Griggs during the saga.)

While reaction was swift, it was also comprehensive. One advertiser for the small publication reports having been contacted over 100 times by angry internet citizens in the five hours from when the story first went viral. (The company immediately and publicly withdrew support from the magazine.) Web sleuths quickly deduced that Griggs has been sticky fingered for a long time, and that content has been stolen for the magazine from Food Network, Weight Watchers and NPR for starters. (Lifted images were found in print copies of Cooks Source as well, and the link above lists five definitive instances of items being reproduced in the magazine without permission.)

It seems Griggs really doesn’t understand the internet, because despite provoking its ire rapidly and thoroughly with a condescending attitude towarrds web content, she has seen fit to leave the following message up on her magazine’s Facebook page for over 12 hours at this point:

Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad!

You did find a way to get your “pound of flesh…” we used to have 110 “friends,” we now have 1,870… wow!

Griggs has not spoken on her own behalf since her comment on Facebook, but you can read a fairly comprehensive timeline of events over here. Can anyone recover their career after a scandal that is so high profile? Does Griggs deserve any degree of a pass for her crippling ignorance?

Aftermath: Cooks Source debacle emerges as cautionary tale about provoking the internet is a post from: The Inquisitr

There are full-time bloggers, and there are people who just write for the sheer love of sharing their knowledge, perspective or creativity on the internet.

One of the pitfalls of publishing your work on the web (paid or unpaid) is that the risk of having it stolen, misappropriated or otherwise reproduced to someone else’s benefit is rather high, and it doesn’t take too long to experience the joy of having your hard work lifted by some unscrupulous party for their own gain. A woman named Monica wrote a piece for a website about apple pies back in 2005- the kind of post you or I probably refer to a number of times in any given day.

Monica’s apple pie post was reprinted in its entirety by a cooking magazine, an instance that in and of itself is pretty galling, Monica, who is a better woman than I, found out about the article-lifting and requested very simple recompense. She asked for a print apology, a Facebook apology, and a small donation ($130) to the Columbia School of Journalism. The editor of Cooks Source replied graciously. Just kidding! She told Monica that she should be grateful the piece ran at all, and that Monica really should be paying Cooks Source for the editing work that had gone into her “Tale of Two Tarts.”

Monica posted a portion of the email sent by the editor of Cooks Source on her website- an email, it should be pointed out, that in and of itself does not seem to be very well edited. Below, the excerpt- can you believe the chutzpah?

“Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.

But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

You can tell Cooks Source how you feel about bloggers being ripped off by their editor on their Facebook page.

Update: A Facebook page that logs suspected content theft committed by Cooks Source.

[Monica's LJ via Consumerist]

Print editor tells web writer her work is “public domain,” suggests victim should pay for editing of stolen piece is a post from: The Inquisitr

When questioned about Reddit’s role in the inception of what would become the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” Jon Stewart may have understated the role of the internet a bit.

Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian questioned as to Stewart to what degree internet enthusiasm inspired the rally, to which Stewart answered that it “didn’t hurt.” (Ouch.) Colbert also downplayed the importance of Reddit (where it appears the idea originated) when asked, saying that the internet “didn’t affect” rally attendance one way or the other. (Of course, upwards of 10,000 New Yorkers were bussed to the National Mall on blog-sourced buses, but…)

Today, Drew Curtis of Fark posted an angry open letter ripping into The Daily Show not only for not giving credit where credit is due in regards to the rally, but also for mining Fark and Reddit for comedy topics without ever once mentioning either site on the show. Curtis begins:

Did you hear that Reddit? All that work you put into getting the word out, organizing meetups, and convincing people to go “didn’t hurt”. All that initial support in getting the ball rolling on this rally a few months back was great, but it wasn’t a factor. Thanks for your meaningless and futile support that Comedy Central really didn’t need at the end of the day to get a surprise crowd of 250,000 people to the rally. Did you hear that Internet? You had no role in this either, it was all Comedy Central all the way.

After accusing the network of not really admitting the idea for the rally belonged to the internet, Curtis goes on to accuse Comedy Central writers of snatching yo’ memes up:

Why am I so bent about this? First and foremost, because a friend of mine got smacked down on live TV by a guy he helped, and I can’t stand by and do nothing about it without at least saying something. But also because Daily Show writers have been doing essentially the same thing to me, every single day for the past 10 years. They use Fark every day to source material, and haven’t mentioned Fark on air even one single time. It’s the same attitude toward Reddit: “sure doesn’t hurt, but not a significant contribution.” Thanks to Fark, your writers don’t have to go far to fill your shows up with material for you to use. Every writer I’ve met thanks me vociferously for Fark and tells me how much easier it makes their jobs. Sure that’s not worth a daily mention, but I would think at least one in the last 10 years. It has yet to happen. I’ve learned to live with it, but Alexis is my friend and he does not deserve this kind of treatment. Especially considering the effort Reddit put into promoting the rally.

Curtis ends his letter by suggesting to Comedy Central that if they continue to leech off the internet, the unwashed blogging masses could turn against them for their next initiative. He also says flat out that Comedy Central did do the bulk of the work in promoting the rally, just that the internet also played an invaluable role in making it what it ultimately became. (Attendance is believed to have been in the hundreds of thousands.)

Do you think Stewart and Colbert’s comments were ungrateful and out of line? Does Reddit deserve more credit for the success of the rally?

/oblig

Drew Curtis smacks down ‘Daily Show’ for stealing from Fark, Reddit is a post from: The Inquisitr

Picking a clever women’s magazine is kind of like selecting the classiest member of the cast of Jersey Shore.

Still, Marie Claire kind of hovered a bit above rags like Cosmo with some pieces on women’s issues around the world and a less trashy style focus. Like many former glossy readers (I consumed most of them voraciously in my college days at FIT) I can’t recall the last time I’ve flipped through the pages of one, but I seem to recall Marie Claire being slightly less focused on blowjobs, stilettos and lipgloss. In a time when magazines are desperately clinging to readers and trying to convert the techie ones to blog subscribers, the magazine with the motto “More Than a Pretty Face” has managed to fritter away a lot of that lingering esteem with one single, poorly written blog post by writer Maura Kelly.

Kelly, an admitted recovering anorexic, posted at length about her disgust at a new show that dares to depict fat people making out. She describes her horror at a new CBS sitcom about fatties, called Mike & Molly, in terms that have sparked widespread outrage in the blogosphere:

My initial response was: Hmm, being overweight is one thing — those people are downright obese! And while I think our country’s obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it’s at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity! Yes, anorexia is sick, but at least some slim models are simply naturally skinny. No one who is as fat as Mike and Molly can be healthy. And obesity is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance, than any other health problem, even cancer.

So anyway, yes, I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other … because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I’d find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair.

(Is a “heroine addict” someone who is dependent on romance novels?) Kelly goes on to insist she’s not a “size-ist jerk” despite the prior two paragraphs proving the opposite without a shadow of a doubt, even dusting off the “I have fat friends” argument. Then she lays down the icing on the fat-hating cake- the condescending advice to fat folks that may be tempted to walk across a room in her line of sight, people who clearly don’t know Kelly’s secret formula to being not repulsive:

(I’m happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them — but long story short, eat more fresh and unprocessed foods, read labels and avoid foods with any kind of processed sweetener in them whether it’s cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, increase the amount of fiber you’re getting, get some kind of exercise for 30 minutes at least five times a week, and do everything you can to stand up more — even while using your computer — and walk more. I admit that there’s plenty that makes slimming down tough, but YOU CAN DO IT! Trust me. It will take some time, but you’ll also feel so good, physically and emotionally. A nutritionist or personal trainer will help — and if you can’t afford one, visit your local YMCA for some advice.)

Kelly tacked on a majorly half-assed apology to offended fatties, but judging by the comments, it has done nothing to improve goodwill toward the magazine in the wake of the post’s publication. (Marie Claire is also currently a trending topic on Twitter.) Does Marie Claire need to re-evaluate its online editorial policies? Do you find this piece horribly offensive, or just sadly truthful? And is it just me, or is Kelly way too horsey-faced to complain about having to look at fat people in public?

‘Marie Claire’ loses ‘thinking women’s’ distinction with anti-fatty blog post is a post from: The Inquisitr

Shirley Sherrod, the USDA official fired for remarks she made that were deliberately misrepresented by Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.com, plans to sue for the incident.

Sherrod made her plans known this morning at a National Association of Black Journalists speech in San Diego. CBS News reports:

Speaking of a lawsuit, Sherrod said she “will definitely do it,” arguing that “he had to know that he was targeting me.”

“Now whether he was also trying to target the NAACP, he had to know he was targeting me,” she added.

Sherrod said she wished Breitbart had come to the event “because I really would like to talk to him.”

Sherrod also indicated that she is unsure whether she will opt to return to a position at the UDSA after her controversial dismissal. After the incident, President Obama said that Sherrod “deserved better” than the treatment she’d received. Breitbart later clarified on Good Morning America that Sherrod was not his intended target with the video, but that he had hoped to damage the NAACP by releasing the clip.

Shirley Sherrod plans to sue BigGovernment.com blogger Breitbart is a post from: The Inquisitr

It isn’t something that most bloggers will think of but at some point bloggers will write their last post before passing away but very rarely will we write that post with the knowledge that it will be our last one.

That is unless you are Carla Zilbersmith; a singer, actress, comedienne, mother, and blogger, who was diagnosed in December 2007 with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis a progressive neurogenerative disease, and passed away on May 21, 2010.

This is the good-bye she left to be played at her funeral (contains NSFW language)

A last post from the Great Beyond is a post from: The Inquisitr

Popular polling aggregation site FiveThirtyEight.com will be relaunched under the New York Times umbrella, blogger Nate Silver announced today.

The site rose to prominence during elections in 2008 when Silver posted several very accurate predictions. Silver says the site will “retain its own identity (akin to other Times blogs like DealBook), but will be organized under the News:Politics section” of the Times. Of his new gig, Silver says:

I will be contributing content to the print edition of the New York Times, and to the Sunday Magazine. The partnership agreement, which is structured as a license, has a term of three years.

Silver explains why he felt a partnership with the Times is a good fit:

There are two particular reasons why we felt the Times was the best home for FiveThirtyEight. On the one hand, I very much see what we are doing as a type of journalism, in the sense that it consists of doing original research on a timely basis to help inform the public discourse. Thus, the Times’ unflinching commitment to quality journalism makes for a natural fit, and I expect that the relationship will evolve in exciting ways as FiveThirtyEight is incorporated into a “traditional” newsroom setting. On the other hand, the terrific work of their graphic and interactive journalists was a major draw. The new blog should look and feel great, and should be substantially more robust and feature-rich than the simple, one-page design that we have now.

Silver says the partnership should start in 9-10 weeks, and he mentioned “early August” as a possible launch date. Politico was quick to point out Silver’s left-leaning ideology and support of President Obama in the 2008 election, but in the context of Silver’s work and his ongoing clear disclosure of the affiliation, it doesn’t seem like it should be a massive concern for the Times.

[Image]

The New York Times teams up with FiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver is a post from: The Inquisitr

The recent uptick in content site acquisition continues with the acquisition of sports gossip blog The Big Lead by the Fantasy Sports Ventures for “low seven figures.”

The Big Lead pitches itself as a more polite version of Gawker Media sports gossip blog Deadspin, and covers the full gauntlet of American sports.

The New York Times notes in an interview with the founder of The Big Lead that the site had started as an anonymously written blog in 2006 before going on to be named by Sports Illustrated as “one of the five most influential sports blogs of the decade.”

The stats on this deal make it particularly interesting. The owner claims the site does 3 million page views a month, with Alexa and Compete coinge in at 18,618 and 8,306. Those figures are respectable, but it’s rare to see a content acquisition in “low seven figures” at those sorts of numbers, at least in recent years.

We reported earlier today that BuzzMedia had acquired three sites, and now we have yet another deal (along with Forbes/ TrueSlant and Yahoo/ Associated Content.) It’s not impossible that the surge in acquisitions in the content space lately is a blip, and we’ve seen little flurries in the market before; my feeling is that these acquisitions point to a return to a strong market following a serious downturn during the global financial crisis.

Sports Blog The Big Lead Acquired For “Low Seven Figures” As Content Market Surges is a post from: The Inquisitr

Remember that adage about being careful about what you post to the web coming back to haunt you?

Well it might be a new adage but it is definitely one that Washington University physics professor Jonathan Katz will have plenty of time to ruminate over now that he has been removed from the select team of scientists that were selected by the Obama administration to look into the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason for his removal it seems is some writings on his blog about some rather sensitive social issues of which his little screed defending homophobia was one.

In that post Katz wrote this about the AIDS epidemic

“The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts,” he wrote. “Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.”

According to the post in the LA Times these writings were not known about at the time when Katz was picked for the team.

“Dr. Chu has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,” a statement from the Energy Department said. “Some of Professor Katz’s controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill. Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department’s efforts.”

As for your past coming back to haunt you. Those writings by Katz are from about 10 years ago which goes to show that you might have forgotten about your rants but the web never will.

Leading scientist removed from oil spill team after discovery of homophobic blog posts is a post from: The Inquisitr

Avid Life Media, the parent company of esteemed web properties like HotorNot.com, Mancrunch and married-people dating site Ashley Madison, has put in a $20m bid for PerezHilton.com, Gawker has verified.

The company, who is said to have paid roughly the same amount for HotorNot.com in 2008, has teamed up with celebrity bloggers Zack Taylor (zacktaylor.ca) and Nik Richie (TheDirty.com)- sending a Letter of Intent with the $20m offer. ($18m up front and $2m in escrow for the next year.)

The offer, presented by “Avid Life subsidiary Eight Days Inc., along with Zack Taylor and Dirty World LLC,” seems to suggest Perez may not be as involved with day to day operations of the site as he may be now- Gawker quotes the letter:

The letter states that “The Purchaser presently intends to continue, in the normal course, the employment of all employees of the Business from and after the Closing Date.” But it also says that following the purchase, Zack Taylor and Nik Richie “will operate the business.” It’s our understanding that the intention is to use the PerezHilton.com address as a sort of massive traffic-forwarding address to a new gossip site run by Taylor and Richie.

Gawker asked what Perez’s future involvement with the site might be if he accepts the offer, but Avid Life spokesperson Steph Davidson said she could not comment because she didn’t know for sure what the celebrity blogger’s role would be if the bid is accepted.

Perez hasn’t commented on the offer yet or whether he intends on taking it. PerezHilton.com was valued at $32m last year, but $20m is a tremendous incentive for Perez to cash out and move on.

Gawker: Avid Life Media bids $20m for PerezHilton.com is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bloggers have been having a bit of fun with the AP Stylebook today, after they posted a few tweets noting that they’ve changed “Web site” to “website” in their guidelines.

@apstylebook says:

Responding to reader input, we are changing Web site to website. This appears on Stylebook Online today and in the 2010 book next month.

Discussion with Stylebook editors is standing room only at American Copy Editors Society. The audience is asking great questions. #aces2010

The official policy for internet related words (indeed, per AP guidelines, “internet” should be capitalized) like “e-mail” versus “email” is something bloggers vary tremendously in their adherence to. Today’s announcement was of interest to those who write about these things daily because using “Web site” looks and feels antiquated and clumsy.

Twitter users were amused by the announcement, too:

AP Stylebook finally changed “web site” to “website”. But they’re still using “Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off”.

Of course, the Fake AP Stylebook had some great tips recently, too:

@PhilliesDoll The word “asshat” is vulgar and should be avoided. Use “butt bonnet.”

No matter how good the scotch involved was, the word “delicious” should never appear in a DUI story.

It’s “for all intents and purposes.” “Intensive Purposes” is the hot new medical drama from CBS.

When summer comes and California starts burning, try to act surprised.

AP Stylebook changes ‘Web site’ to ‘website’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Although it isn’t yet April 1st, FoxNation managed to get themselves punked by a (very old) satirical post about the deliciously ironic death of a “global warming activist” in Antarctica.

Instead of posting a mea culpa, Fox scrubbed the post from the site- but Google cache has the goods. The original satirical post that the FoxNation post was based on came from ecoEnquirer, a site currently sporting top headlines of “Vatican Sued Over Katrina,” “Court Orders Fisherman To Apologize to Eagle,” and “Levitating Islands Captured By Spy Satellite.” Tee hee. If that wasn’t enough of a clue, here’s some text on the tragic death of Prof. James Schneider originally quoted by the original FoxNation piece:

One friend of Prof. Schneider told ecoEnquirer that he had been planning a trip to an ice sheet to film the devastation brought on by global warming. His wife, Linda, said that she had heard him discussing the trip with his environmental activist friends, but she assumed that he was talking about the Greenland ice sheet, a much smaller ice sheet than Antarctica.

“He kept talking about when they ‘get down to chili’, and I thought they were talking about the order in which they would consume their food supplies”, Mrs. Schneider recounted. “I had no idea they were talking about Chile, the country from which you usually fly or sail in order to reach Antarctica.”

The clearly satirical nature of the story didn’t stop the commenters from rejoicing in what they believed was the painful, actual death of a scientist in Antarctica:

I’m sorry but this is about the funniest thing I’ve ever read!! Talk about what comes around goes around!!!!!!!!!! Ya get what you ask for – this has it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you FOX I needed that. This is delicious just goes to show what elitism and arrogance will do to you if you use it on mother nature.

Somehow or another, the liberal media and Al Gore will spin this and blame it on global warming. Not sure how they’ll do that but it will be interesting to find out.

[Comedy Central]

FoxNation punked by Climate Change parody story is a post from: The Inquisitr