The New York Times now has a set of Twitter feeds. Follow them, and you get your news via Twitter.
I'll let the rest of the blogosphere blather on about Twitter and it's impact. Maybe they will stop navel gazing about a blogger code of conduct for a few moments to make profound statements about paradigm shifts.
To me, I find the agility of the New York Times to adapt to new concepts to be amazing. Anyone who counts out newspapers as a viable media business is simply wrong.
Posted by michael at April 11, 2007 08:41 PMDid you hear about the new NYTimes reader (http://firstlook.nytimes.com/)? I haven't played with it yet but supposedly people that swore they'd never read a newspaper on a computer are now considering this a viable alternative....except for the fact that they don't have their daily crossword up there, amongst other things.
Posted by: Ross [] on April 12, 2007 5:50 AMYes, I've tried the NY Times and think it's pretty snazzy.
However, I am a die-hard newsPAPER reader and get home delivery of the LA Times and NY Times daily. So I tend to scan the news as I drink my coffee in the morning before I turn on a computer.
Posted by: Michael [http://cruftbox.com] on April 12, 2007 8:09 AMLike Mother, like son?
Probably more like parents, Like son.
I think Ze Frank said it best when he said about a newspaper:
"Look what I found! A litter version of the internet!" This used to be something that could convert carbon dioxide into oxygen using only sunlight, water, and a few nutrients. But now it's WAY cooler. It has two functions, you can either put little words on it, or crumple it up into a tiny ball and throw it!"
Posted by: BillB [http://squidly.com] on April 12, 2007 7:19 PMNowadays NYTimes write some information that if you think could not be. I think, NYTimes is not better information link. Better to read news in the internet.
Posted by: sergua1 [http://www.tb-mail.com] on April 29, 2007 12:45 AM