Online video has moved way beyond simple video-sharing on YouTube. A growing number of services are allowing users to make video on the fly and stream their material live or near live to the web or from mobile devices. Instant video content, often just conversations between the producer and his or her audience, or video comments back and forth, is much different from content that is recorded, edited and posted onto video-sharing sites like YouTube.

More a communication tool than a platform for creative expression, the video content shared on services like Seesmic and Qik aren't likely to win production awards, but they do allow for a fast and easy way to get your point across through video.

One interesting thing about these services is that they are hard to classify. Are they video blogging tools? Are they broadcasting (or video podcasting) tools? Are they a video version of Twitter (which in itself is considered a micro-blogging tool)? Further adding to the confusion is how the services actually classify themselves. Some offer the tools to stream and record instant video, and some give users that plus a social networking element, like chat rooms and groups. Some call themselves videoblogging services. Others say they let you create your own live TV show.

Most serve as portals for the content produced by users. These services all let you quickly record video and/or stream video live.

Getting started with these services is pretty simple. Basically all you need is a webcam (or with some services a camera phone with video capabilities), a computer and a high-speed Internet connection. The most important thing to consider when broadcasting live video online is the upload speed dictated by your cable or DSL provider. If you don't have a fast enough upload rate your video will look rather choppy. Here are a few of the services that let you record on the fly and broadcast online:

UStream

UStream calls itself "live, interactive broadcasting." Users can stream video live from their webcam and chat with viewers at the same time. Like most of the services I'll discuss here, UStream lets you start broadcasting almost immediately after signing up and is so simple a kid could do it. In checking out a couple of "shows" on UStream a common annoying theme around the chat element emerged. In watching a show which consisted of two different lateral views of a guy behind a desk I didn't seem to get anything he was saying -- it just didn't make sense. I noticed that he was just answering questions people were shooting to him over chat.

If you can believe it, there's even less dynamic content. As I write this, I am watching a show that baffles me. I've had it on for 4 minutes and the person on the screen, who seems to be watching something or someone somewhere else in the room, hasn't moved or said anything the whole time. I only know he's alive because he's blinked a couple of times and appears to be breathing.

On Ustream, there seems to a theme of people behind their desks talking about geeky stuff. At its best, there is the entertaining and informative Chris Pirillo and The Tech Guy Leo Laporte. At its worst there are people who don't move or speak. UStream also streams events live, which is a nice thing when you can't attend an important conference.

Justin.TV

The service is named after its founder, Justin Kan, who is best known for wearing a webcam attached to a hat 24 hours a day(video_stream)#Justin_Kan. He also coined the term "lifecasting" to describe the process of live-filming one's life around the clock.

What began as a live stream of Justin's life has now become a portal for other people's live and recorded video. With a more youthful tone (there's a video category called "Divas and Dudes"), Justin.TV appears to attract a younger set, with many users still in their teens. Logging on to Justin.TV this week I found a live channel with yet another guy broadcasting himself looking into a screen and typing while not saying anything. Again, I don't really get it but in the context of the lifecasting idea, I guess it makes sense. Life isn't always exciting and these videos definitely aren't either.

On the more animated side of things, there are live shows with a bit more production behind them, and niche shows like the ones done by Bodybuilding.com are good for satisfying a demand for content you might not find elsewhere.

The real attractive thing to me about Justin.TV is the ability to stream professionally produced live content. You can watch movies or live TV and chat with others about what you are watching. Last night as I watched the Spain vs. Russia soccer match on local television, I watched it simultaneously on Justin.TV as another user streamed it live. This capability is extremely interesting to me as I am a fan of place-shifting television. It's pretty cool that a Colombian living overseas can watch local TV from their country without the need for a Slingbox or some other device.

Seesmic

Seesmic, a streaming video startup and brainchild of French entrepreneur Loic Lemeur, is a service I've been reading about for over a year and had never used because I didn't really understand what it was (not to mention I don't see a need to communicate my thoughts via video). When it first launched in 2007, TechCrunch referred to Seesmic as "a video-based Twitter," and that's probably the best description I've heard yet.

What differentiates Seesmic from other "on the fly" video services is that most of the content seems to be centered on a conversation: an initial video and underneath that a cascading list of responses to the video in the form of more videos. Seesmic has a lot of social networking features, and a pretty seamless integration with social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, among others.

Perhaps betting on that social aspect, the company recently acquired a popular Twitter desktop application. Seesmic has a cool feature called topics, which are thematic video threads. The first video in each thread, called Newspop, is professionally produced by Seesmic and is aimed at starting a discussion. A bit jaded after some of the stuff I've been watching this week, I watched a video about the gay marriage ban being lifted in California, which was a topic starter. The video itself was interesting, and many of the video responses as well. Unexpectedly I ended up watching more of them than I thought because the conversation and content was compelling.

Phreadz

The newcomer to the quick online video set is Phreadz, a UK startup similar to Seesmic, but it focuses on what they call "threaded multimedia conversations." What does that mean? Phreadz founder "Kosso" recently spoke on his blog about the comparisons to Seesmic, and this was the most interesting comment he made about his service: "Welcome to Semantic Multimedia, where every post has context, a ‘pathway’ to it and plenty of metadata in between. (And a short permalink url!)" That sounds quite attractive to me after checking out other services of this genre.

Qik

Mobile streaming service Qik is different in that it is specifically geared toward those who want to broadcast video directly from their cell phone to the web.

Qik content seems to a bit more interesting than a lot of what I've seen on UStream or Justin.TV, and the reason is pretty obvious: It's more engaging to see people out and about in interesting locales than sitting in a dark bedroom illuminated by the computer screen, which is what makes up the bulk of the backdrops for videos posted on these sites. There are other advantages about being able to shoot and record and stream video from an always handy and unintimidating cell phone, like being able to interview interesting people on the fly. Check out how Variety magazine used a phone and Qik to get exclusive footage of Woody Allen at Cannes.

While Qik works in Spain, I couldn't try it out because my Palm Treo 680 isn't currently supported, which is unfortunate because it's probably the only one of these services that I might use as a producer.

Entertainment or Communication?

On Barcelona local TV there used to be a show that was 30 minutes or so of people standing in a public video booth talking to the camera. When what they had to say was compelling, the content was interesting. When they didn't -- which was 95% of the time -- the show was really boring.

A few hours into trying out these services I couldn't help but find myself comparing most of what I see on these services to that show. Another problem is that in many cases videos are responses to other videos and it's hard to catch up with the conversation. It also seems like a tough circle to break into. In many cases it's video of people addressing each other like they've been pals for years, talking about things I know nothing about. Without context it's quite hard to become engaged on these sites.

Is this video communication on a whole new level or is it entertainment? If it's the former, maybe my expectations were too high in that regard and perhaps we can't ask to be entertained. If it’s communication, then there might be greater potential for these services than what we are curr

When you open up your Internet browser, what's the first thing you see? Many people opt for personalized start pages, portal-like websites that let you pick and choose the content you want, such as news, weather or updates from social networking sites like Facebook. You can add widgets to your start page, and even create widgets for others to use on their pages.

These sites incorporate Ajax programming, which lets you easily customize the page, moving content from one area to another, while also speeding up the page's load time. These start pages are popular with a lot of folks, but they've never worked for me for a variety of reasons (I'll get to those in a moment).

First, the back story. Personalized start pages have been around for several years but really took off in 2006, when several players appeared on the scene, among them Netvibes (which Mark reviewed back in 2006) and Pageflakes. That same year Google launched their own personalized start page called iGoogle, with the first widgets added to the page around that year's World Cup. Since then, more and more services have appeared on the scene, with mixed results.

So why haven't I become a regular user of personalized start pages? And why haven't they become successful businesses? Let me count the ways:

1. Widget appeal is fleeting.

I must admit I'm not a fan of widgets, those mini-applications that run on social networking sites, blogs and start pages. The concept seems really cool for a couple of hours, but that's about how long they've lasted for me. On iGoogle, many of the widgets I originally installed don't work anymore, and others, such as games, take way too long to load in the first place. While I agree that they can be useful, they just aren’t useful enough to keep me coming back to a start page.

2. Too much me in one place.

The idea of updating or checking other people's updates from social networking sites or reading feeds from newspapers on a start page brings us back to the topic of aggregation. It's a subject I've covered before in a previous post about social aggregation services such as FriendFeed. Instead of visiting various sites, you can use social networks and read the news without leaving your start page.

The offer of centralizing information in one place is catching on as sites such as Twitter, Flickr, etc., have included this functionality seamlessly when you sign up. In theory, I see the appeal of having everything I follow online in one central place. But a start page can't accommodate all the things I read and do online without becoming overwhelming. I tried adding all the things I cared about to Netvibes and Pageflakes start pages and it ended up looking like something I'd rather run away from than embrace. Like my experience with FriendFeed, it's too much of me in one place for me to handle.

3. They seem like features, not stand-alone businesses.

Two years after the onset of the personalized start page bubble, most of these services are still around. But I wonder for how long. From a business standpoint, the beauty of these services is that they are content portals without having to provide any of the content, which is funneled in from other sources. But as stand-alone businesses -- as opposed to a feature, such is what iGoogle is to Google -- they don't seem to have much traction. Recently, one of the more popular services, Pageflakes, ran into financial trouble /and was acquired by Live Universe.

Start pages built from the ground up can't seem to compete with the big boys such as My Yahoo and iGoogle, so I wonder how long the variety in this space will last. For many people, it's just too easy to use a service already integrated into a suite of services they already use -- provided by Google or Yahoo. Plus, as TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld wrote: "What will the half-life of start pages be in a Friendfeed world?" Schonfeld noted that:

comScore measured only 50,000 unique U.S. visitors [for Pageflakes] in March 2008, compared to 1.4 million for competitor Netvibes. iGoogle had 7.4 million U.S. visitors in March, and My Yahoo had 19 million.

4. I can’t find a real use for them.

I'm always in such a hurry to find what I want when I go online, and I'm a creature of habit. So when I use one of these personalized start pages, I end up ignoring what's there and just cutting to chase with a Google search or a visit to my RSS news-feed reader. As for using it to get news, well, that's what the feed reader is for, and it does the job a lot more effectively.

On the Other Hand...

There are some reasons why these services might just stick around despite my resistance. Among them is the customized media diet we are getting more and more used to these days, and the fact that readers are less attracted to stories than they are to headlines. Here are a few reasons personalized start pages might just catch fire.

1. People gravitate to aggregation.

I assumed that people who work on the Internet, like me, would have less of an interest in these services than people who only occasionally consult the web for news and entertainment, so I asked a couple of other people what they thought.

I posted a question to my Twitter followers: "How many of you use these services and why?" I found quite a few people who use and enjoy personalized start pages for a variety of reasons. Among them were the ability to update their statuses on services like Twitter directly from the start pages, or put only the most important news to them in one place, while using RSS feed readers to get less important news.

Some people said that start pages influenced and streamlined the way they interact with other sites. For instance, updating on Netvibes means you don't have to visit the Twitter website, but seeing a headline often compels you to click through to read the whole news story on the source site.

2. The trend toward me-focused media.

Some people want less editorial intervention and more of themselves in the media they consume. In contemplating the appeal of personalized start pages, I couldn't help but compare it to the draw of a D.I.Y. magazine or newspaper. Early versions of personalized online papers have been around since the '90s, with notable projects such as CRAYON leading the way.

The concept of The Daily Me -- personalized news publications built around one's own interest -- dovetails nicely with personalized start pages. Services like customizable news site DailyMe.com or The New York Times' MyTimes are more news-oriented than the start pages I've mentioned, but also attempt to deliver highly customized content.

3. Our love for snacking on headlines, not stories.

Recently there's been a lot of talk about how our inability to wait and our short attention spans -- possibly made shorter by high-speed Internet, tabbed browsing and a seemingly endless stream of Web 2.0 sites. Instead of longer, more in-depth stories, studies show that what most readers want these days are news bites and headlines.

This trend toward brevity might be a good thing for the personalized start page, which serves up just that: a headline and a two- to four-line intro. Sites such as Pageflakes make it extra easy to get the point of a news piece without actually having to read it. If the headline reads "John Mayer's Ex 'Happy' About His New Romance," a mere mouse-over of the text gives a subhead telling you who the ex is and who the new romance is. I guess with stories like this, you don't need anything more than that -- and really, who has time for more? (Uh, except for our long-attention-span readers at MediaShift, of course.)

What do you think? Do you use personalized start pages? Why or why not? What do they provide that you don't get from just visiting a news site or a social networking site -- or using a RSS reader? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a writer, blogger and marketer, who also covers Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Pageflakes image by Paul Jacobson and Christ and Deep Thoughts widgets image by Manuel W., both on Flickr.

A few weeks ago I told you about the perpetuation of print newspapers here in Spain, and in that post I mentioned the fact that you don't see a whole lot of laptops being used on the streets of Barcelona or Madrid. One might think that this is an indication of a lack of love for gadgets. Quite the contrary: You may not see laptops, but what you do see are cell phones -- and tons of them.

To say that Spain is crazy for cell phones is an understatement. Approximately 44 million people live in Spain, but in January of this year the number of cell phones in the country reached 50 million. There are more phones than people here. While Americans might also be addicted to the cell, the Spanish relationship with the cell phone has evolved differently from ours for reasons that are clear and others that remain a mystery.

Cards, Phones and More Phones

The mobile phone isn't just a communication tool but also an omnipresent character in Spanish culture. Proof of this is seen constantly on television. Commercial after commercial begs you to send SMS code XXXX to whatever number to get the latest Rihanna ringtone or the anthem of the Barcelona soccer team for your phone. Or to get a popular reality show logo for your cell phone wallpaper. Or to comment on a topic on the news.

Here in Spain, this is what most people think of when you say "mobile content." A lot of money is spent on accessorizing the mobile by ordering games over SMS or on being afforded the right to see your comment crawl across the TV screen when you've got something to say, moments after sending a text message to your favorite show. I can't see most Americans shelling out money for this kind of thing, but Spain leads the entire European region in purchasing this type of "content." Recent projections show that Spaniards will download over 17 million games for their cell phones this year over WAP or SMS. Like a pampered pet, the cell phone is forever in hand, and is being primped and well taken care of by its owner.

When I first came to study in Spain in 2002, it didn't take long for me to get a cell phone. My roommate at the time, another graduate student, produced one for me after gasping at the fact that after 3 days in the country I still didn't have a mobile (what I didn't tell him is that I didn't even have one in the U.S.). He quickly pushed a standard issue Nokia on me with SIM card included, and told me what my new phone number was. I didn't get it. How did he do that? Did he work for the phone company? His answer: "Cards!"

He was talking about a pre-paid SIM card, which allows for a cell phone line with no contract and virtually no relationship with the provider. Unlike in the U.S., you can easily get pre-paid SIM cards in Europe and get talking immediately. In countries like the UK or Germany, you can even buy a SIM card out of a vending machine. You use up your minutes on the card, and then "charge up" the card later at an ATM machine, a grocery checkstand or an Internet cafe. Unlike in the U.S., nearly half of cell phone users in Spain are not under contract with any carrier. Some people have one cell phone with a SIM from Vodafone, and another with a SIM from Orange or some other carrier.

My roommate's generosity in gifting me a cell phone and telephone number was appreciated, but it was no skin off his nose. He had several handsets lying around as he constantly replaced the older ones with newer ones with better features. I thought this was specific to him but realized soon that most of the people around me in their mid- to late 20s had the same obsession.

I remember asking another roommate, on more than one occasion, if the cell phone she had was new. The answer was almost always yes. The bottom line seemed to be that because cell phones were so accessible and the relationship with the carriers so no-strings-attached, there was an incentive to always get a new one. Not being under contract or getting penalized gave these guys the ability to upgrade their phones when they got tired of them (which was quite frequently). They could then exploit the new features of their devices to the max with add-ons they ordered off TV.

Spain: Land of SMS

A few days into my new Spanish life back in 2002, someone said to me: "I'll send you a message" I had no idea what they meant. An email? A message in a bottle? Whatever. Later that evening my phone made a beeping noise and there it was: a message. An SMS message. I hadn't heard of one nor seen one before, but I soon found out that they were -- and are -- the language of choice in this country. Spaniards of all ages must spend half of their waking hours sending text messages, and they were doing it back then, when I hadn't a clue what SMS was.

As if adjusting to a new country weren't enough, I then had to learn a new language: text messaging. While Americans were in the dark ages of SMS, Europeans had long since embraced the technology. And that's why Spaniards' SMS messages -- much more evolved -- often look like ciphers requiring the intervention of some code expert. Ask someone to go out with you, and they might reply "NT1D" ("I don't have a cent"). You might tell them you'll pay and will meet them ">o<" (downtown). If they ask why you are so kind, answer "pqtqm" ("because I like you a lot"). Good thing there's a dictionary.

This strange code has developed over the years as a way for young people to communicate within the standard 140-character limit for text messaging and to save money on their pre-paid cards by only having to send one instead of multiple messages. Along with the jargon in Spanish, it has developed in parallel (but to a lesser degree) with the other official languages of Spain, such as Catalan and Basque.

Such has been the influence of SMS language here that linguistic experts are calling it "the biggest revolution in the language ever." The same thing has happened in other parts of Europe, and recently French President Nicholas Sarkozy lamented "what text messaging is doing to the French language."

Whatever it has become, in the beginning it was just a way to save money when communicating. Another very interesting (presumably Spanish) cost-related work-around that I was introduced to and quickly adopted was "the missed call." If you are going to meet up with someone, they might say "I'll do a missed call when I get there." That means they will ring your cell when they arrive so you know to look for them.

The missed call means neither phone is charged a cent, and saves the caller 15 cents or so normally spent on a text message -- perfect if you don't have any more credit left on your phone card. As you might imagine, this isn't a perfect science. If two people are just calling and hanging up on each other back and forth and not really communicating any information of substance (like their exact location), you still might not find the person you're looking for.

Different Mobile Histories

When I returned to the U.S. the following year, I brought text messaging with me. Attempting to evangelize people I knew, I found that not a single friend in my inner circle knew what I was talking about. My close friend Andrea, now an ardent text messager, commented recently that she remembers the first time she received an SMS -- from me. I remember her saying at the time "I didn't know my phone could do that kind of thing!"

Why didn't Americans catch on to this sooner? In looking for the answer, I found several theories. One mobile marketer in the UK, Troy Norcross, wrote something back in 2006 which seems to make a lot of sense. He said that it boiled down to two things: ubiquity and cost. Until recently it wasn't possible to send messages to another carrier's number in the U.S.

"Until April 2003 there were no inter-carrier agreements for text messaging," Norcross wrote. "So if you were on Verizon you couldn’t send a text message to a subscriber on the Sprint network. The problem in the U.S. was further complicated in that there are at least three different mobile network technologies in use."

And calling in Europe is just a lot more expensive than it is in the U.S. You can easily burn through a 10 euro mobile phone card in less than 10 minutes. With costs like that, it just isn't realistic to make calls if you don't have a cell phone contract. So people found a way around it, and it was SMS.

I asked tech consultant and blogger Michael Mace, who wrote a very detailed and enlightening blog post about the differing mobile cultures, why he thought the use of SMS in Europe evolved the way it did.

"Fixed-line phones were hard to get in Europe and expensive, so mobile phone usage took off there much more aggressively than it did in the U.S." he said. "Prices for texting in Europe were lower than prices for phone calls, so people had an economic incentive to text. In the U.S., mobile service was not as reliable as in Europe, fixed-line phones were cheap, many more people had PCs, and IM was completely free. So texting never became the big force here that it is in Europe (and in much of Asia)."

SMS in Asia is extremely popular; analyst firm Gartner recently projected that the region will send 1.7 trillion text messages in 2008. In Korea for example, according to a study published late last year, Korean youth opt for SMS over email even though email is free, with people considering email "outdated." On the other hand, in Japan, mobile email is far more common than text messaging.

Going Beyond Texting

Upon returning to Spain to live five years later, what's interesting to observe is that while so much has changed in the mobile space in the U.S., not much has changed here. People are still constantly upgrading their cell phones and texting all day long, and still ordering ringtones and screensavers for their phones. But other ways of interacting with the mobile haven't caught on or at least not as much as back home.

Here, most all of my friends are professionals but none carry Blackberries and none have an Internet data plan on their phones. They don't surf the web on their devices, and they don't send emails. A 2006 study estimated that only 300,000 workers in Spain used mobile email) and most don't do anything except call and text.

Because Spain seemed so much ahead of the U.S. in using mobile for something more than just calls, one would think that media consumption on phones would be the next logical step, but that hasn't been the case. In 2002, Americans didn't know what SMS was but in 2008 we are texting, watching videos, reading RSS feeds and even using VOIP on our cell phones. In Spain, most people are doing none of that -- but you will see a grandmother shoot off text messages like a teenager.

Europe is a large and diverse region, and Spain shouldn't be considered by any means the country that sets the standard for what's going with mobile content in the EU (though Barcelona does host Europe's biggest yearly mobile conference, testament to the interest in the topic here). What I have seen happen here is that people adapt their mobile habits to their circumstances. If calls are expensive, they use SMS. And if calls are so expensive, so are data plans, so forget about using the mobile Internet. So media is inevitably left out of the mobile equation.

This begs the question: where does this leave the iPhone -- the mobile Internet lover's phone -- which will be arriving here next month? It's hard to say. I think the shiny newness factor could go over well here, but the inability to text properly on the last version of the iPhone has been blamed for weak sales in Europe.

But I also think that when it comes to content, most people here will rely on their traditional regimen of print newspapers for news and TV and standard Internet for entertainment, unless Spain follows the most recent trends in Europe, which show mobile data growth of 40% in the EU compared to last year.

What do you think? Why do you think cell phone use varies so much from region to region and culture to culture? What are people using the phone for in Europe that they aren't using it for in the U.S. or vice-versa? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a writer, blogger and marketer, who also covers Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Text message image by fluzo, SIM card image by manu contreras and cell phone collection image by Dr. Won, all on Flickr.

The Slingbox is a device that allows for "placeshifting," letting me watch live (or taped) TV programming in any other place in the world where I have an Internet connection. In simple terms, I can watch my U.S. TV on my computer in Spain almost perfectly. And in my case, the device has allowed me to keep tabs on what's going on back home so closely that it almost feels like I'm still there.

U.S. TV Abroad: The Way it Was

I've spent large chunks of my life living outside of the U.S. and have been very well integrated into the places I've lived, reading the local paper and engaging as much as possible in local media. But the one media indulgence I have always missed is U.S. television.

Living in Latin America in the late '90s, I could access a bit of American TV. Sony has a television channel throughout the region which broadcasts shows from the States. Plus I could watch reruns of "Seinfeld" and "Friends" with subtitles. Then there were standalone channels available in Mexico, with some rather random selections such as E! Entertainment channel, which broadcast original U.S. shows with localized programming. This was almost enough back then, but I remember a fellow expat neighbor who would come back from her visits home with VHS tapes of stuff she had recorded to supplement the limited viewing options. I would jump at the chance to join her in watching month-old episodes of "20/20" and "The People's Court."

Then there was the Internet. Before broadband, dial-up service in Mexico, for whatever reason, wasn't bad at all -- better than the one I had in the U.S. -- and I could even access a couple of broadcast news clips online from time to time. But because of the connection and the technology of the day (probably Real Player), the video was choppy and watching TV content was frustrating.

Real, Live TV Online, Straight from Home

Before moving to Spain, I made several trips abroad and would think, "I could really live here." The thought was normally followed quickly by another: "If I could only watch American TV." I know it sounds vapid when you put it like that, but try watching an episode of Family Guy dubbed into Spanish. The humor doesn't translate.

Unlike a lot of my snobby Bay Area or New York City acquaintances that claim they don't watch TV or (and I question this one) don't even own a TV, I'm not ashamed to say that I can't live without it. From "Good Morning America" to CNN to The Discovery Channel, my media diet consists of a healthy helping of broadcast news and another of mindless fluff -- with a daily dose of PBS to round things out, of course.

The dilemma of how to get that while living outside of the United States was haunting me until I found the Slingbox. Would I see the finale of "Dancing with the Stars"? What about "Nightline"? "Frontline"? Comedy Central?!

Or would I have to resort to the not-so-ready-for-primetime online TV services that have been cropping up over the last year? Last year I wrote about the future of TV online and my observations weren't very positive, because these services are less than accessible. The difference between something like Joost or Hulu and Slingbox is that the latter is just regular old TV. No selections based on what the networks want you to see, no downloading, no blocked access (most of these services require a U.S. IP address) and no money out of your pocket -- except the one-time device fee and whatever you pay for cable.

The choice of what to watch is as much yours as it is when you are at home. All you need is to hook the box up somewhere in the U.S. In my case, I had my mom hook it up in Texas so what I get here is whatever is available to anyone in the Houston area.

Another thing I couldn't stand about the online TV experience back when I wrote that post was the leaning forward rather than kicking back involved in watching and controlling online television. Desperate to replicate a normal TV viewing experience, I've found a rudimentary way around that. I connected my Macbook via a video adapter to my television so that it acts as a monitor, and then connected a headphone-type of cable to run sound from the computer to the television. It's all very wiry and unattractive, but it allows me to kick back and relax.

A less technical and unexpected virtue of Slingbox has come in the form of a cultural reality check. After living in Bay Area isolation for so many years, I'm once again exposed to local programming from my home state of Texas. I'm reminded that at any time of day on at least three channels one can watch some kind of religious programming or high school football, and that not everyone in the world will be voting Democrat this election season. It's almost like being home again.

Less Than Perfect

Placeshifting TV via Slingbox, with all of its advantages, is not without its flaws. A pretty important one isn't related to the device itself -- it's the time difference. As I mentioned, when I log on to Slingbox, I'm watching whatever people in Houston are watching at that very moment. With a seven-hour time difference, that means that if I want to watch in the early afternoon, Spanish time, my options rarely go beyond "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" and infomercials for ProActiv acne treatment. However, I have found that it works in my favor for shows I never could watch before because I was working during the day. And if I could get my mom to figure out how to set up TiVo, this wouldn't be such a problem.

Then there's the broadband issue. My service here is extremely spotty. Sometimes it's great and I can watch an hour-long show with no skipping in the video stream or sound; other times I can't get an Internet connection at all. If your television depends on a less than stellar broadband connection, you aren't guaranteed TV all the time.

But perhaps the biggest disadvantage is having to be tethered to a computer. While I can technically kick back and watch TV, my "remote" (my laptop) is connected to a short cable, and I have to get up to change the channel or adjust anything. Because I don't want wires stretched across my living room nor my laptop running all day, I have to pack it all up and set it up again when I want to watch. This means I watch a lot less Slingbox than I do local TV.

Last year Sling Media, the makers of Slingbox, announced the upcoming release of a new device called Slingcatcher which would put an end to all the wires and the need for a computer to watch live TV anywhere. When I heard about this, I immediately bought into the idea and was ready to get the thing (it has a remote!) only to find that the company has missed its launch date by several months and the Slingcatcher is still in development. If this device ever does make it to market, and does everything they say it will, this important disadvantage will no longer be an issue.

Unlike Mark's experience with Slingbox back in 2006, I feel this device is something that serves a real purpose and that I actually need (I feel guilty using the word need for a gadget, but I mean that in the way someone might need a TV). But I can see why it might seem useless to someone who isn't living or traveling abroad. The other uses, such as watching on a mobile device, also aren't appealing to me. I like TV, but not so much that I need to be watching it everywhere I go.

The Slingbox, however, has kept me feeling close to home. It's a scary thought, but I wonder how much of our own identity -- both as individuals and as a nation -- we derive from television. Watching U.S. TV, the humor clicks (for the most part), the language is spoken with a familiar accent, and there is a feeling of home. Even though thousands of miles separate you and you're up when no one else is, there's something comforting about the ability to be in touch with what's going on in real time.

What do you think? Do you think the idea of placeshifting TV is appealing or is it useless? Do you use a Slingbox or another device to watch your TV remotely? Do you use Slingbox for other purposes, such as watching local sports when away from home? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a writer, blogger and marketer, who also covers Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Slingbox logo image by Thomas Hawk and Slingbox mobile image by Dan Dickinson, both via Flickr.

The service that gives me this kind of access into other people's lives is a relatively new aggregation site called FriendFeed, which takes feeds of your activity on 35 different social networks and puts them all in one place.

"FriendFeed is this year's Twitter." That's what lots of people are saying, meaning it's becoming the preferred tool of the early adopter crowd and generating a lot of buzz. It seems to have a cult-like following, with bloggers singing its praises and touting its many advantages. Plus, FriendFeed is not alone as a social aggregator; there's also Spokeo, Iminta and Plaxo Pulse, just to name a few.

After a lot of thought, I've come up with a few things that I think are cool about FriendFeed and social aggregators, and a few more which give me pause.

What's Great About FriendFeed

1. It helps you avoid visiting multiple sites.

Before aggregation services like FriendFeed, one would have to visit multiple sites to follow the whole of a friend's online activity. These services do the work for you, transmitting yours and your friends' updates across a variety of sites and allowing for a more convenient way to know what someone's been up to online. Though I'm not as obsessed with knowing everything everyone I know is doing all the time on every site they frequent, I'm sure this is considered a real benefit to those people who are.

2. It helps you make sense of a ton of data.

When you're interested in the activity of a variety of different people on many different sites, it's hard to keep up with it all. Social aggregation lets you see a chronological stream of what your contacts have been doing, and also lends structure to your own online activities. Organizing information that is in essence disperse makes it easier to digest, and FriendFeed, when you get the hang of it, can make following online conversations such as comments on a blog post a lot easier. Plus, you can comment right on someone's FriendFeed.

3. It helps you get to know people better.

Today's web tools are designed to facilitate interaction between "friends" but in truth they are more useful for facilitating interaction between strangers (who later may or may not become friends). It's often hard to tap into a connection with someone you don't really know, and social networks -- particularly ones that are built around an affinity for something like music or photography -- are a shortcut to that type of connection. I like this song, so do you, therefore we have something in common. You marked my photograph as a favorite so I add you as a contact. And thus begins a strange relationship with a stranger.

Perhaps aggregation helps us get even closer. Instead of knowing just a couple of random details about someone's life, you can piece it all together and have what you think is a full portrait of who this person really is. And perhaps the appeal of getting all that information about online friends and acquaintances in one place is that it mimics a real life, offline relationship. It's just a theory, but in trying out FriendFeed, I can see how that might be attractive.

What Bothers Me About FriendFeed

Roughly a year ago, in a post here on MediaShift about oversharing information through social networks, I said:

Some of us may not realize it, but the bits and pieces of ourselves online paint a picture of who we are -- a picture that is so clear one might question whether we aren't letting too many strangers into our lives.

In that post, I was talking about someone -- a person -- taking the time to weave together all the public strands of our lives found on the various social networks we frequent. I wasn't thinking of a service that does all the piecing together for you. Which brings me to my concerns about FriendFeed and similar sites:

1. It's too personal.

Beyond the seemingly positive aspects of having our information in one place, some say that a centralized 'data silo' is a little unsettling and I have to agree. All of the online "you" in one place with little control over how it's used is an uncomfortable thought. A couple of months ago I signed up for FriendFeed, used it once and hadn't come back again until this week. At some point I guess I must have linked it to Facebook. So when I went into Facebook profile, I was rather surprised to see what showed up: everything I had said on Twitter in the last few days, every photo I had marked as a favorite on Flickr and every comment I had made on the site, everything I had bookmarked on de.licio.us, and every song I had listened to on my iPod.

It was kind of embarrassing, though I can't put my finger on why. While I guess I knew what I was signing up for, seeing it all there together on my unattended Facebook profile was a bit disturbing. This information in bits and pieces, in the context of other people's noise and spread out over various sites seemed fine, but this vivid stream of my online persona was a bit too much.

2. It's fun, but it isn't real interaction.

A lot of bloggers are talking about how FriendFeed facilitates interaction and conversation, and I can see the point, because conversations across a variety of networks come together in one place. But I can also see how this positive point could become a negative one. Why go out and interact with friends in the real world when you can interact with your online friends in every way imaginable all the time, without the baggage? There's never a lull in the conversation, and there's always something to talk about: a blog post, a photo, a video, etc.

Then there's another problem that other bloggers seem to have identified: Is this real interaction anyway? Or just data being pushed out from different sources to a random group of subscribers? That's hardly friendship by any normal definition of the word.

3. It's information overload.

Just as RSS made it easy to get news, the same aggregation concept is working for social networks. But just as RSS helps to help cut through the noise, it inevitably creates more, and the same is bound to happen on FriendFeed. I log on and it's too much for me -- I feel overwhelmed. Our best efforts to keep up with others, thwarted by something designed to help us keep up with others. With FriendFeed, it seems we are looking for organization: of information, of relationships, of the various aspects of our own lives that make us who we are. Aggregation is organization and organization makes things easier, right? For me this particular form of organization makes things more difficult. (However, it is possible to "Hide" certain entries or people, though that takes a lot of work.)

While there are more reasons than the ones listed here to praise or pan FriendFeed, in conclusion, I wonder what the big deal is about. The picture that is painted of us on FriendFeed is both frighteningly complete and sorely lacking: lots of correct data about what we do but little information about who we are. The very existence of a service like this points to our need to make sense of multiple streams of data about ourselves and others, and perhaps even a need for that data to become something more personal. But in those attempts, there is a possibility of creating more chaos in the name of organization.

What do you think? Why do we choose to aggregate? Does aggregation help you get to know people better online? Are you comfortable with having all of your information in one place? Do social aggregators like FriendFeed make it easier or harder to take in information? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a writer, blogger and marketer, who also covers Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Image of FriendFeed video via Steve Garfield on Flickr

From a picture window in an office from where I am writing in the Gracia neighborhood of Barcelona, I can see the same sights I could see from a similar window in my former neighborhood in San Francisco: pedestrians, taxis, cafes and bookstores. But there is something different about my view here: I can spot three different storefronts specializing in newspapers and magazines, all on one block and on one side of the street. A couple of yards away, there are more newsstands. A visit to the corner cafe reveals something else that's rather curious: the room full of coffee drinkers is full of people reading the news -- not on laptops or iPhones -- but on good old-fashioned pulp.

Is print alive and well in Spain? For now, it seems so. Last year the National Statistics Institute here released data which showed that Spaniards are buying more newspapers than they were five years ago -- a trend that is just the opposite in many other countries. The national average of daily newspaper readers in Spain increased from 36.3 percent in 2000 to 41.8 percent in 2006. But even with those statistics, some media experts believe there are reasons to worry that newspapers here might follow the same downward trend of their U.S. counterparts.

A few months ago I told you all about my split with print publications and my near total conversion to online media for news. In contrast, most of the good citizens of Barcelona, arguably the country's tech capital, seem to get their news the old fashioned way. I wondered why, and while I don't have a definitive answer and my speculations are those of an outsider, I have a few theories:

Barrio Relationships

Small businesses still thrive in Spain. Newspaper stands, like fruit stands, fish markets, hardware stores and bakeries, tend to be mom-and-pop operations. Multinational businesses like Starbucks and Ikea have crept into Spain and Spanish companies also operate large stores of all types, but the small family business is still around. I can't imagine even a quarter of the newspaper stands in a typical U.S. city being able to survive selling print publications, but here they seem to manage.

In addition, business transactions in these shops are more personal experiences. Perhaps it's more appealing to go down and buy the newspaper from the same nice shopkeeper every day or every weekend, and the rewards of that one bit of personal interaction might outweigh the questionable rewards we reap by staring blankly at laptop screens and clicking around.

I decided to try it out. I went to what they call a "paper store" -- a shop selling office supplies as well as some print media -- and bought a magazine. The older woman who rang me up, more than likely the owner, let me know that the issue of Time Out Barcelona I was about to purchase was going to expire tomorrow, and advised me to wait until then to get a copy. She went on to tell me that Time Out Barcelona had only been in circulation a couple of months, but that it's much better than the other local-happenings publication, because of the wide array of topics it covers, and because the content is more interesting and well-written.

I've found that purchases here tend to come with such service. Many people tell me that Barcelona isn't like the rest of Spain, where these interactions are often more frequent and lengthy, but there is this sort of social dance that is done with transactions, and if you give up the daily paper you give up that interaction.

Cafe Culture

Many Spaniards -- particularly men -- have three places they go daily: work, home and "the bar." The bar is actually more of a cafe, and there are several on almost every street. The bar is a place where you meet up with other regulars, have a coffee, read the paper or -- even better -- talk news with others. In this city, plagued by water shortages, hellish traffic, rising housing costs and other urban maladies, people love to talk news and the bar is the perfect place to do that.

Where would a laptop fit into all this? Who needs online news when the paper's sitting right on the bar and the guy next to you isn't shy about sharing his opinion on what's printed there? Catalonian blogger Jordi Soro told me he believes that the survival of print in Spain has a lot to do with cafe culture. "For me, the print newspaper is an extremely important part of my morning coffee ritual at the bar," he said. That's surprising, considering Soro is a tech and gadget blogger. And there are more like him who live in the digital world but prefer ink.

Author and blogger Alfredo Hoces is one of them. Hoces told me he believes print is far from disappearing here because, unlike most Americans, Spaniards actually take time out of their day to relax and read in a public place.

"That's something I love about Spain," he said. "We don't always go for what people tell us is the most practical thing, and we aren't obsessed with everything being fast. We prefer to read our news sitting down, calmly at the bar."

People like to talk to each other, hear other people's opinions, see themselves reflected and argue about news. While younger Spaniards might be using RSS feeds to keep up with news and Twitter to mimic that offline cafe culture, there are still people here who like to chat in person with people they know about important topics. Imagine that.

In addition, more than one person told me that walking around with a certain newspaper under your arm or reading it in a cafe means something here -- it's a way of showing other people your political leanings. The paper you read defines who you are (socialist, monarchical, conservative, etc.), and you can't show off a website in the same way.

Limited WiFi and Aging Population

On previous visits to this fair city, I have spent many an hour hunting in vain for a WiFi signal in cafes and all the other likely spots. The city was set to get municipal WiFi launched back in 2004, but the plan was eventually nixed by the Spanish Telecommunications Market Regulator, which claimed it infringed on free competition. So far, I've only been able to find truly free WiFi at libraries and a couple of pizza joints. It's not non-existent, it's just hard to find and limited.

Barcelona isn't alone. A friend of mine in Sevilla tells me that there are four Starbucks stores in his city, and none of them offer WiFi. "The rare cafe that offers it does so only in the evenings, and makes you pay for it, and it's very expensive," he says. So when you want to relax with the news, it's the paper version or none at all.

In addition to lack of accessible WiFi public spaces, Spain also has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and an aging population that hasn't quite caught on yet to the idea of accessing news and other information online. So newspapers and television are still the primary means of accessing news for many people.

Not Such a Rosy Situation for Print?

With all of these reasons for the continued survival of the newspaper, one might think that print in Spain is set for a long life. But in speaking with Jose Luis Orihuela, a professor at the University of Navarra and an expert in new media, I began to wonder whether or not I might be wrong. Professor Orihuela doesn't share my vision of the stability of print here in Spain.

"Print newspapers have a future, but they won't be like ones we have now," he said. "Seeing the impact that the Internet has had on distribution methods and the way information is consumed, it becomes more and more evident that paper is an inefficient platform. That applies both to its value proposition of 'I'll tell you what happened yesterday' as well as its business model." He says that Spain is not immune to the downward spiral that print publications have seen in other parts of the world.

But, I asked, what about the statistics which show that in 2007, there were more daily print newspaper readers than in the past four years? Orihuela is skeptical, and points to statistics which show that Spanish newspapers lag significantly behind their European counterparts with regard to circulation. In addition, and perhaps more worrisome, are the statistics for young people: In 2006, only 26.2 percent of the population aged 14-19 read the papers regularly, while the statistic for the general population was 10 percent higher. And just today statistics were released here in Barcelona which show that half the city now has an Internet connection at home.

While the majority of people that I talked to said they preferred to buy the paper -- for the reasons we've talked about above -- there were a few who told me the opposite. Cristina Martin, a Spanish teacher, says that she used to be a die-hard print newspaper reader, and would never miss an issue of the Sunday paper and the ritual of going out to buy it, along with a trip to the bakery for bread. But now she says that ritual has been replaced with one that starts with the online version of her favorite paper and a cup of coffee at home.

"I don't need [the print paper] anymore," she said. "I have the Internet, it's free and it's just easier. I do miss going to the newsstand and the ritual around it, but that's not enough for me to go back."

As Spain moves toward higher Internet adoption and if trends continue as%

In my post, I wrote about the potential uses for Twitter in the future, such as helping out in emergency situations or facilitating co-working for remote teams. One year later, I've found that Twitter has gone above and beyond my original expectations in terms of usefulness, allowing me to obtain and share information efficiently. But Twitter has also proven to be a tool that should be used with caution lest it become the opposite of useful: a time suck.

Last year, I was skeptical about Twitter becoming more than just something I used for fun, or perhaps to meet a few colleagues. But after I wrote the first story, quite a few people began to "follow" me (Twitter-speak for adding people as contacts). I have been adding everyone who added me, and to this day I only know 8 of my 867 "friends" in real life. As my circle of Twitter friends began to grow the service became more useful for me, because I could learn more about what friends were doing or reading, and I could share the same with them.

Perhaps the most surprising and important use I've found is for reporting. When I write stories here on MediaShift, I almost always turn to Twitter to cull opinions and find interviewees among my group of contacts. With reporting, the more friends you have the better, because if you put out a question to 800 people someone's bound to have an answer; and if they don't, they usually know someone who does.

I've found Twitter to be much more useful than Facebook's "Questions" application, specifically built for putting out queries to your social network. More people seem to respond to "tweets" than to questions. In fact, while reporting on a story about Facebook, I found more interesting responses to my questions on Twitter than on Facebook itself. Other writers and bloggers have also found Twitter to be a powerful reporting tool as well.

More Useful Than RSS?

If I had the time to sit around and read Twitter updates all day long, I think I might find that they are more useful than the ridiculous number of RSS feeds I subscribe to for keeping up with news. When sifting through news every morning, my impartial feed reader provides no indication of what's important and what isn't. But on Twitter, if it's hot news you'll hear about it first. As humans are the best editors, it's almost like a filter for what I need to know now.

Watching Twitter users on the East Coast react as the news of the Spitzer scandal got out was like being able to watch a rumor zip through a village. And like in whispered private conversations heard in a cafe or bar, you're likely to find out about things you'd never hear about otherwise. If many people are talking about the same thing, you'll quickly find out why.

Plus, there's the network effect of Twitter, helping connect me to more knowledgeable people and more diverse sources of information. When I see an interesting tweet from one of my contacts to one of theirs, I often click (via the @username formula) to see who my contact is talking to. More often than not, it's someone with similar interests who has a blog about topics I'm interested in.

And then there's the social usefulness. Twitter seems to have been created to help people who already know each other to stay up to date on what everyone else is doing. For me Twitter is proving useful for making contacts and friends I wouldn't have otherwise met. I've caught up with old co-workers from a past job, followed contacts in San Francisco and Europe with whom I've met up with in person, and been invited to events and to participate in interesting projects thanks to my Twitter circle of friends.

Twitter's Greatest Hits of Usefulness

One year later, Twitter has lived up to some expectations around its usefulness and even outdone some others. For instance, when many bloggers speculated that Twitter might be employed for use in emergency situations, we couldn't have known how it would play out in real life one just months later. Twitter users in Southern California during the wildfires used the tool to do local reporting for the benefit of neighbors. Even for people who were evacuated and didn't have a computer, they could follow the updates on their cell phones. Twitter users were also able to broadcast live updates on the Minnesota bridge collapse just minutes after it happened and before many news outlets could get the details out to the public.

The Iowa Caucuses were also covered by citizen journalists via Twitter, filling in the gaps left by local and national coverage. It also proved to be a good way to keep up with the results on Super Tuesday. We've also seen mainstream media embrace Twitter and other new media tools for reporting on important, time-sensitive stories.

More recently, Twitter was at least partially responsible for the release of a young journalist jailed in Egypt, who used his cell phone to send a one word cry for help: "Arrested."

The Twitter Time Suck

But in all its usefulness, Twitter still does live up to some of the initial takes people had one year ago. It's still pretty useless if you don't have friends on the service. And if you have too many contacts, it's most definitely a time suck for those who don't have the discipline to stay away from it. In speaking to a friend last week about his Twittering boss, he told me "I just don't have time to Twitter. I have to work." Indeed, in signing on to Twitter and seeing some of the most well-known names in technology shooting off an inane missive every 30 seconds, one has to wonder: Does anybody work around here?

Last year, in a post here on MediaShift about social media and privacy, I wondered if an added disadvantage to the service might be the fact that anyone who takes you seriously, such as a boss, might be put off by the fact that you are online all day updating people on the minutiae of your life. I still think this could be a problem, as could all of your other activity at all the various social networking sites.

Speaking of wasting time, a lot of time is wasted -- both suffering from and talking about -- Twitter's frequent outages. A big geek event like MacWorld can take Twitter offline from conversation overdose, causing a few users to call for a decentralization of the service.

And then there's the amount of useless conversation hurled at you. On the flip side of Twitter acting as a filter for important news, if you pay too much attention to it and attempt to follow every conversation, you're are bound to get lost. At first I followed the path that other bloggers were saying was best for getting the most out of Twitter, and reciprocated every follow I received. For a while this was working quite well. Most of the people I was following were updating less than 10 times a day, so the conversation was easy to keep up with.

At about 100 followers/followees, I started to feel a bit overwhelmed as it began to get chaotic and I was losing track of the conversations from people I was more interested in. Now I am tempted to not follow anyone else, or be a bit more selective about whom I add, since the more conversations I follow, the more tempted I am to waste more time on the site.

Last month, blogger and cartoonist Hugh McLeod made the decision to drop out of Twitter, leaving many in the blogosphere surprised and the story was widely circulated. But McLeod's reasoning was that it was apparently distracting him from his real work, and he needed to delete his account to avoid wasting time.

I can relate to his reasons why, but I can also see why he came back only a couple of weeks later. It's addictive because it's fun, and while it may not save the world, it can be useful, especially for those of us who rely on fresh information for our jobs. In the end, like other technological obsessions, it all comes down to discipline and getting the technology to work for you, not against you.

What do you think? One year later, has Twitter changed your life or invaded it? Do you think Twitter is useful or has your interest in it petered out? What do you use Twitter for or why don't you use it? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

As I write this I am the picture of all that is unglamorous and unhealthy about being a blogger: wrapped in a blanket, in pajamas (quite the cliché) and suffering from what might be the flu of a lifetime. My current state is both a salute to those who see bloggers as lazy bums who work in pajamas and a testament to the exhaustion brought on by being just the opposite. I'm not lazy; I work too much, and my immunities are paying the price.

I cringed as I read the NYT piece. Just a few months ago I had a stress-related headache so massive it left me half blind (temporarily) and cost me a trip to the emergency room. I had to pause when I read the anecdotal data the author used to make the case: At least two bloggers have died of heart attacks in the past year. Prolific tech blogger Russell Shaw died last month and his colleague Marc Orchant died in December of last year. And tech blogger and entrepreneur Om Malik thankfully survived his heart attack.

Blogger burnout is nothing new. Back in 2004, Wired reported on the phenomenon, which was forcing some bloggers to close up shop and quit blogging altogether. In 2005, one of the world's first bloggers, Justin Hall, gave up his blog after 11 years of writing on it. The San Francisco Chronicle article about Hall's departure from the blogosphere was titled "Time to Get a Life." That title might refer to the fact that some people out there still think bloggers are just geeks with no social lives. Or it might allude to the sad truth that haunts so many of us: we're isolated.

We are consumed by our work. We see our friends less. We spend entire days without leaving the house (sometimes more than that). We get our views of the outside world via those who actually live in it, more often than not from an email or an IM conversation. We spend more time chatting online with people we don't know than with our "real" friends. And being tethered to a machine all day isn't exactly great for one's social (not social networking) life. In turn, our overall health suffers.

Readers' Expectations

Then there's the work itself. Many bloggers might not have an editor to answer to -- though some do -- but they've got throngs of readers always waiting for new content. If you're a blogger who writes with any regularity, there's the sense that if you're not publishing you are letting down your readers (or letting down your colleagues, who fear you're "getting soft"). And this applies to bloggers big and small.

Blogging for VivirLatino, which gets a few thousand visits per day from the same regulars, I feel indebted to those people. While journalists of old might have wondered about readers' impressions of their work or waited to hear about them in Letters to the Editor, bloggers know instantly what readers think of them. Sometimes it's nice. Sometimes it's downright mean. If depression is brought on by isolation and lack of sunlight, it's augmented by the thought that there are people out there who think you're an idiot. But it comes with the territory.

Those who actually like what you write also pose a problem. Every post that is well received by readers creates a self-imposed quality level that is often hard to live up to. Many of us think we have to be the first to write about something, the first to dig deeper into a topic or the first to respond to something huge that's happened in the world. And many of us do on a daily basis.

While I'm not going to deny the fact that people have died in the blogging community, I can't help but think that this article is rather sensationalistic. People from all walks of life and all professions die every day, and it's hard to tell whether these deaths or illnesses are directly related to their work.

Web entrepreneur Jason Calacanis put it well in saying, "The Times would have been better off blaming entrepreneurship over blogging." Many bloggers are entrepreneurs whether we know it or not, attempting to build a brand for ourselves through our work on our own or other people's blogs. But while our lifestyles might be unhealthy they are -- at least for most people -- hardly deadly. Ask a coal miner or a deep sea fisherman what they think of our vocation and then let me know what they say.

The dangers of blogging, if they exist, are self-imposed and the fruit of our own ambition and myopic view of what's important. Blogger Larry Dignan at ZDNet puts it best: "Sure, the web has a lot of stress but let's get real: If you're stressed out over 5,000 RSS feeds chances are good you'd be stressed by any profession you chose." The premise that we are all sick in body, mind and spirit because of blogging is overblown.

Tips for the Healthful Blogger

Even so, there are some bad things about being a blogger, and we all could use some moderation. So how do we balance the need to be online all the time -- either because our livelihood depends on it or because blogging is a passion -- with a healthy lifestyle? I ask that not as a rhetorical question but one that I've been struggling to answer myself. Here are three things that I think I could personally benefit from, both as a blogger and just as a person:

1. Get out of the house.
As crazy as it might seem to non-bloggers, many of us are holed up in our homes for days on end, afraid of missing breaking news. In my case, I'm researching stories, writing and helping maintain multiple blogs while also handling a handful of demanding clients and new ventures. Common sense would tell you to take a break, but our inability to be away from our computers keeps us indoors. It's not healthy.

2. Stay in touch with the unwired set.
Talking to my mom once or twice a week is a good way to help put things in perspective. She has no idea what a blog is and helps me see the bright side of things. After all, according to her, I get to sit around in my pajamas all day and tap on a keyboard. But the serious side of this is that we are doing work that we love and can do it from home. We're quite lucky (and relatively safe from harm!), and should value that.

3. Do research offline, or take a vacation from the Net.
Going off the Internet is hard for bloggers, and feeling disconnected is one of the biggest reasons why. But guess what? That feeling isn't real. Stay off the computer long enough and you'll see that the world got along just fine without your Twitter updates and your blog didn't implode.

And if you need your information fix, I think it might be helpful to feed our intellect with information that isn't real time, from say, a book or an encyclopedia (not Wikipedia) or even a real live paper newspaper. Or if you really want to go all out, take an Internet vacation; it's important to take time away from technology, whether it's for a real vacation or for a weekly "Day of Rest" where you have no tech for a day.

Blogger Om Malik, in a post responding to the NYT article this week, had some sensible advice: "Blogging doesn't need to be a race. Really. Sometimes you need to learn these lessons the hard way. I certainly have."

I haven't quite learned the lesson yet, but I plan to put some of these experiences of my colleagues to good use and some of these tips into practice. Loving what you do doesn't mean killing yourself for it.

What do you think? Is the blogger death phenomenon overblown or is blogging actually hazardous to your health? If you blog, what tips would you give other bloggers to help them stay sane and healthy? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Sleeping on the laptop photo via Fucshia Foot, Om Malik photo via Telstar Logistics, Gone Fishing sign photo via DetroitDerek, all on Flickr.

Plus, some producers have gone a step further. Instead of creating one-off videos and uploading them to YouTube, they've taken on the more ambitious task of creating entire series of shows made specifically for viewing on the web. The phenomenon began in the mid-1990s, with one of the first web serials, The Spot, which allowed viewers to interact with the characters and intervene in the storyline. The Spot developed an ardent following, but later crashed and burned.

More recently, lonelygirl15 took off, a YouTube sensation which led viewers to believe they were watching the videoblog of a teenage girl, when in reality the whole thing was a way for the filmmakers to land a movie deal. Commercial success has mostly evaded these series when trying to make a jump like that, as was the case with Quarterlife, a web serial that debuted on NBC in February of this year but was cancelled after just one episode.

Like regular television shows, there is a wide variety of genres in the web series world, from cooking shows to soap operas to sci-fi adventures. Some have laughable production values while others rival the quality of what's on traditional TV. But the most unique thing about these series is that they allow for creativity and niche content that isn't commonly found on regular television. Much of the content and subject matter might be deemed too special interest or not commercial-friendly enough for television -- but on the Internet, anything goes.

I checked out a whole slew of the latest Internet serials, and here is a selection of the ones that make good use of the "other small screen."

The Guild
Recent winner of a YouTube award for Best Web Series, The Guild is a sitcom about the lives of a group of young gamers who spend all of their time engaged in online gaming worlds and their relationships with one another. Even though The Guild's creators describe it as "written for gamers, about gamers by a gamer," I could still enjoy it as a non-gamer.

I know nothing about the jargon or the quirks of the gaming world, but the humor is accessible and pokes fun at the players' obsession with games and how they struggle with more human interaction. This series stands out because it goes beyond the typical characters seen on television to be more inclusive of lifestyles that aren't normally represented on TV.

Drawn by Pain
Filmmaker Jesse Cowell describes his web series as a "dramatic action packed 12-part series in a sea of comedic web content." Indeed, most of what you online are works of comedy, and Drawn by Pain is the rare exception. Mostly real action but partly animation, Drawn by Pain has an engaging and moving storyline, solid acting in most cases and quality production values. While the fantastical storyline and the combination of live action and animation might not fly on television, the web provides a perfect platform for taking the kinds of risks this director has taken.

Afterworld
Some web series don't involve acting; at least not by real live actors. This science fiction series relies on computer animation to tell the story of Russell Shoemaker, a businessman from Seattle on a business trip who wakes up in a Manhattan hotel one morning to find that the living world around him seems to have disappeared, victim of a mysterious disaster scenario called "The Fall."

The narration by the character Russell, who tells the story in first person, is well acted. Even though it's animated characters you're watching, the storyline is quite evocative. Afterworld takes its web platform a step further by adding extra interactive experiences to enhance viewing, like Russell's travel journal, which you can flip through like the pages of real book. I'm not a huge sci-fi fan but this series easily loops you in. Plus, the brevity of the episodes ensures that you won't get bored, which is important with attention-deficient web viewers.

My Damn Channel
This isn't a show but a web series "network" with various thematic channels, mostly focused on comedy content. The shows are hilarious and probably way too edgy for regular TV (though you never know these days). The web is the perfect place for spreading the kinds of memes that get started by the humor of shows like fake soap "Horrible People" and the spoof instructional series "You Suck at Photoshop." The great thing about My Damn Channel that even though you're watching 5-minute clips on your computer, it feels like you are watching your favorite comedy network on TV.

Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager
Also in the comedy category, and somewhat inactive at present, is a favorite of mine called "Chad Vader," which follows Darth Vader's "younger, less charismatic brother" Chad in his day-to-day work as a shift manager at a grocery store. The central idea of this series is so geeky and ridiculous that the writers would be quickly booted out of the room of a pitch session in Hollywood. But on the web, silliness works, and plot lines that seem unthinkable are widely embraced when the ideas are well-executed like they are in this web series.

Making the Jump to TV?

While some of these series may not ever see mainstream success, their creators have done a good job finding the right platform for their shows online, where they've found good followings and received praise for their efforts. And there are some more commercial-driven web series that look promising, including the new thriller Blood Cell on 60frames.com (which, incidentally, stars the actress who played lonelygirl15).

Plus, there's the comedy Knockers, which is produced by Generate, a company focused on making web series. The startup recently received $6 million in funding and has signed some "web stars" such as the creators of Chad Vader to create new shows. Social networks such as MySpace are also creating original web series such as Roommates to create more professional content for advertisers. Former Disney chief Michael Eisner has also been pushing web serials via MySpace.

With so much good content available in various web series, it's easy to see the possibility of some of these shows making the jump to traditional TV after they get popular online. I actually hope that doesn't happen, as the creative freedom and originality that is possible on the web -- the ability to "dance like no one's watching," even though someone is -- might be squelched by impositions from Hollywood producers and networks. While I'd love to see Chad Vader on primetime, I wouldn't want him to lose his edge. That kind of weird humor is for the Internet, but not necessarily for the masses at home on the couch.

What do you think? Are web series the wave of the future in television or just a passing fad? Do you watch web series? Why or why not? Which web series are your favorites and why? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Nearly one year later, I'm not much happier with my smartphone than I was back then. Downloading a new web browser didn't make things that much easier. The sites still load very slowly, images are distorted or too small. The back button often takes me to places I don't want to go, and worst of all, if I accidentally hit another button on my keyboard -- say email -- I'm taken away from my web browsing and I'll have to start all over again. Text displayed is either too small or too large to read.

The mobile Internet experience on that device is still grossly lacking, and seeing most content is so frustrating that I'd rather just forgo it altogether and do the only thing my phone does really well: play that falling gems game.

My love affair with the mobile web seemed to have ended before it even started. But now I've got a shiny new device, the iPod touch, and it's more than I bargained for in positive and negative ways. It's a lot of fun and has made me more productive in some respects, but it's also extended my workday, increased my media consumption and cut into my sleep time.

Blessings and Curses

When I wrote my original post last summer, I wondered at that time whether all of my mobile Internet issues might be solved by Apple's then-new iPhone, which was causing mob scenes at Apple stores all across the country. The commercials for the iPhone showed a web surfing experience that was nothing less than ethereal when compared to the torture I was experiencing on my 680. Instead of cumbersome keys that seem to always do things twice, the luscious touch screen lets you go effortlessly from one browser window to another like turning the pages of a book. Making things bigger or smaller -- adjusting text size of enlarging images on a website -- is done with a mere double tap of your finger on the shiny, perfect screen.

I wanted it. What I didn't want was to commit to AT&T for the rest of my days. Because I only really needed the Internet feature of the device -- which relies on WiFi rather than a data plan, limiting where it can be used -- I opted for the 16 gigabyte iPod Touch instead.

In sizing up my new life of semi-mobile Internet use (I use it mostly at home) with this gadget, there are upsides and downsides, blessings and curses. While I'm mostly getting what I want, the question is whether I'm getting too much.

Blessing: I can finally use the Internet on a portable device

The Touch, right out of the box, is impressive. The browsing experience is close to perfect, or as perfect as I've ever seen on something that's not a computer. In fact, I won't even hesitate to look at any site on the Touch. It all loads fast, displays well, and I almost forget that I'm not on a computer.

Curse: I can't stop using the Internet

Before the iPod Touch, I had a set Internet usage and online media consumption schedule. After the workday was through, I'd close my laptop, power off and be through with all the eyestrain and maniacal clicking around. Most of the time I'd relax with some good old-fashioned offline television, or even curl up with a book. Rarely would I ever break that routine.

Now that the iPod Touch is around, things have changed, to the detriment of my sleep schedule and thus my overall well-being. Even when I'm already in bed, if I have some burning question or the unrealistic need to check email, I don't have the excuse of having to turn on my computer, wait for it to start up, etc. I also don't have the reluctance to wait and ultimately be disappointed by the Treo.

I simply reach for the always-on iPod, get my burning question answered by Wikipedia -- which displays beautifully -- check my email, and think "I'll just have a look at the New York Times..." All of these things were unthinkable with the Treo, but on the Touch they just flow. One thing leads to another and another and just like when you're surfing on a regular computer, time gets away from you. Before you know it you're bleary eyed and far from ready for sleep as you're too "tuned in," too stimulated.

And while your bedmate might sigh and complain if you hop in the sack and tap away on a glaring laptop, robbing them of sleep, I can tell you that you are free to watch videos on YouTube or spend hours reading RSS feeds well into the night with an iPod Touch without them ever even noticing. Now there's no excuse NOT to stay up all night doing things online.

Curse: I want to be totally mobile, but I can't

The ability to stay constantly connected only goes so far with the Touch. Since this isn't the iPhone, and is really just a media player, I have to depend on a WiFi connection in order to access the Internet. While this is fairly easy to find in San Francisco, I've found myself in other locales where I wanted to take it out and consult a map or a restaurant review, but I can't because there is no accessible WiFi signal. I'd love for the Touch to replace my Treo so I could get a smaller phone, but that's not going to happen. The only answer here is the iPhone.

Blessing: It's good for more than just browsing

Incredibly slim and attractive, the Touch has got all sorts of features I thought I would never use, like the ability to watch movies and store photos. All I really wanted was a portable device that would let me browse the Internet, nothing more than that. But the Touch is so enticing that it's tempting to take advantage of everything it has to offer. And that's what I've been doing.

Curse: More media, all day, all night

Before the Touch, I rarely downloaded anything from iTunes. I've written in the past that I don't like watching television on my computer, because it's uncomfortable. With the Touch, I'm watching more Internet TV than ever before thanks to the nice big horizontal screen. I'm tempted to download TV shows and watch them with my headphones on when others in my house are watching things I'm not interested in.

This is a good thing I guess, except that it's taken the place of other activities such as reading...or just being. And it also allows me to watch way into the night, as I am not bothering anyone with noise or light. Once downloaded, I can watch the shows anywhere, without the need for a WiFi connection, so this has me watching TV all the time, everywhere.

More Good Than Bad

In the end, it's me who's to blame for most of the "curses," not the Touch. I need to become more disciplined when it comes to my media intake, and not expect my MP3 player to replace my phone. The good things about the device are really good, and the curses are actually blessings when you are far from home.

I was traveling last week, and I found that it's an excellent travel companion. When bad movies were the only options on my flight, I was able to watch my favorite television shows on an ample-enough screen with excellent video quality. And when it came to being connected, I didn't have to rely on expensive international roaming data packages from my carrier, but could instead rely on free WiFi at airports, coffee shops and hotels to easily access email, read news, and even send text messages home over the Internet using my Touch.

It seems my non-mobile phone is better than my mobile phone in every way, except voice. But in this digital age of email relationships and chat-enabled offices, the human voice and my interaction with it is becoming less and less necessary (which isn't to say I don't miss it).

I was in Europe last week and the big tech news on CNN International was that Apple was looking to squash Blackberry on the business device front. Apple wants to make the iPhone more enterprise friendly, as company leader Steve Jobs took shots at Blackberry's approach to email. If Apple were actually able to come up with a way to make typing emails on the iPhone as easy as it is on a "real" keyboard, such as the one the Blackberry boasts, I think they'd have more than a good chance at dethroning Blackberry. On my trip, on numerous flights, I saw young business people going back and forth between iPod for entertainment and Blackberry (or Treo) for emails. It was a real world look at the market that Steve Jobs would like to tap into.

The iPod Touch, nearly identical to the iPhone (without the phone part) is already superior in most ways to my "do it all" Treo phone. And the iPhone itself, with the exception of the keyboard issue seems to fill all of the requirements that Mark laid out in his list of what would make the perfect smartphone -- though it's still lagging in storage space for music or photos.

While I am mostly kudos and technolust for this little device, I still can't help but think that the big lifestyle changes inspired by harmless little gadgets might mean bad things for us in the end. The increased reliance on devices makes it hard for us to just sit still, be idle, relax. Reliance on media to pass the time in moments of inactivity makes us less likely, in my opinion, to actually have a respite from our increasingly electronic, ever demanding lives. And techno toys like the Touch, while fun, make it pretty much impossible to disconnect.

What do you think? Are gadgets like the iPod Touch or the iPhone making it more difficult to disconnect? Do you think these devices enrich our lives or make them worse? What gadgets do you need for your daily life and which could you go without? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Photo of iPod Touch by bizmac. Treo vs. iPhone photo by vrogy. iPod Touch movie photo by Titanas, all via Flickr.

Traditional media has always drawn a line between the reporter and the "reported to." But citizen journalism is a phenomenon that looks to bridge the gap between the news and the people, with average folks being able to use digital technology and the Internet to create and distribute their own news. But most stories about citizen journalism in the U.S. tend to focus on sites written in English.

Even when people mention the pioneering Korean citizen journalism site OhMyNews, it's the English version that's discussed. But because the concept is picking up speed all over the world, some very interesting citizen journalism sites are cropping up in the world's second most popular language and third most commonly used tongue on the Internet: Spanish.

And many of the most high-profile citizen media sites in Spanish are from newspapers. In Argentina, the newspaper Clarin recently launched a network of blogs. In Spain, El Pais newspaper has a dedicated citizen journalism section called "Yo, Periodista" ("I, Journalist") where readers contribute to the paper's stories by sharing posts, photos and video. But beyond traditional media's dabbling in participatory journalism from Argentina to Bolivia all the way to Spain, there are homegrown news projects that share a common goal: bridging the gap in traditional reporting and letting readers know about stories that are important to their communities in their language.

Here's a look at some of the citizen journalism efforts that have recently launched in the Spanish-speaking world.

Argentina

igooh.com
A strange name in any language, igooh.com is an independent citizen journalism project based in Argentina that lets users share news and debate topics of common interest online with fellow readers. In June 2006, Ignacio Escribano, a freelance writer and musician with very little web experience came up with the idea of creating a site where people could freely express themselves online. He wanted to let them share and tell stories that don't normally get covered in traditional media.

"We wanted encouraging, positive stories that promote human values in our society," Escribano said. He told me that the project began with his disillusionment with traditional press "which has the need to tell stories with a journalistic agenda" that he found "narrow-minded and primitive." On igooh.com, citizen journalists don't just share news, but also share essays on topics like the meaning of death, poetry and even images of their favorite things.

Escribano says the keys for a great citizen journalism project are inclusion and mutual respect. The site publishes content and comments instantly without editor moderation.

"Even with over 300,000 visits per month, we've only seen one or two cases of abuse in the community," he said. "The community itself is who decides what is published and what isn't." While the project is mostly independent, Argentine newspaper La Nacion provides technical support and a link to igooh.com on their homepage.

Bolivia

AhoraBolivia.com
Bolivia is a country with a complex political story and an equally complex national culture, and it doesn't get a lot of coverage in mainstream media here or abroad. And if a new citizen journalism project called AhoraBolivia ("Now Bolivia") is any indication of the media vacuum, there are a lot of stories that aren't even getting covered in Bolivia itself. AhoraBolivia is attempting to fill in the gap with local citizen reporting from the scene, as well as insightful, well-written commentary.

Just this week some of the site's members traveled to the Trinidad region of Bolivia to cover, in blog posts and video, some of the devastation caused by massive flooding. The reporting, which is 100% citizen-generated, is extremely well done as it tells the story of what is going on in the area. The writing, images and video on the site paint pictures of a Bolivia that so many of us are unaware of, and as it emerges, we see that the essence of the stories are the same as those told everywhere: the human side of the news, the faces and voices you won't see in mainstream media.

Peru

Gua 3.0
Northern Peru has its own citizen-generated newspaper in Gua 3.0, the first one of its kind in the region, and according to organizers the first in Peru. Gua 3.0 provides Northern Peruvian readers with useful regional news in the areas of health, politics and the environment, as well as hyperlocal news ranging from the availability of free classes at a local library to the insufficiency of local government aid to flood victims in the region of Tumbes.

With some investigative reporting in a recent entry, Gua 3.0 exposes Tumbes regional government's alleged inadequacy in addressing the needs of the affected community. "It's so unorganized that they don't even have an Excel spreadsheet showing the areas, types of damage and what is needed to even bring aid," wrote Milagros Rodriguez Pereyra. Reports like these from local sources can bring together the facts mainstream media tends to miss in situations like natural disasters.

Latin America and Beyond

Periodismo Ciudadano
The Spanish language unites millions of people across several continents and it is the tie that binds a very interesting project called PeriodismoCiudadano.com ("citizen journalism") together. The project began when a group of journalists in Spain got together to debate whether or not citizen journalism really existed in their country, and if the phenomenon posed a threat to their profession.

For the site's founder, journalist Oscar Espiritusanto, it was less a threat and more an opportunity. "For the first time in the history of journalism we had the feedback that we've always wanted from our readers right before our eyes," he told me. Espiritusanto said that at the time, anyone interested in citizen journalism had to turn to U.S.-based Center for Citizen Media, and there was nothing available for Spanish speakers interested in the topic.

Along with journalists from Spain-based media such as El Pais newspaper and CNN+, Espiritusanto came up with an idea for a site about participatory journalism in Spanish.

PeriodismoCiudadano.com is a self-funded, independent project that provides daily news about citizen journalism in Spanish, and allows for the contribution of news as well. The site also depends on social networking tools such as YouTube for providing video content and Facebook for connecting readers. In addition to covering citizen journalism initiatives in Latin America and Spain, a real advantage of Periodismo Ciudadano is that projects in other parts of the world are covered in Spanish for Spanish-speaking readers who would otherwise not have access to the information because of the language barrier. Periodismo Ciudadano also supports other citizen journalism projects, such as AhoraBolivia.com.

The State of Citizen Journalism in Spanish

Most of the people I spoke with believe that while citizen journalism in their language is still in its nascent stage, there is great potential to grow and a lot of enthusiasm around these projects.

"In my opinion, the citizen journalism movement is progressing better in Latin America than in Spain," said Oscar Espiritusanto. "A good example is the good work Chile's Asociacion Atina Chile [a non-profit organization dedicated to civic participation] is doing with its network of citizen newspapers, which show that citizen journalism works, covers stories that professional journalism does not."

He points to one of the association's publications, El Morrocotudo, which is leading a campaign to ensure safe drinking water for the region of Arica Parinacota, Chile.

Social networking sites and tools will also be key to the future of citizen journalism in Spanish, according to the people I talked to.

"Tools like Twitter, Flickr and Facebook play a decisive role because they allow citizens to report quickly and easily. The combination of all of these tools along with blogs give life to citizen news," Espiritusanto said. He also cites new citizen journalism initiatives based in Spain such as Soitu.es (which pays citizen journalists for stories that appear on the homepage) and Bottup.com. The sites rely heavily on Web 2.0 tools to connect with their readers. The latter is already providing compelling daily coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign in Spain.

Beyond the projects mentioned here, there are many more valuable participatory media initiatives going on all over Latin America, with enthusiastic, committed contributors, such as Hiperbarrio in Colombia and Voces Bolivianas in Bolivia, both initiatives of Global Voices' Rising Voices program.

Quality online news is a challenging thing to find for Spanish speakers in the U.S., and citizen journalism efforts in this country in Spanish are pretty much non-existent. Perhaps the citizen journalism bug will spread northward and U.S. Latinos might find that, if the stories important to them aren't covered, they can cover it themselves.

What do you think? Is citizen journalism progressing in your country? How important is it? Do you read citizen journalism sites in languages other than English? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Photo of citizen journalists by David Sasaki via Flickr.

On the surface, Facebook seems like a place for sending fake toys and cocktails to friends, but not very useful for the more profound issues we deal with as a society. But like many web communities, Facebook is now being used for things it was never designed for. More so than other social networking sites, Facebook has become a hotbed for political causes, which are advanced through user-created groups and third-party applications that help raise visibility for these initiatives, from local campaigns to international issues.

While much of the activism only exists online, a movement against the rebel group FARC in Colombia -- took the social network to the streets with the hopes of creating real, tangible change. Even causes that are only alive online show great potential for raising money, mobilizing and inspiring a new generation of politically aware young people.

Voices Against the FARC

The nation of Colombia has long suffered a violent relationship with a rebel organization known as FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), blamed for the deaths of hundreds of people, and countless kidnappings over the past several years. The FARC, a self-described Marxist-Leninist group, has been active in Colombia since the 1960s, and its history of violence has spanned most of that time.

Last month, the decades-old history of bad blood came to a head as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez became involved in the negotiations to free hostages that had been held captive by the FARC for over five years, among them a child called Emmanuel, born in captitivity. In the end, some of the hostages were freed, and the world found out about a series of lies by the FARC about the child, who the rebels were using as a negotiation tool, but in reality they weren't holding, as Emmanuel had long since been given up to foster care and even had a new name.

Meanwhile, Oscar Morales created a Facebook group called "Un Millon de Voces Contra las FARC" ("One Million Voices against the FARC") as a way to take what many Colombians were feeling about the situation and express it online. I spoke with Felipe Echeverri, one of the creators of the "Un Millon de Voces" Facebook application, who related the story of how he and his brother Daniel joined Morales in beginning an initiative which would make social networking history.

"On January 4, 2008, just after the liberation of the FARC hostages, the Hugo Chavez situation and the lie about Emmanuel, Oscar Morales created the group," Echeverri said. "Oscar invited 20 friends, which is the maximum number of invites you can send in a 24-hour period. In less than 12 hours the group had more than 900 members, tripling the number of users every day after that."

Echeverri said that the whole movement was spontaneous and was really born out of a need felt among a few users to do something. Some of the group members suggested organizing a virtual protest "march" on the group's "wall" (a kind of bulletin board used for informal messages on Facebook), which they did. Echeverri says that by January 8, the group already had over 20,000 members. But members feared that if the movement stayed on Facebook only, it might die.

"We thought we'd just end up like other groups on Facebook," Echeverri said. "Someone creates it and it just sits there. So we created the 'Un Millon' application, and all of the group members started putting the logo on their Facebook profiles, and sending out invitations to their friends. This helped refine the idea and make the group grow."

Then the original group creator, Oscar Morales, took the seed planted on Facebook and began growing another online initiative, with a website called ColombiaSoyYo ("I am Colombia"). The simple website was a hub for information on real-world marches that were being planned throughout Colombia. Through the website and Facebook, more and more people from outside of the country wanted to know how they could get involved. "So many people were joining the Facebook group every day and everyone wanted to be the leader for their respective country," Echeverri said.

By January 16, the group had grown to 116,000 members. By this point the initiative had extended beyond Colombia, and the group had already assembled organizers for marches in 160 cities around the world. The true test would be the day of the march. Would the online momentum translate into a successful offline protest?

The answer was yes, and then some. On February 4, the world watched as people around the globe took to the streets to show the FARC that enough was enough. Spain's EFE news service put the number of marchers worldwide at more than 10 million. Symbolic of the international nature of the initiative, Felipe Echeverri marched in Boston, Mass., as his brother Daniel, co-creator of the application, marched at home in Medellin, Colombia. Simultaneous marches happened all over the globe, from Paris to Saudi Arabia to New York, where protesters gathered at the United Nations to chant "No more FARC!" with the rest of the world. What began as a simple action on a social network became a worldwide phenomenon in roughly one month.

Got a Cause? Facebook's Got a Group

Facebook members everywhere are showing a desire to get involved in social causes, even if that involvement means just attaching a badge to their profile or joining a group. While Facebook's groups feature has been instrumental in organizing like-minded people to support social causes, an application called Causes makes getting involved and even raising money easy for the (somewhat) socially committed.

Causes was created by Project Agape, a start-up founded by a former Facebook exec to harness the power of viral marketing for altruistic causes and to support non-profits. According to the developer's description on Facebook, "donations to causes can benefit over a million registered 501©(3) nonprofits."

One look at Causes and you can tell that there's something for everyone. From countless environmental initiatives to the more tongue-in-cheek causes such as a campaign to support Swedish underwear models, the application allows for involvement in a cause at a variety of levels. Members can "recruit" their friends to join a cause, raise money, and organize online and offline events. The application also allows members to set personal fundraising goals and challenge others to raise more money. A group I joined to test out the Causes application, Save Darfur, has over 800,000 members who have together raised over $13,000 for their cause. Involvement is encouraged as members who recruit the most friends or raise the most money are assembled into a "hall of fame" displayed on the main page of the cause.

While traditional non-profits might be reluctant to adopt Facebook as a means for social organizing and fundraising, the number of people signing up to support these causes online are not trivial. A cause called Support the Campaign for Cancer Research has over 3 million members and has raised nearly $60,000. Stop Global Warming, which supports non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection has 1.7 million members and has raised over $21,000. Monies collected might not seem like a lot, but engagement in the cause and an increased visibility for these issues might be worth their weight in social consciousness gold in the long run.

Borderless, Ageless Appeal

Last December I wrote about how Facebook was experiencing more growth internationally than here in the U.S. It seemed like a curious phenomenon, given the original target audience of the site (American Ivy League college students). The FARC protests are another testament to the international appeal of this social network. Not only was a major Colombian initiative launched and grown on an American site, but it even spread beyond the original group of Colombians who started it to the most remote parts of the world. Facebook may have started as a series of closed networks that didn't interact with each other much, but with the help of invitations to groups and third party applications, causes can spread like wildfire from network to network, country to country.

Felipe Echeverri told me that online or offline, he believes that if you do something with passion, it's bound to turn out well. He and his brother had never participated in any political activism campaigns before, and they aren't sure if they'll do it again. "I think we need to let some time pass before we do another one," he says. But what is clear is that his countrymen and their supporters around the world showed that the combination of unprecedented reach via a social network and enthusiasm for a cause can go a long way.

As an added benefit, social networks might also affect how younger people see activism. While Facebook was created for people college age and up, younger users also use the site. MySpace, which has captured the attention of millions of American teens also has a significant number of cause-related profiles online. Perhaps the college years are a ripe age for activism, and this -– in addition to the communications tools the site provides -- might be a reason for the success of Facebook's online campaigns.

But social networks might also help get people involved in causes at an even earlier age. A younger teen might be unlikely to join a local environmental group in his or her hometown (or maybe such a group doesn't even exist) but would add the cause-related profile to their group of friends. Such actions might not make much of a difference in terms of fundraising, but could show young people the value of civic engagement and an appreciation of social networking tools for something more than just a good time. In the U.S., at a time of such political division and confusion, social networks might serve as a platform for young people to seek answers to their questions and find common goals among their online peers.

What do you think? Is Facebook a platform for real change? What causes would you like to see on social networks? Are you involved in groups on Facebook? Why or why not? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

FARC protest image via juanpg on Flickr

However, some bloggers have emerged as video producers first. Called videobloggers or vloggers, these folks often rely more heavily on moving images rather than words when communicating with their readers/viewers. As with traditional weblogs, in vlogs there are genres that range from comedy to politics to personal rants.

It's hard to classify vlogs. Are they blogs that incorporate video? Or video accompanied by blogging? Are they video podcasts? Most of the videoblogs I've enjoyed don't fall into a strict definition. Some bloggers have a traditional blog and keep their videoblog separate. Others follow a blog format but call what they do video podcasting. Most vlogs incorporate a simple player into the blog format which allows for easy viewing by anyone with a high-speed Internet connection.

I must admit that when I first started to hear about vlogs back in 2005, I was slightly skeptical of the idea. My experience with film production led me to believe that good (just good, not even great) content takes endless amounts of time to create and later post-produce. I wondered if bloggers might be able to consistently produce quality video content on a regular basis. But the rise of digital video and access to low-cost and even free tools has put the power to produce video into the hands of many more people. Vlogging has indeed come of age in the last several years, and I've seen production values get better and better.

In going through a slew of vlogs over the past few weeks, I've seen a little bit of everything, both good and bad. But regardless of genre, a few really stood out because to me they are using the medium well. A common thread with these standout vlogs is higher production values, concise and effective communication, and consistency in content. I've chosen five examples for you as an introduction to videoblogs. Each one has traits that I think show how this medium can entertain and inform if used effectively.

Political

Alive in Baghdad
Mainstream media only shows a small part of what is taking place in Iraq as a result of the war, and the focus is more often than not on money spent, number of killed or wounded and days since the war was declared. Seldom do we see glimpses into the daily lives of Iraqis.

Alive in Baghdad is a citizen journalism project that takes the form of a vlog, but also mimics traditional journalism in its weekly dispatches from Iraq. The reporting is done by locals, and the videos are breathtaking, while being simple and right on target when it comes to subject matter. Alive in Baghdad explores the difficulties of living in a war zone from the perspective of citizens who have been unwillingly pushed into a violent, uncertain way of life. Interviews are short but the questions are powerful.

The production value of the three-to-five-minute dispatches is high quality, ensuring that technical issues don't dilute the message. Late last year, Alive in Baghdad suffered a terrible loss, as one of its correspondents, Ali Shafeya Al-Moussawi, was killed in a raid in his own home. Despite the tragedy, the weekly dispatches from Baghdad keep coming, and are a courageous look into a dark time in human history. This vlog matters because it is effectively filling a gap in war reporting.

Technology

MobuzzTV

Spain's MobuzzTV is a videoblog that begs the question: Is it online TV or is it a videoblog? Shot in Madrid and on location with versions in English, Spanish and French, Mobuzz covers "geek topics" centered mostly on the Internet. Originally intended to be viewed on mobile devices, Mobuzz hosts deliver the news in a casual yet careful way, with enough personality to keep you coming back for more.

A nod to traditional blogging, each news piece features a citation of the source for the story (e.g. "via: Yahoo News"), which reminds you that this is a vlog (that detail would be lost on a traditional television audience, as would the mention of tech blogging personalities and Internet rivalries). Even with that geekiness, Mobuzz is the perfect example of a videoblog (or web TV show) that I'd watch on regular television, and those are few and far between. Nothing looks thrown together, and the shows have just enough content to keep you interested. Though it is tech-centric, it doesn't get annoyingly so.

Comedy

Ask a Ninja

Ask a Ninja didn't begin as a vlog, but with the lines blurred between videoblogging and online video, I think it qualifies as one. In 2005 improvisational comedians Kent Nichols and Douglas Sarine (the Ninja) began uploading videos with their strange brand of humor centered around a modern-day ninja. The premise: ask a Ninja a question, and get an answer.

Questions range from "What is net neutrality?" (hint: the answer involves a girl working at Hot Dog on a Stick, Robin Williams' cousin and bacon) to What should I write my next term paper on?. The reason why Ask a Ninja works is that if you like the humor, you're prepared to come back time and time again for what amounts to be the same joke with a different topic: a reader asks the Ninja a question and the Ninja departs from what would be considered normal Ninja behavior to dealing out advice on things like dating or cooking.

The gag never gets old. What also helps is that the videos are consistent: silly musical intro, question appears on the screen, and the Ninja answers the question with extremely random pop culture references. At the end of the day, it's entertainment and stands out because it is simple, well done and consistent.

Food and Wine

Wine Library TV

With the rise of food blogs, food and wine vlogs have also entered the scene. Most are good enough, with videobloggers stirring some pots, walking you Rick Steves-style through some market in Italy. Great ideas, but not enough to hold my attention for more than a few minutes or keep me coming back for more. Worse still are most wine blogs, which have content dull enough to bore an enthusiast like me.

Far from your typical wine snob, Gary Vaynerchuk of Wine Library TV is the opposite of a stuffy gourmand -- he's an entertainer. Slate referred to him as a wine guru for the YouTube era. Gary himself calls his program "the most passionate wine show on the Internet." Whether or not you can stand his in-your-face style of vlogging, you'll have to give him that: The guy's got passion.

While other vlogs are more dependent on subject matter, Wine Library TV is all about Gary. He tastes wine, teaches you about it, and makes it fun. Sometimes in watching him, it's easy to forget that you're actually learning something. What makes this vlog successful is that it's entertaining. Gary's passionate about wine, and he effectively communicates his passion to viewers. What's even more impressive is that he does it nearly every day.

Daily Dose

Rocketboom

Rocketboom is a daily videoblog that serves up three minutes of news and commentary presented by Joanne Colan. I'm including it on the list as an example of a vlog that isn't really my taste uses the medium very effectively and has pioneered the format.

What I do like about this vlog is that it's consistent. You go there knowing what to expect, you get the same thing day after day, and it's never boring. The production value high and posts are short. You have time to catch an episode daily without feeling that it's interfering with your life, which I think is key for succeeding in videoblogging (as well as podcasting).

Whether or not the content is appreciated by everyone, Rocketboom might represent the first real vlog success story. Founded in 2004, by Amanda Congdon and Andrew Baron, Rocketboom was almost an overnight sensation (according to Wikipedia, it went from 700 to 70,000 viewers in 10 months) and traffic remains strong, though the viewership numbers continue to cause controversy.

*****

Will videoblogging go mainstream? Well, it has seeped into mainstream culture to some degree. LonelyGirl15 was basically a videoblog, and even that crazed Britney fan's plea for all of us to leave his idol alone might be qualified as a videoblog post as well (incidentally, the fan in question has even signed a TV deal).

Former Rocketboom host Amanda Congdon was picked up by ABC News as host of the network's weekly videoblog (though she was later dropped), and just last week cable network Current TV announced recruiting of vlogger journalists in the UK. Similar to what happened when blogs first went mainstream, vlogs are even talked about on the business front, with experts discussing videoblogging as a way to make marketing campaigns go viral.

I think for the average viewer like me, engaging content is the most important thing. What's on a videoblog needs to be interesting enough to hold my attention, and the production quality good enough not to distract me. It sounds simple, but it isn't. The unprecedented access to tools to create, upload and broadcast video makes the temptation to do it haphazardly quite great. The good news is that, like the vlogs I've mentioned above, there are many more excellent examples, and if care is taken in producing vlogs, we can expect a lot more great content from this medium.

What do you think? Are vlogs a part of your media diet or do you think they are a passing fad? Why or why don't you watch videoblogs? Do you think there is a future for this medium? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Shocked, I've been going over this for weeks now, trying to cut through the punditry and get to the essence of what Jobs meant. It seems to me that he was trying to say that books have gone the way of the dinosaurs (tell that to J.K. Rowling). That we are a nation (partly thanks to him and to his benefit) glued to flashy gadgets, some of which simulate things that we used to do with ink and paper, such as reading and writing.

While Jobs may be right to some extent -- my post last week here at MediaShift shows that I personally have turned away from paper and towards devices -- I believe underestimating books is like writing off a war-worn but sturdy presidential candidate: no matter how irrelevant they appear to be, they've still got a base of die-hard fans. I think Steve is premature in writing a eulogy for books, and here are my five reasons why I personally disagree with him:

1. I hate e-books.
The PDF format might have been invented for exactly this type of thing, but really: who wants to download a book and read it in Adobe Reader or -- worse -- print it out? E-books have proven to be valuable for authors (particularly in the business consulting industry) who want to provide their expertise in a book and distribute it widely at a negligible cost to them, often free to their readers. That's all well and good, but no matter how compelling the subject matter appears to be, e-books don't inspire me.

There are advantages to e-books, like the ability for an author to quickly update information rather than going through another printing when things become outdated. But to me, the format is flawed, and I'll pay for a real book over a free e-book any day.

2. I can't curl up with a gadget.
As excited as I am about my newest gadget, the amazing iPod Touch, the feature I'm using the least is the (unofficial) one that lets you read books. While I've got a few books available to me, such as Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, I haven't attempted to read it. Reading a book isn't like surfing the Internet (which the Touch is great for). With books, you sit back and get comfortable, letting your eyes do most of the work. Your hands intervene every now and again, but it's mostly a passive activity.

The iPod Touch is small and doesn't accommodate much text, so I have to constantly scroll. And since I read fast, that's anything but relaxing. Plus there's no comfortable way to "curl up" with it. Most of my reading is done lying down, and there's just no way to comfortably read for an extended period of time on the device while stretched out on a bed.

3. Sensory stuff.
It may sound trite, but there is something special about the experience of acquiring and reading a real live printed book. Brick and mortar bookstores are somewhat of a memory for me these days, but receiving a book I've ordered in the mail is exciting. Its newness -- the flawless cover, the uncreased pages, the smell -- begs to be read. Digging into a book and robbing it of some of that newness is part of the experience: bookmarking, dogearing, and highlighting until we've left our mark on it and it's truly ours.

Another reason that books have it big over gadgets in the sensory department is imagery. As a photography enthusiast, I can appreciate that a large, glossy-paged book with brilliant color photography is superior to seeing the same content on a computer screen or a gadget. When I gave up photography magazines for their online equivalent, it was no big loss, as I was purchasing them for the tips and tricks (the bulk of the content), not the imagery. But to me there's nothing like a big book of great photos you can lazily peruse with a cup of tea.

4. Emotional connection.
Many of us feel emotional connections to objects that remind us of people, places or times in our lives. This is how I feel about books. As I glance at my bookshelf and contemplate how I might rid myself of some of my ever-growing collection, I realize there are books I'll likely never part with. I have film school textbooks I haven't cracked open in five years, and probably won't ever use again. I can't get rid of them because they remind me of a time and place (I can't say I feel this way about websites, for instance).

There are some David Sedaris books that I've already read but I keep them around because I know if I ever need a laugh, I can read them over and over again. There is my cookbook collection, which in spite of the death of food magazines for me, will always be around. And then there's the collection of all my books, on display on my bookshelf to offer visitors a glimpse into who I am, but mostly there just to comfort me when I look their way.

5. Amazon.com.
I find it ironic that the same company that's trying to push me into e-reading is the one that fuels my addiction to obtaining more "real" books. Before Amazon.com, I enjoyed going to the bookstore and picking up some books every once in a while. Now, thanks to the many ways Amazon has to hook you into that feeling of "I must have that book" -- such as recommendations, user reviews and creating your own "store" for you -- the amount of cash I drop for the printed word is not trivial.

This company, long before any other, mastered the art of suggestive retailing and knows well that one thing you are enthusiastic about leads to another...and another. As long as there is Amazon.com and as long as they are selling ink on paper, I'll never be able to break my addiction.

Periodicals vs. Books

While I have been able to break up with print periodicals, it's because magazines and newspapers lend themselves to digitalization. They are made for casual reading. With the current state of the art in e-readers, I'd say books are a welcome refuge from my electronic life. A touch of primitivism is good for us every once in a while. Take that, Steve.

I'm not saying this attachment to books doesn't have its downside. Your life is less portable. But it's a price I'm willing to pay and my books have traversed continents and time zones with me when I've left other "more valuable" things behind.

There are some types of books -- such as reference books or guides -- that lend themselves more to an electronic format, and might even gain from going digital. I'm not that attached to reference books, so I might be able to see those go.

With all their shininess and interactivity, gadgets like the Kindle are inevitably trying to emulate something many of us fell in love with when we were children: the reading experience and the comfort of books. Like with other relationships formed in our early lives, sometimes a substitute just won't do. I don't want an electronic mom, I want my real mom. And I still want real books.

What do you think? Do you prefer reading books on devices or in print? What advantages do real books have over devices in your opinion? Will gadgets ever make books obsolete? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Images via chotda and John Pastor via Flickr

I myself have never been too interested in this debate. Perhaps that's why I've done virtually nothing to avoid the switch from print to digital, but rather let it sweep over me naturally. Some people have been fed up with the clutter caused by print media or the fact that the delivery of traditional news is too slow. Others cling to magazines and newspapers out of necessity or because of conviction and dedication to a particular publication. My print-to-digital conversion happened not out of principle but because of a series of mundane circumstances.

Ironically, the first to fall was my favorite print publication of all: the New York Times Sunday edition. A long-time subscriber to the paper in its print form, I relished Sunday mornings on the floor with it (it is too big to read comfortably in bed or on the couch) and a nice pot of coffee.

But then it started disappearing. Either it wouldn't get delivered or one of my neighbors would pilfer it. I started thinking that running downstairs before 7 a.m. so I could beat the thief (or thieves) to my own paper might be a waste of what would be a normally tranquil Sunday morning. But I kept doing that for a few more weeks until, without really realizing it, I started letting the Sunday editions pile up without reading them.

When I didn't have time to get to them because I had an early breakfast with friends or I woke up too late, I'd feel guilty. So I would grab the parts of the paper that interested me the most (Business, Travel and Sunday Style) and force myself to read them. Other times, I'd find myself opting to read the Times on my laptop from the comfort of my bed or couch. I'd eye the print version with guilt, but I had to face up to facts. The hassle associated with reading the paper -- things that might not have bothered me before -- were causing me to shift to the online version in spite of myself. The Gray Lady was too big, too stealable, too early and too cluttery, while the web version was convenient, compact, constantly updated and unfilchable.

That's Not News to Me

Next to go was a magazine: Popular Photography. The main reason for this was the print version's lack of timeliness. I subscribed to it, and as is typical with magazine subscriptions, didn't receive the first issue until several months later. When I finally did receive it I was excited, but later found in reading the issue that a lot of the content that was deemed "breaking news" was no longer news to me.

I bought a new Canon 40D the week it came out, so the exciting news around this new camera wasn't news to me. And even if I hadn't purchased the camera, sites like KenRockwell.com and Luminous Landscape had covered the release with much more timeliness than the print magazine. I had already read all I wanted about this in RSS feeds, on blogs and in Flickr forums.

There are a lot of valuable tips that come in handy, buyer's guides that are nice, but the truth is half of the content isn't suited to me. I was left thinking how much more I could get by going online and accessing exactly the content I want, rather than waiting for it to appear at the whims of the magazine's editors. In the end, though I like the magazine, PopPhoto also met the chopping block.

No Time for Clipping

The one print addiction I thought I'd never shake was with food magazines. Every month, Food and Wine, Gourmet and Bon Appetit would arrive in my mailbox, and up until recently, I would eagerly anticipate their arrival. Before, I would take time to read every article, and clip out all of the recipes that interested me to later put into my recipe box. Somewhere along the way, I got too busy for even the reading part and now I have no time for the ritual of selecting, clipping and pasting onto recipe cards.

The Number 1 culprit here is my lack of free time. Number 2 is the great job some of these titles are doing in revamping their websites. Epicurious.com is the portal for both Bon Appetit and Gourmet magazines, and dare I say that with the exception of the photography, the content is a lot better than the print version.

Taking cues from more homegrown sites like Serious Eats, Epicurious has blog posts and video to complement the articles and recipes. And it spares me the physical work (which I in fact miss) of clipping recipes, as I can store them all in my "recipe box" online. Best of all, I know which recipe's a dog before attempting it, as other users share their ratings. Plus you can select to print a given user review with the recipe, so if someone says "easy on the salt, add a bit more water" you'll have that pointer there as well. Another critical reason for abandoning print food media was my shift toward food blogs and new food sites, where I can get great writing more specialized to my tastes.

You Shift, I Shift, Others Don't

Blogger and web designer Joel Housman told me that -- like my experience with PopPhoto -- the outdated information is what got him to switch from print to digital. An avid magazine subscriber, Housman dumped Wired, Mac Addict, Maximum PC, Macworld and other print titles for their online equivalents and never looked back. Housman put it this way: "I found that ALL of their content can be had online for months before the print edition gets to me. Why waste the paper? Why read two-month-old news? I stay way more on top of things by scanning the 250+ RSS feeds I watch during the day."

He says that there are no cons to the switch.

Scott Karp, Editor of Publishing 2.0, said in a blog post that he was canceling all of his print subscriptions to business magazines because he just got fed up with the clutter, and had too much information to deal with anyway: "Thanks to the RSS feeds from a select group of blogs on media...I have more high-yield, high-quality business-related content than I can possibly consume in a 24-hour period."

For people who've shifted media consumption from offline to online, it's easy to think that everyone else feels the same. My friend Andrea was caught off guard when I asked her why she still subscribes to Us Weekly and The Economist in magazine form.

"I read them on BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] when I'm commuting," she said. "Plus I can clip things and circle what I'm interested in for later reference."

The idea of reading these publications online hadn't even crossed her mind when I asked her the question "why not go online?" The answer: "Again, because I want to read them on BART."

In Andrea's life of daily commuting, print still serves a purpose.

I pressed on. "Why not use your mobile device?"

"Reading them on my phone just isn't the same," she said.

And I have to agree with her there. Mobile content still isn't up to snuff, and there are places in our lives where print publications might always be missed, such as on planes -- though the offline version of Google Reader and rumors about WiFi in the air might change all of that.

For some, the shift is just too painful. On a recent visit to my friend Silvia's house in New York, I counted 10 wrapped, untouched editions of the New York Times sitting by her front door. As more came in, I helped her take the unread ones down to the basement for recycling. Her love for the publication itself is somehow wrapped up in the ink and the ritual. She doesn't have time for the relationship, but the breakup isn't easy.

For me, it's a bit easier. I just took a paper bag with the last remnants of my relationship with print magazines and newspapers down to the recycling bin and I feel liberated. Eliminating physical media continues to be a tough thing for me, but seeing the magazines fall was a sign that I am closer to going all digital. The last frontier will be books, but unlike my parting with newspapers and magazines, I am fighting that one tooth and nail.

What do you think? Have you made a switch from print publications to their online counterparts? Why or why not? What are the pros and cons of such a switch? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Jennifer Woodard Maderazo is the associate editor of PBS MediaShift. She is a San Francisco-based writer, blogger and marketer, who covers Latino marketing at Latin-Know and Latino cultural issues at VivirLatino.

Newspaper image via satanslaundromat on Flickr