October 28, 2002, 2:09 PM ET
csmonitor.com offers syndication feeds
This just in: The Christian Science Monitor now offers syndication feeds in RSS format.
Twelve feeds are available, from topical feeds such as "Top Stories" and "Sci / Tech" to the broader "Entire Paper by Section."
The latter is particularly notable because, to my knowledge, it's the first time a major news site has made its entire contents available in a single public RSS feed. In early September, BBC News made select topical feeds available, but the site stopped short of syndicating everything.
The Monitor's Joel Abrams, Partnership Development Specialist, had this to tell me:
I'm really excited by this -- this is such a great, almost-zero-cost [way] to reach new people.
A few thoughts: I forget where I first saw the comparison of news aggregators to Napster, but it definitely applies: content is going to get out there and be aggregated, outside of its original context. A few people in our organization were a bit scared by that. But unlike Napster, the publisher still benefits from users coming to the web site and reading the whole story. And publishing in RSS seems a great way to get that elusive mindshare of users.
And this is just a start. Joel also told me there will be "a lot more coming in the next month or two." According to the site's syndication page, readers should expect "RSS feeds for news briefs, MonitorBlog, Daily Update, and more."
Outstanding.
October 28, 2002, 1:32 PM ET
Oops: 'Blocked' parts of PDF file still accessible
Here's a classic example of why online journalists would do well to learn the intricacies of the technology they use.
Last week, washingtonpost.com posted a PDF file of a letter apparently written by the suspected DC-area sniper. Because the letter contained a few sensitive details, such as credit card account information, parts of the PDF file were blacked out electronically.
But The Post, or whoever made the PDF file, neglected to realize the blacked-out areas are easily removed with the proper tools.
Planet PDF points out the full version of Adobe Acrobat allows users to move the blacked-out areas around. According to the article, The Post's PDF file is "simply an image file to which an added layer of black has been added." Thus, one could simply open the document in Acrobat and drag the black layers away to reveal the hidden information.
It's not necessarily The Post's direct fault; they might have received the document, pre-blackened, from a source. But even if that were the case, the newspaper should have taken the time to ensure the sensitive information was properly blocked. Digital technology or not, you've got to cover your bases.
If Post staff members were uncomfortable with PDF documents, they could have converted the letter to a GIF or JPEG image file. Doing so would have guaranteed security -- and eliminated the need for users to download a third-party browser extension (Adobe Acrobat Reader) to view the document.
(Thanks to E-Media Tidbits for this story.)
