The New York Times has announced that U2 lead singer Bono is now writing a column for The New York Times and NYTimes.com. A release said:

“Beginning this Sunday, his columns will appear occasionally on The New York Times Op-Ed page and online at nytimes.com/opinion and will cover a broad range of subjects.  He will also do a podcast of his first column.”

Bono’s first column here. It starts ‘in a crush in a Dublin pub around New Year’s’. Not everyone is a fan – the Pheonix’s Adam Reilly is not too impressed by the ‘Frank Sinatra homage’:

“Lame topic, overly florid writing, a journalistic conflict of interest….” Reilly writes.

Similar Posts:

• NY Times response to Atlantic article suggesting death of its brand: ‘leaves a lot to be desired from the standpoint of journalism’
• NYTimes.com playing catch up
• Time.com: The 10 major newspapers ‘that will either fold or go digital’
• New York magazine: The multimedia ‘renegades’ at the New York Times
• NYTimes.com: Can you see my blog, Times reporter asks China

(or, ‘how many times can we use the word ‘comment’ in one blog post’?)

Guido Fawkes got the comments going today with a post that said he is ‘mulling over’ whether to moderate comments over the holiday period. He also announces that in the new year a ‘community rating’ element will be introduced to his blog (details at end of this post).

Guido Fawkes, aka Paul Staines, referred back to November, to the Goldsmiths seminar on media ethics and a comment from the Times Comment editor, Anne Spackman, who said that TimesOnline spends ’six figures’ on pre-moderating online comments [unclear over what time period - Journalism.co.uk will follow-up soon. UPDATE 19/12: Anne Spackman told Journalism.co.uk that the paper cannot currently clarify exact details, but that a six figure bill is paid to another partner.]

Fawkes said today on his blog:

“It is certainly expensive in time, every morning Guido deletes a load of comments which have, in his rather arbitrary judgement, just gone too far.”

Journalism.co.uk was also at the Goldsmiths event and spoke to Fawkes afterwards. He told Journalism.co.uk that he doesn’t moderate comments – ‘it has to get pretty gynecological before I do’.

In regards to the BNP list (which had leaked that week): “I did allow it. oh terrible, terrible, terrible. Oh well…”

“I deleted the stuff about Baby P,” he told Journalism.co.uk.

“I noticed it [information about Baby P] was still on the BBC’s website. I called them up, and they said ‘we’re not taking it down because the order doesn’t apply’.  I said ‘well, is it because it’s an order or because it is right or wrong?’”

Fawkes said that if he is found to be ‘in the wrong’ he’ll take something down, but added that ‘it’s very difficult to send me a writ.’

“Unless you catch me having a drink here, where are you going to send the writ?”

“There’s no bricks and mortar,” he said.

While Guido Fawkes says on his blog post that he takes a ’sticks and stones view to a large extent’, he outlines a number of changes to be introduced in the New Year:

“[Y]ou [the users] will still be able to say what you like (within somewhat arbitrary inconsistent limits) without pre-moderation or registering. However there will be incentives for those who produce better quality commentary based on a new element of co-conspirator community rating.

“Good comments will be more prominently displayed, disliked comments will be less prominent. The biggest innovation is that it will be possible for readers to set their own tolerance thresholds. Poorly rated comments will be invisible to those who set their preferences accordingly.

“If you only want to see comments judged by co-conspirators to be witty, amusing or illuminating, set your threshold to ‘Recommended’. Don’t want to read foul language? Set your threshold to ‘U’. Want to see all and any comments no matter how foul? Set your threshold to ‘XXX’.

“If your commentary is consistently recommended your comments will automatically be more prominent in the future and may even get highlighted on the frontpage.”

Unmoderated comments follow his post.

Similar Posts:

• Big Brother Watch: How an investigative journalist lost his job because of the UK’s libel system
• Guardian implements Pluck on Comment Is Free platform
• The Mayor of Baltimore spoof: A digest of media apologies
• Following up on Guido Fawkes’ Scottish media speculation
• Globe and Mail: ‘The model, the blogger and the web giant’

Spare a thought for the staff at The Post in Cincinnati. The local paper had been publishing for 126 years but on New Year’s Eve it printed its last edition and by New Year’s Day a web-only version had risen from the ashes to replace it – although staffed by just a smattering of former employees.

Just two reporters are expected to work fulltime on the new website from a former staff of fifty. With the shortfall in stories being made up by freelancers, the wires, the public and the local TV station.

So you’d think, given the time of year and the circumstances the paper found itself in, there would be call for a bit of a wet New Year’s wake? Not even that.

Gawker has a memo from management to the staff detailing the grim realities and processes they have to go through as the newspaper shuts down. It details how staff are even unable to drown their sorrows at their own leaving do:

“John Vissman will arrange for food, beverages and treats for all as we get the last editions out, clean out our desks and say good-bye. But . . . tempting as it may be . . . please do not bring any alcoholic beverages into the newsroom. Let’s go out like the professionals we have been these last, difficult weeks.”

Pro or not, I don’t think one for the road would have been too much to ask…

Similar Posts:

• OMC09: No Andy, the NUJ wouldn’t like it
• Roy Greenslade: whole editorial board quits NJ Star-Ledger
• MediaGuardian: No integration for Times and Sunday Times, says John Witherow
• Evening Standard: Andrew Gilligan on council ‘propaganda’ newspapers
• Local Newspaper Week to be covered by journalist bloggers