Dave Winer introduced the term “tone-deaf” yesterday to describe how Facebook has not yet displayed that it’s something more than a social network for students. “Why is their network so tone-deaf to the lives of adults?” he asked. He follows up with this observation today:

“Everyone is going ga-ga over Facebook, but like the people who hold out on Twitter, I’m not ready to give my life to a service that views me as a college student. My relationships are adult relationships.”

I’ll admit. I’m probably one of the guilty ga-ga-ers. However, on this point — and probably several other — I agree with those who aren’t as impressed with Facebook as I am. (And at some point, I will list many things I like — and don’t like — about it.)

For an example of what Dave is referring to, check out this post from Jon Udell who points out one obvious (and frustrating) bit of such tone-deafness a new adult user of Facebook will think is missing something: The choices of “How did you meet this person?” For Jon (and me and a lot of people who have “friended” me), the options they present are not satisfactory. I’ve had people select “We hooked up” who meant something other than what I think “We hooked up” means — I’ve been assured by those in-the-know that the term can mean lots of things. Also, “Worked together” has been chosen to describe something other than employment — which is correct, also. But adults need other options than the current Facebook list. Jon says, “through the web” is an obvious choice.

Another obvious choice: “We’re both members of AARP.”

Bonnaroo, the annual music festival held about 60 miles from Nashville gets reviewed in Monday’s New York Times. Favorite line: “Bonnaroo’s weekend in the sun for hippie types who never saw the 1960s has its silly moments. But compared with hipster cool or mass-market consumerism, hippie idealism makes a fine alternative.”

Sidenote: Lots of Bonnaroo blogging from some of the 80,000 who attended.

Technorati Tags: bonnaroo

Interesting headline in Advertising Age: Top Two U.S. Newspapers Want to Be in Magazines. Quote: “Both The Wall Street Journal and USA Today are developing glossy magazines for distribution within their traditional newsprint flagships, according to company executives and media buyers familiar with the work.”

These are the ideas: The WSJ would convert its “weekend edition” to a magazine format and USA Today is considering launching a monthly lifestyle magazine.

Quick observation: The WSJ magazine is a great idea that will evolve its weekend edition into a format more suited for its content and its in-home, Saturday delivery. If the numbers work, I think the magazine format is a better vehicle for the publication — I’m a subscriber and feel I’d be more likely to read it as a magazine. As for the USA Today idea, sounds interesting and has potential, but it will all depend on the execution. Sounds a bit less viable to me than the WSJ idea, but as a monthly, there’s less risk. Indeed, if it’s distributed as an insert in the paper once a month, it’s very little risk, as they will quickly discover whether or not they can sell it to advertisers. If they distribute it via newspapers in the Gannett chain — as they do USA Weekly — they can avoid the start-up hassles that the Life magazine re-re-launch faced a couple of years ago when Time Inc. attempted a Friday distribution of a lifestyle magazine. Gannett already has the circulation and distribution components in place, unlike Time Inc.

Both ideas make sense to me, as I’m sure I’ll explain in greater detail later.

Later: Jossip.com has a funny headline for this news: “Two Newspapers We’re Semi-Regularly Forced to Read are Introducing Magazines We Almost-Definitely Won’t”

I won’t review the history of my reporter-math peeves, however, I think one of the big (downward) turning-points in my hope for the future involved a news item years ago about a debate over the need for a statistics course in Northwestern’s Medill School’s curriculum. Subsequently, I was corrected by some of the players in the controversy who said I missed the point — that I characterized a j-school version of statistics as being “dumbed-down” when the point was that statistics for j-school students should be more focused and relevant. So, this time, I’ll characterize it as a positive and optimistic sign when I point to this post by Limor Peer about a new course at the Medill School called “News and Numbers”. I DO NOT think it is a “dumbed down” stats course for journalists. I think it is a good thing.

Quote:

“The course covered much the same ground as statistics courses offered in other university departments, but it was geared toward Medill students - students used relevant data (e.g., audience research, media content analysis) to understand statistical concepts and learned how these statistics can be a useful and essential part of journalism. They also learned what many of the numbers being used in public discourse mean, where they come from, how to interpret and evaluate them, and how to use them in their own writing.

The post contains a list of several texts and excellent links related to the topic.