about out of sightA site of original and unoriginal content meant to entertain and inform. Out of Sight is edited by JJ O'Donoghue and William Hilderbrandt.
more about out of sightIf this site had to be summed up in one word and a preceding parenthetical phrase, then it would be (hopefully) entertaining. Think of it as an archive of some of the most interesting articles, videos, photography, and miscellany that JJ and William find online.
one more thing on out of sightOut of sight is Will and JJ's attempt to get noticed and invited on daytime TV or any Fox TV show. Before out of sight, there was rich and creamy, a hugely popular blog for spammers who wanted to sell us penis enhancing products. They were wasting their time.
who is this stud william?William lives in Paris. At the start of 2009 he left London and all his friends and his bad job to come to France, where he hardly speaks the language, to be with his girlfriend. Officially he is very happy to finally be living with her but occasionally he does get nostalgic for London.
who is this wise guy jj?Quite early on in life JJ discovered that he was a fabricator. In 2006 his mum and dad invited him to leave their home in Cork, Ireland and head for London, where he now resides, to shake up the city. He cycles hard, drinks hard and blogs harder. You get the picture.
search the archive
Everyone knows the print industry has taken heavy blows. With an air of Nietszche, our friend Mr Oyry proudly declared print to be dead. But The Atlantic's Michael Hirschorn sizes up the newsweeklies - the rapidly fading US titles Time and Newsweek and contrasts them to the increasing success of the UK’s The Economist. There is some nice objective criticism - hits and praise - for each title in here, so it’s worth a read.
True, The Economist virtually never gets scoops, and the information it does provide is available elsewhere … if you care to spend 20 hours Googling. But now that information is infinitely replicable and pervasive, original reporting will never again receive its due. The real value of The Economist lies in its smart analysis of everything it deems worth knowing—and smart packaging, which may be the last truly unique attribute in the digital age.
For a magazine that effectively blogged avant la lettre, The Economist has never had much digital savvy. It offered a complex mix of free and paid content (rarely a winning strategy) until two years ago and was so unprepared for the Internet that it couldn’t even secure theeconomist.com as its Web domain. (It later tried, unsuccessfully, to claim the URL.) Today, access to the site is free of charge, excepting deep archival material, but while editors have made some desultory efforts at adding social-networking features, most of the magazine’s readers seem to have no idea the site exists. While other publications whore themselves to Google, The Huffington Post, and the Drudge Report, almost no one links to The Economist. It sits primly apart from the orgy of link love elsewhere on the Web.
This turns out to have been a lucky accident. Unlike practically all other media “brands,” The Economist remains primarily a print product, and it is valued accordingly. In other words, readers continue to believe its stories have some value. As a result, The Economist has become a living test case of the path not taken by Time and Newsweek, whose Web strategies have succeeded in grabbing eyeballs (Time has 4.7 million unique users a month, and Newsweekhas 2 million, compared with The Economist’s 700,000, according to one measure) while dooming their print products to near irrelevance.
10,000 Words has an excellent photo feature on the excesses of retouching in news photos. The photos above were taken by Danish photographer Klavs Bo Christiansen in Haiti. As you can see from the published version, the colours are more dramatic, more garish. But did they really need to be? Doesn’t the scene look grim enough in the original? I understand retouching has a place in photography, but I don’t think it’s warranted in photo-journalism. Take a look at the other examples here.
Interesting but is it more scare-mongering or fair flagging of a reasonable concern?Come on, Wired, say it ain’t so! From the article:
The disease strikes North American pigs, but American humans were assumed to be safe. Only two human cases have been reported in the United States, where farmers keep a greater distance from their livestock, and dispose of meat known to come from sick animals.
Nevertheless, the assumption of safety may be false. In a study published last year in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Gray and fellow University of Iowa epidemiologist Tara Smith described the first search for S. suis in a U.S. population. Seven out of 73 Iowa hog-farm workers tested positive for exposure, compared to just one positive test in a 67-person control group.
Smith and Gray didn’t extrapolate national exposure levels from those geographically limited findings, but it’s not unreasonable to think a comparable ratio of pig farmers are affected nationwide. The S. suismicrobe is common, able to live in the tonsils for years without causing symptoms, difficult to eradicate with antibiotics and spread by the cross-country transportation of millions of pigs every year.
“You could say that between 5 and 10 percent of workers in the U.S. might be infected,” said Marcelo Gottschalk, a University of Montreal veterinary pathologist and one of the world’s foremost S. suisresearchers. “I don’t know if it’s true, but the extrapolation is fair enough.”