It seems that maybe I should create a new category beyond "Ramblings" focusing on "Media", given all the news shenanigans we've seen of late. As referenced last month in a piece I called "Launching Products In the Age of Instant Analysis", it seems there is a race on the Web and in traditional media to declare products unworthy, even if the reporter hasn't done the due diligence required to make such a judgement call. Yesterday, in an interesting turn of events, we saw this play out on one of my more-frequented sites, TechCrunch.

Reporter Michael Arrington, covering online photo services, in a piece titled "The Flickr Gunners", rated an array of offerings, from BubbleShare to Ookies, Smugmug and Zooomr. (I can't make these names up) Yet, if you look at the story today, his coverage of Smugmug is missing. Why? Because his analysis was clearly wrong, and when called on it by the site's owner, he deleted it - as if it were never there - without leaving the original text up to show where he made mistakes, or even showing a correction. While it's easy to do this on the Web, it's not best practices by any means.

He had written, "All I am going to say about Smugmug is that it isn't very web 2.0, but it is adored by lots of loyal users for having the best (and most customizable) layout for pictures. It also allows full quality archiving of pictures, and is the choice of many photo professionals for that reason. I am urging them to add the obvious web 2.0 features to round this out, starting with RSS feeds for photos and tagging." This review is nowhere on his site. That's because Smugmug actually has had the features he demanded they add, and they've been active for more than a year.

Smugmug's owner - smart enough to respond on the Web, as he should have, pointed out TechCrunch's failings, in a post called "TechCrunch says we're not 'Web 2.0'" Hours later, that part of the story went poof. Gone. In traditional media, the best practice is to issue a retraction or a correction, but note the mistake - and they are lucky TechCrunch isn't in print, for their readers wouldn't have had the chance to respond so quickly, and would have come away with a horrible review from someone who clearly hadn't done a thorough investigation. We're not impressed with the response.

Listening to ''Essential Hard Trance Vol. 3'', by DJ Irish (Play Count: 3)

This list was first posted three months ago, on January 9th, so as my fickle tastes evolve, here's the update to the idiot box rankings.

1. The West Wing (-)
2. 24 (+1)
3. War At Home (+4)
4. Law and Order, Criminal Intent (-)
5. House (NEW!)
6. The Daily Show (-4)
7. CSI (-2)
8. Conviction (NEW!)
9. Law and Order, SVU (-3)
10. Late Night With Conan O'Brien (-2)

Dropped from the list: The Colbert Report and Law and Order...

Listening to ''Dream'', by Blutonium Boy Vs DJ Session One (Play Count: 5)

The New York Post's Page Six feature has always managed to stir the pot, mixing celebrity sightings and gossip with unwanted photos and innuendo. Now, following an official law enforcement investigation, it sounds like at least one of the Page Six reporters was caught threatening one of New York's social butterflies with year-long harassment in the column, unless the "playboy billionaire" was willing to fork over more than $100,000 to keep his name out of the paper. Now finding its way onto the front page of the New York Times and the New York Daily News, both no doubt very pleased with their competitor's trouble, it's said that other notorious socialites have finessed their own coverage - though it's unclear whether payments were expected.

Mainstream journalism has taken a black eye in recent years with multiple plagiarism scandals, ranging from Jayson Blair to the recent resignation of a Republican flunkie the Washington Post had hired to bring on a conservative view to the paper, but to demand hundreds of thousands of dollars just to ensure a lack of bad coverage is eye opening. That a paper like the New York Post is behind it isn't a huge surprise. Long known for sensationalism over hard news, it's papers like these that give the craft a bad name. It should be interesting as the "facts" unfold to see what more we learn from the investigation.

Listening to ''Assorted Hard Trance Vol. 4'', by DJ Irish (Play Count: 4)

If anybody at Google says that they're not aiming to be a portal, they are lying through their artificially whitened teeth. Yesterday, Google very quietly released (in beta as always) a preview of their Real Estate search service, which utilizes Google Maps and Google Base to provide real estate listings with fly-overs of the home.

The service can be found if you go to Google and search for "homes for sale". You can customize by zip code to see available listings.

Examples: 94086, 94303, 95969, 80122.

While it's not an eloquent and visual service in the league of Zillow, Google Real Estate could become the standard if it adds the expected bells and whistles, while capitalizing on Google's reach and brand.

Listening to ''Stay'', by DJ Encore (Play Count: 4)