Microsoft Sells Slate to Washington Post
Grok Headline matches for Microsoft Sells Slate to Washington Post
Microsoft sells Slate.com to Washington
Post
Microsoft sells Slate.com to Washington
Post
12/24/2004 01:15 PMWASHINGTON Microsoft sold its popular Slate online magazine Tuesday to
The Washington Post Co., a move that will make Slate’s political
commentary and quirky feature articles more broadly available across
the Internet. . Terms of the deal were not disclosed, although the
editor of Slate, Jacob Weisberg, said the amount was “a very
respectable, impressive price.” Read more……
Direct and Related Links for
'Microsoft sells Slate.com to Washington Post'
MSN Sells Slate to Washington Post
MSN Sells Slate to Washington Post
12/22/2004 01:12 AMThe Washington Post will acquire the online opinion magazine Slate,
officials at the paper announced Tuesday. This confirms industry
speculation for the past year that MSN was attempting to divest itself
from the content business. Slate would be one of three online media
entities owned by the Post.
Washington Post picks up Slate from
Microsoft
Washington Post picks up Slate from
Microsoft
12/22/2004 01:23 AMThe Washington Post Co. announced Tuesday that it has agreed to
purchase online magazine Slate from Microsoft.
In a deal that had been
rumored since at least
mid-November, the Post will take Slate off Microsoft's hands for
an unspecified amount of money. The online magazine, which produces
original editorial content on popular topics such as politics, has
been controlled by the
software giant
since Slate first began publishing in 1996. According to Nielsen
Net/Ratings, the magazine had 6 million unique users in November.
News source:
C|Net
News.comRead full story...Washington Post Buys Slate From
Microsoft
Washington Post Buys Slate From
Microsoft
12/22/2004 01:19 AMWashington Post Buys Slate
Washington Post Buys Slate
12/22/2004 01:16 AMThis had been rumored as a "done deal" for a few months already, but
it became official today that
the Washington Post was buying Slate, the online magazine
published for many years by Microsoft, but
put up
for sale earlier this year. Microsoft started Slate as an
experiment with the idea that they would be able to successfully
charge for content -- a plan that failed pretty rapidly. Meanwhile,
the Washington Post says there will be few changes, but they wanted to
do this to beef up their online content. Of course, the Post used to
run an online site called Newsbytes, which they killed off for no good
reason. You also have to wonder if the Post is going to shove Slate
behind an annoying registration wall, like they did with much of their
regular online content.
Washington Post Company Buys Slate
Magazine
Washington Post Company Buys Slate
Magazine
12/22/2004 01:29 AMThe sale completes Slate's transformation from an experiment in the
new media in 1996 to a respected brand name in journalism.
M$ sells Slate to WaPo
M$ sells Slate to WaPo
12/22/2004 01:30 AM
Xeni Jardin:
Microsoft will sell the online publication Slate to the
Washington
Post. No editorial changes anticipated.
Link (
Thanks Steve Portigal)
Post buys online magazine Slate
Post buys online magazine Slate
12/24/2004 12:39 PMPublishing group Washington Post Company buys up pioneering online
magazine Slate from Microsoft.
"Washington Post "
"Washington Post "
12/16/2003 08:48 PM"The Washington Post says"
"The Washington Post says"
05/26/2004 07:51 PMWashington Post
Washington Post
03/20/2003 08:33 AMwar has begun .. full text .. Text .. Full
track this
site | 9 links
"The Washington Post "
"The Washington Post "
04/23/2004 08:37 PMWashington Post Goes RSS
Washington Post Goes RSS
04/23/2004 09:20 AMA dozen (and one) RSS feeds from
Washington Post is
now available.
"The Washington Post has them."
"The Washington Post has them."
05/22/2004 02:19 AMFrom the Washington Post
From the Washington Post
07/12/2004 01:03 AMnterview
today
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41190-2004Jul10.html
track
this site | 4 links
"Washington Post"
"Washington Post"
03/13/2003 10:25 AMThe Washington Post gets it
The Washington Post gets it
06/09/2004 06:03 AMMuch of what civil libertarians feared about this administration turns
out to be have been true. As the Washington Post points out in today's
lead editorial, Legalizing Torture: This week, thanks again to an
independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth
about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department
seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers,
they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture.
In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense
Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street
Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to
disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign
prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders
were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly
redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering
could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the
designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the
same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but
refuses to disclose. There is no justification, legal or moral, for
the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice
and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of
dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of
"national security." For decades the U.S. government has waged
diplomatic campaigns against such outlaw governments -- from the
military juntas in Argentina and Chile to the current autocracies in
Islamic countries such as Algeria and Uzbekistan -- that claim torture
is justified when used to combat terrorism. The news that serving U.S.
officials have officially endorsed principles once advanced by Augusto
Pinochet brings shame on American democracy -- even if it is true, as
the administration maintains, that its theories have not been put into
practice. Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a
ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush
administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees. Perhaps the
president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their
policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of
American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the
Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures
-- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible
test: No technique should be used that, if used...
"The Washington Post"
"The Washington Post"
04/19/2004 08:24 PMThe Washington Post does RSS -- badly
The Washington Post does RSS -- badly
04/16/2004 03:44 AMI grew up in Washington, DC, and even after 20 years on the West
Coast, I am used to reading the Washington Post daily, even as it has
slowly transformed itself from the anti-establishment hero of
Watergate in my youth to the neoconservative Republican paper of
today. I have displayed its headlines on my personal news page for
years, and use the headlines to pick which stories and columns to read
online every day. Today the format of the headlines on my site changed
drastically. The good news? The Washington Post finally started
offering official Washington Post RSS feeds. No longer do I have to
rely on Mike Krus' excellent NewsisFree services to get Washington
Post headlines. I can go directly to the horse's mouth. The bad news?
The RSS feeds are crippled. Each one has only a few headlines -- for
example the Top News feed and the Opinions feed each currently have
only 3 headlines. So now I only get some of the stories on the front
page, not all of them. And where are the columns by my regular
columnists, Colbert King, David Ignatius, and Richard Cohen (now that
he has regained his senses)? The headlines also have the inane text
(www.washingtonpost.com) at the end of each linked headline, as though
anybody clicking on the linked headline would be taken somewhere else.
It looks like something that would have been put on the web in 1995,
not 2004. This is a really foolish way for them to put content out to
people -- it is one of those cases where halfway is worse than none.
By having only some but not all of the top headlines, they make it
less likely, not more likely, that people outside Washington will rely
on Post for news. By putting the stupid (www.washingtonpost.com) in
every headline, instead of just the first or last one, they make it
less likely that someone will want to display their headlines on their
site. My guess, from years of reading the Post and reading about the
Post, is that it is the result of political infighting inside the Post
between people afraid of giving away their content, and people who see
the value of syndicating headlines as a way of increasing influence
and getting more people to read the Post online. It certainly looks
like a typical Washington political compromise, ugly and satisfying
neither opponents...
"ABC News and The Washington Post"
"ABC News and The Washington Post"
07/27/2004 09:30 PMthis piece in the Washington Post
this piece in the Washington Post
04/25/2004 12:38 PMHere's the
column
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38708-2004Apr24.html
track
this site | 3 links
"THE WASHINGTON POST SCREWS UP AGAIN"
"THE WASHINGTON POST SCREWS UP AGAIN"
04/03/2005 03:07 AMas the Washington Post reports
as the Washington Post reports
06/11/2004 05:02 AMtinyurl.com/2yhru
track this
site | 6 links
the Washington Post tells us
the Washington Post tells us
12/29/2003 08:30 AMcomprehensive retrospective ..
Click
washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35297-2003Dec27?language=printe
r
track this
site | 4 links
this Washington Post story
this Washington Post story
07/20/2004 09:29 AMWolftrap
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22172-2004Jul1.html
track
this site | 4 links
How Many RSS Feeds Does the Washington
Post Have?
How Many RSS Feeds Does the Washington
Post Have?
08/28/2004 11:22 AMA post at MoreThanThis alerted me to the fact that the Washington Post
was doing RSS feed related to current events. The same entry lamented
that the Washington Post doesn't...
"the weekend Washington Post "
"the weekend Washington Post "
06/02/2004 08:54 AMAccording to Leslie Walker in the
Washington Post
According to Leslie Walker in the
Washington Post
08/03/2004 07:40 AMMicrosoft Deploys Newsbot To Track Down Headlines .. MSNBC.com's
Newsbot Favors MSNBC.com .. Elizabeth Herrera Smith ..
Quote:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29430-2004Jul31.html
track
this site | 4 links
Washington Post on Creative Commons
Washington Post on Creative Commons
03/17/2005 03:47 AMGreat and particularly well researched article on Creative Commons
in the Washington Post today.
Robert Samuelson, in the Washington
Post,
Robert Samuelson, in the Washington
Post,
12/31/2003 05:00 AMto criticise Bush is a hate-crime .. The Bush
Haters
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40031-2003Dec29.html
track
this site | 6 links
"One question only, for the Washington
Post: When will Charles Kra..."
"One question only, for the Washington
Post: When will Charles Kra..."
12/07/2003 03:41 AMan editorial from The Washington Post
this morning
an editorial from The Washington Post
this morning
08/01/2004 04:49 AMRead this report from Sudan .. MORE ON
DARFUR,
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29211-2004Jul30.html
track
this site | 3 links
Washington Post Buoyed by School
Washington Post Buoyed by School
07/30/2004 03:17 PMThe media company's results shine, especially thanks to its education
unit.
"ABC News/Washington Post poll"
"ABC News/Washington Post poll"
06/24/2004 11:11 AMABC News/Washington Post poll
ABC News/Washington Post poll
12/24/2003 05:27 AMpretty surprising .. cruises back ..
poll
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22493-2003Dec22.html
track
this site | 4 links
Washington Post reviews Motorola MPx200
Washington Post reviews Motorola MPx200
12/07/2003 02:35 AMMobileTracker Dec 7 2003 1:25AM ET
Washington Post on Bush's torture
methods
Washington Post on Bush's torture
methods
06/11/2004 12:47 PMThis
Washington Post editorial about the methods of torture
that the Bush administration approves of is all over the blogosphere,
but I think it's important enough to post here.
Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's
interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established
this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if
used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of
U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were
to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that
fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little
milder than that of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or
even death." What if the foreign interrogator of an American "knows
that severe pain will result from his actions" but proceeds because
causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader
were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect
his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or
morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should.
Link"next week's WSIS in today's Washington
Post"
"next week's WSIS in today's Washington
Post"
12/06/2003 03:50 AMWASHINGTON POST: Rallying Around the
Flag Online
WASHINGTON POST: Rallying Around the
Flag Online
03/14/2003 03:39 PMWashingtoon comPost .. the WaPo article .. a story today
track this
site | 7 links
Grok Description matches for Microsoft Sells Slate to Washington Post
GrokA matches for Microsoft Sells Slate to Washington Post
Microsoft Sells Slate to Washington Post
