Just a few days ago I posted about Yahoo! News's odd practice of not including a link to bookmark articles on del.icio.us, especially odd given that the company owns del.icio.us. To make my point, I used the New York Times website as an example of one of the many media websites that includes "Share" links to del.icio.us and other social bookmarking tools with each and every article. I even included a screenshot from NYTimes.com to illustrate my point.

Well, earlier tonight the Times has made some changes, and del.icio.us is no longer featured as one of the site's bookmarking links. It and Newsvine have been removed in favor of two newcomers to the game, Mixx and Yahoo! Buzz. Mixx, which has only been around for about 6 months, is a social news and multimedia site developed by a former exec at Yahoo! News and USA Today. It's sort of a cross between Digg and Newsvine, where users vote on content found around the web with higher rated content placed higher on the site. Yahoo! Buzz is a similar tool that debuted just a few weeks ago.

With this focus on social voting/ratings (the Digg model) in its "Share" links, the Times appears to be giving a quiet endorsement to that model over simple bookmarking (the del.icio.us model). There is, however, another possibility. Given that Yahoo! owns both del.icio.us and Buzz, its possible that the company simply asked the Times to switch which of its sites the news outlet linked to. Yahoo! clearly is giving Buzz a much bigger push than it has given del.icio.us, illustrated most clearly by the inclusion of Buzz, not del.icio.us, links within Yahoo! News.

What do you think? Is the NY Times betting on the future of the social web, or simply honoring a corporate request?

In the last couple of years, bookmarking and sharing links have become commonplace on news media websites. Read any article on just about any news site, and you'll have the option to bookmark the story on del.icio.us, Digg, Facebook, Newsvine or several other services. This is becoming as true on a small city newspaper site as it is on a giant like the New York Times.

For those of us who use such services, this is a huge convenience. In fact, that "Recent Reads" block over in the right-hand column of this website is partially powered by my del.icio.us account, with many of the articles in that list added via the kind of bookmark link I'm writing about.

For better or worse, my #1 source of news is still Yahoo! News. Using their RSS feeds, I keep up to date with top stories from the AP, Reuters and others all from one source. Sadly, however, Yahoo! News is one of the few big name news websites that doesn't offer its readers bookmarking links. Sure, they have a link to vote for an article on the company's new Digg competitor, Yahoo! Buzz, but there are zero bookmarking options. What makes this omission all the more notable is the fact that Yahoo! owns del.icio.us. Yes, that's right. Yahoo! owns one of the web's biggest social bookmarking services, a service that is linked to by nearly every major media outlet in America, yet the company doesn't even link to it from within its own site.

Note that, for your convenience, I've included a link for you to bookmark this post on del.icio.us. And I don't even own the company.

Ordinarily, I depise "clever" headlines. You know, the kind of stuff film critic Joel Siegel comes up with (then publicly denies). Like "Wheelie Good Time for 'Cars.'" Or "Depp Captains Another See-Worthy Pirate Ship." Or "'SpongeBob' Less Absorbing on Big Screen." Or god-forbid "'Shark Tale' Is a Halibut Good Time."

But as much as I hate clever news writing, the AP's headline for the Haley Joel Osment DUI story had me laughing out loud today...

[Yahoo! News] 'I see handcuffs': Osment charged in DUI

This information isn't exactly new, but I still thought I'd pass it along...

CNN and Court TV personality Nancy Grace purports to be an advocate for law and order, and she regularly uses her program to express her disgust for anyone even suspected of breaking the law. I wonder if this self-righteous outrage extends to her own indiscretions? Here's what the Georgia Supreme Court had to say in 1997 about Grace's behavior as the prosecuting attorney in a murder trial:

Our review of the record supports Carr's contention that the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial. Specifically, his allegations about illegal entries into his home are borne out by the record; the trial court, after a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence gathered through illegal use of subpoenas, specifically found that the prosecuting attorney abused the subpoena process by, among other things, inserting false information regarding hearing dates; the record shows that the witness list delivered on the eve of trial contained many names new to the defense...; the transcript of the opening argument shows that the prosecuting attorney repeatedly made references to physical abuse although the trial court had ruled out all evidence of purported abuse...; and the closing argument was replete with references to the prosecuting attorney's beliefs and patent misrepresentations of fact such as the prosecuting attorney's use of a chart falsely indicating that a defense expert had not disagreed with a specific opinion by a State's witness. We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable.

Carr v. Georgia, 482 S.E.2d 314, 322 (Ga. 1997) (emphasis added).

The Georgia court is not alone in expressing such an opinion of Grace's prosecutorial behavior. Just last year, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also had harsh words for her, noting her "failure... to fulfill her responsibilities." Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195, 1207 (11th Cir. 2005). Specifically, the court pointed out that "Grace, as the prosecutor, failed in her 'duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.' [citation omitted]." Id. at 1204. All in all, according to the court, "Grace 'played fast and loose' with her ethical duties." Id. at 1207.

Gee, I wonder why she's not a prosecutor anymore?

With so many celebrities using Hurricane Katrina to get their own names back into the news, you didn't really expect a talented self-promoter like Kanye West to sit this one out, did you?

In case you missed last night's Red Cross telethon on NBC, West deviated from his scripted comments to lash out at as many people as he could for anything and everything that's gone wrong in the wake of the devastating storm:

"I hate the way they portray us in the media, if you see a black family it says they're looting, if you see a white family it says they're looking for food. And, you know, it's been five days. Because most of the people are black. And, even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite. Because, I've tried to turn away from the TV because it’s too hard too watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation. So, now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what's, what is the biggest amount I can give. And, and just to imagine if I was, if I was down there and those are, those are my people down there so anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help. With the set up, the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well off, as slow as possible. I mean, this is, Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of the people that could help are at war right now fighting another way and they, they've given them permission to go down and shoot us."

At that point, an understandably confused Mike Myers, who was paired with West for the on-camera segment, went back on script. As soon as Myers paused, however, West added one more thought:

"George Bush doesn't care about black people."

And with that NBC cut away to an obviously unprepared Chris Tucker (standing backstage in front of a refrigerator, no less) to kill time until the next musical act was ready to go.

It probably goes without saying that West's behavior was wholly inappropriate. That he would use a fundraiser aimed at providing relief for victims of the worst national disaster in our nation's history to pick a fight with politicians is just sad. A telethon needs to have the broadest appeal possible, and when one of the celebrity fundraisers turns a simple financial plea into a debate on racial politics, there is a huge risk that many people in the audience (i.e., potential DONORS) will be alienated. (Besides, as Anderson Cooper so compellingly illustrated on Thursday, CNN is the proper place for picking fights with politicians these days.)

In the end, regardless of his message or its impact, all Kanye West did was make sure that everyone would be talking about HIM today. And if they're talking about him, maybe they'll buy his new CD, which just hit stores Tuesday.

But as much as I want to condemn West completely, I can't. Why? Because his self-promotion was no worse than that conducted by the Red Cross throughout the NBC broadcast.

From start to finish, last night's telethon was less a fundraiser than an excuse for the Red Cross to pat itself on the back over and over again. Every single celebrity on the broadcast (except West) went on at length about how the Red Cross had rescued and fed virtually every single person in the American South. The videotaped stories "reported" by various celebrities ostensibly told of the storm's destruction, but each concluded with footage of Red Cross volunteers somehow saving the day (again!) while Faith Hill or Jimmy Smits tried to make us cry. And every single person on the broadcast had a gigantic Red Cross logo pinned as close to their faces as possible, thus insuring that the logo would be featured prominently in every single camera shot.

At one point, they even brought out the chairperson of the Red Cross so she could use words like "best" and "greatest" to describe her own organization while accepting a golf-tournament sized check from New York governor George Pataki.

Given just how badly things have gone in New Orleans and other areas since the storm hit, no one involved in this relief effort has any business congratulating itself just yet. To do so now is not just in poor taste, it's downright dishonest.

West was the only person to deviate from the Red Cross's tightly scripted message of sunshine, and NBC promptly cut him off. And then edited the broadcast for west coast audiences.

I don't doubt that the Red Cross does wonderful work. The world is truly a better place because of them. But when their organization resorts to self-congratulations and other cheap marketing ploys to raise money, it makes me a little sick to my stomach. After all, the goal of such tactics, at least when used by for-profit companies, is typically to instill brand name recognition so that consumers will buy their product -- and not those of their competitors. Translate that to the Red Cross efforts, and I get the distinct impression that they want to make sure that anyone who donates to the relief effort only does so through the Red Cross, and not through other relief organizations. That's hardly the humanitarian outlook I'd expect from the Red Cross.

So at a time when even our nation's leading non-profit groups are using a natural disaster as an opportunity for self-promotion, maybe I should cut Kanye West some slack.