With GlobeReader the content of the Globe is downloaded daily to a subscriber’s desktop, laptop or netbook, in a format aimed at resembling the look and feel of the print version of the Boston Globe.  A preview edition is currently available to Globe subscribers. Plans for further expansion are in the works.

"GlobeReader is another important step toward our goal of being able to publish The Boston Globe on whichever platform our readers and advertisers value, and builds on the success we’ve seen with other platforms such as mobile devices and Kindle," said Susan Hunt Stevens, SVP digital.

Features of the GlobeReader include:

•  It’s organized into sections familiar to Globe readers.  
• The navigation is easy and clear. 
   
•  Scanning for stories or photos is fast.  
• Articles are set in the same type font as the paper and the page design is understated and clean. 

Readability features include adjustable type size and screen size.

The Globe’s new digital newspaper is powered by Adobe Flex and Adobe Air, part of the Adobe Flash Platform. While online GlobeReader users can search Boston.com for more features such as slide shows, videos and interactive graphics.

"Leveraging Adobe AIR, the new GlobeReader showcases the future of digital publishing and helps The Boston Globe to deliver a highly readable experience with a closer, more consistent connection to subscribers regardless of what computer operating system they use," said David Wadhwani, general manager of the Platform Business Unit at Adobe Systems.

The New York Times covered an story that turns out to be a ‘how not to handle a situation online” mini case study. It appears that the author, Alice Hoffman, apparently got a bad review of her new book “The Story Sisters” from Roberta Silman of the Boston Globe. Silman’s review included the comment “This new novel lacks the spark of the earlier work. Its vision, characters, and even the prose seem tired.” Apparently Ms. Silman gave away the plot as well. It appears safe to say that this was a less than stellar review and a dwindling number of Boston Globe readers may or may not have seen it. We do know, however, that Ms. Hoffman did.

So how did Ms.Hoffman respond? With a Twitter tirade, of course. (Note to self: If you feel slighted it may not be in your best interest to write something similar to the following)

“Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe is a moron,” she wrote. “How do some people get to review books? And give the plot away.” Ms. Hoffman also lambasted The Globe and went so far as to post Ms. Silman’s phone number and email, inviting fans to “Tell her what u think of snarky critics.”

Fast forward to the new media version of the stockade; the written mea culpa (a fancy word for eating your mistake whole and in public for everyone to snicker at). Hoffman’s statement through her publisher, Shaye Areheart, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group division of Random House included:

“I feel this whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion. Of course, I was dismayed by Roberta Silman’s review which gave away the plot of the novel, and in the heat of the moment I responded strongly and I wish I hadn’t. I’m sorry if I offended anyone. Reviewers are entitled to their opinions and that’s the name of the game in publishing. I hope my readers understand that I didn’t mean to hurt anyone and I’m truly sorry if I did.”

Oh, and she also took down her Twitter account. Hoffman is just another in a growing list of people who shouldn’t be allowed to use social media. Heck, you need a license to drive a car, what about social media? Until it is recognized that no good rant goes unpunished on the Internet, these online reputation suicides will continue to occur with startling regularity and intensity.

What is your technique for keeping your emotions in check in online environments? Ever hit the send button and regretted it? I would venture to say that you aren’t truly involved in social media unless you have done that to some degree or another. What separates the online men from the boys is if you let it happen repeatedly and what level of intensity (or stupidity) you allow your emotions to take you to.

If you remember the TV show “Hill Street Blues” the cops never left their morning briefing without the words of Sergeant Esterhaus saying “Let’s be careful out there”. While not as dangerous as mean streets of some urban center, the Internet carries it’s own set of risks so that people should heed the warning as well.

Comments

GateHouse Media Inc., which owns 125 Massachusetts newspapers as well as web properties like WickedLocal.com, sued the New York Times Co. because its Boston.com-run website "Your Town Newton" was posting headlines and small article snippets from WickedLocal.com.

Now the snippets linked to the original site, but that was not good enough for GateHouse. The company claimed that this created confusion over where the content originated, and leads to readers missing out on advertisements from WickedLocal’s front page.

It seemed that GateHouse was not considering the very real possibility that readers would never have made it to their site in the first place had Boston.com’s site not driven them there. Then readers would be missing out on the ads on the article pages too, and frankly, I can’t see how that would help GateHouse’s cause. Boston.com offers its parent company’s stance on the matter:

In a statement, New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the company is simply doing what hundreds of other news sites already do — aggregate headlines and snippets of relevant stories published elsewhere on the Web — and believed GateHouse’s lawsuit was without merit.

"Far from being illegal or improper, this practice of linking to sites is common and is familiar to anyone who has searched the Web," Mathis said. "It is fair and benefits both Web users and the originating site."

It was like GateHouse was not interested in expanding its web traffic. Traffic comes from links. And many, many sites drive traffic to other sites by doing exactly what Boston.com did. They show article titles and snippets and link to the original.

Ever looked at a Google SERP? Ever shared a link on Facebook? Ever browsed tech news on Techmeme? Digg? Most publications would love to be linked to via these venues.

Since I originally posted this article, the two companies announced that they reached a settlement, the details of which can be read in their entirety here. Under the terms of the settlement, the New York Times Co. has agreed to remove all GateHouse feeds that contain headlines and ledes from Boston.com.

GateHouse will implement solutions that prevent the copying of its content from its sites and RSS feeds. "Nothing shall prevent either party from linking or deep-linking to the other party’s websites," provided that the other conditions are met. The agreement of course applies to all of GateHouse’s and the New York Times Co.’s properties.

So there you have it. It’s settled, but the topic is still up for debate is it not? Who would’ve won tihs case? Fair use still exists right? As Paid Content points out though, the New York Times Co. is in no position to deal with a lengthy and costly legal battle.

To me, it still seems like GateHouse’s loss. It should be interesting to see how much difference in traffic there is after losing the Boston.com links. Yes, they can still "link" to them, but I would imagine the rate of links will be drastically reduced. After this, I’d be surprised if they still wanted to link to them anyway.