Newsweek photoshops its crediting policy: From Photo District News (pdnonline.com):

Beginning
with the March 14 issue, Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker says bylines for
cover photos and illustrations will now appear directly on the cover,
marking a shift from the industry practice of crediting cover photos on
the table of contents page. Newsweek is the first major news magazine
to adopt the crediting policy. Whitaker says the decision resulted from
conversations with his creative staff over last week’s cover, which
used digital manipulation to merge an image of Stewart’s head onto a
model’s body. Media critics and readers alike felt that the composite
image looking deceptively real.

Or you’ll miss it: I must admit, the blog blinkorama is the best blog I’ve ever seen devoted entirely to posting screen grabs of people on TV frozen at just that instant when the person is mid-blink.

(via blog-watching guru Ken Leebow who says blinkorama is the stupidest blog he’s ever seen, which surprises me, because I know for a fact he’s seen the rexblog.)

Oh wait, the FEC is not going to crackdown on bloggers afterall. Thanks for clearing that headline up, CNET: Today, six days late, CNET runs an interview with FEC Commissioner, Ellen Weintraub, with the headline, “Bloggers, chill out already!“

While I don’t like this condescending headline, at least what Ms. Weintraub has to say passes the smell test.

Background: Last week, within 30 seconds of reading the interview that CNET editors headlined, “The coming crackdown on blogging,” I knew immediately that the interview — and especially the headline — didn’t pass the smell test. I knew that CNET, by choosing that headline, was throwing a lit match onto gasoline.
Someone at CNET should have slammed on the breaks on that first
interview and said, let’s provide a little context on the motives of
the individual who is making these claims, or, let’s provide another
FEC commissioner the chance to balance what this guy is alleging.

Within
a few minutes of that first CNET article, “the Federal Election
Commission” wants to shut down bloggers from linking to campaign
websites meme spread throughout the blogosphere.

Fortunately, folks like Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Jarvis
linked to my original post and said “Rex is skeptical” so the “blogger
crackdown” angle met with at least some initial resistance in its first
few minutes of life. (Frankly, no one would have noticed what I said
were it not for Glenn as only seven people usually read this blog.)
Folks like Greg Wallace added his concerns to mine; that false controversies like this steal the attention from real threats. (You know, REAL threats.)

I
have a very verifiable track record for opposing intrusion and
overzealous regulation by the federal government. And, ironically, I
think the campaign finance laws that were the theoretical basis for
this alleged threat to bloggers are misguided and misapplied. However,
when a blogger crys wolf over this kind of fake threat, it’s hard for
me to take him or her seriously when a real threat appear.

Amen, brother: Dave Winer in the SF Chronicle: “Everybody is a journalist, or nobody is.”  

As I’ve said, free speech should protect bloggers. At the same time,
bloggers, like all media, are not free to practice slander, libel or
criminal activities. You know, freedoms come with responsibilities. That’s all the protection from bloggers we need.

Arguing (as Apple is doing) that bloggers (who, ironically, are using
Apple products) are not practicing a protected form of free speech, is,
to mix a metaphor, barking up the wrong slippery slope.

Why “experts” should be ignored: Whenever you see a quote like this one in today’s NY Post,
“(Martha Stewart) should close the magazine and focus on TV projects,
the Web, merchandising, books and videos,” you can bet the person being
quoted has absolutely no idea of the value of having a 1.8 million
circulation magazine with prominent placement at the checkout counter
of every grocery store in America. On this blog, I have chronicled such
stories as this for 2 1/2 years and have repeatedly explained why
Martha Stewart Living is not going away (and compared it to other
magazines like Rosie, which I thought should go away). I won’t waste
time again going over the reasons except to say this: Martha Stewart
Living is a great magazine that is loved by its audience. It is not a
celebrity magazine or a magazine about Martha Stewart. Advertisers who
don’t buy it are the losers. You may see a quarter or two more of loses
related to the magazine, but if you look at the magazine and not listen
to the experts, you’ll understand why the magazine is special. And no,
I’m not a closet decorator (although I do like organized closets), I’m
merely someone who loves great magazines.

Those who forget the past: I’m
a fervent believer in the potential of new media and am a practicing
and devout capitalist and will no doubt be involved in business
endeavors in this space, but please, let’s not turn conversational
media (blogging, blogcasting — my word for podcasting during my
Apple-free speech protest period –, citizen’s journalism, whatever) into something that results in crap like this.