The Pope cancelled his newspaper, but this story is not about the newspaper industry and its struggles.

It's noteworthy because Pope Francis made the call himself, phoning the owner of a kiosk that had delivered him his paper daily, according to a report in by the Catholic News Agency.


On Monday afternoon, Pope Francis called the kiosk to say he wouldn't need his paper delivered any more, as he has recently moved from Buenos Aires in Argentina to the Vatican City.

They thought it was a prank at first, the Argentinean reported, but the pope responded, "Seriously, it's jorge Bergoglio; I'm calling you from Rome."
The father and son who own and work at the kiosk shared some stories about the new Pope, including that he returned the newspaper's rubber bands every month.

Before leaving for the conclave to vote for a new pope, Bergoglio was asked if he could be voted pope, but he said that was "too hot" a question to answer and told the father he would see them in 20 days and to keep delivering the paper.
Turns out he won't be needing that paper delivered after all. The pope asked for prayers and said it would be too difficult for a visit home any time soon but he would always be with be there with them.

The comments on the story reveal how many adore the new pope for his humility and simplicity as well as the personal touches he offers. CBS News also has a good story showing the adoration his fellow countrymen have for Pope Francis, highlighting his humility, but also pointing out that he is a football, or rather soccer fan, though wasn't a very good player.

Reports of bleeding money out of the US Postal Service have been regularly shared for years. So one solution proposed was to eliminate Saturday home delivery.

Today, they announced it would happen in August. It's about time. I like the Post Office.

As one friend shared with me years ago, it's the only government agency that won't screw you. They do great work and it's still an essential service.

But what took so long to trim this day of service? Costs need to be cut and we still have five days of home delivery, more than most newspapers.

Yes, we like the improved economy... or at least I do.

But I also like these stories, and I think most readers do, too:

A police officer fired after getting called out for lying under oath.

A judge under fire after his girlfriend arrested for drunken driving while he and daughter in car.

And a judge busted by a reporter (kudos WXYZ.com) for shady deals... how could she be so dumb, putting property in kids' names is one thing, but taking it back for your after short sale??? Greed (like hormones) = stupidity.


But I also like these stories, too:

Police: Footprints lead to impaired motorist following crash on I-75 in Troy

And certainly not Notre Dame, the university that sat on knowing a widespread story about a player's dead girlfriend was all false. No death. No girlfriend. No tragedy.

What a fantastic job by Deadspin. com for putting the facts before us, completely, fully showcasing the extent of the lie and the failure of the media, oh and names are named and links provided, in perpetuating a nice-sounding story. I must note that much is made of Sports Illustrated writing it about it, but this story from them just adds about the tough week for the player, not going into detail about the supposed death. It just mentioned it, as it was a commonly shared story, it seems.

Better than the details in what media reported about the case and what facts were out there (lack of death notice all the way to the tweets and the origins of some photos) was the speculation by a friend of Manti Te'o who said he was "80 percent" sure that Te'o was in on it.... based on the fact that he couldn't be that stupid.

Apologies to athletes for a bad joke, but not even a football player could be that stupid, to become engaged to someone he had never met. Can someone be really so dumb? (What a tough thing to argue to the world... I'm not a liar; I'm an idiot.) All the details about meeting her, where did those come from? And what kid tells his parents such details... isn't it just, "I met this girl" and maybe include a geographic location.

If he didn't lie about these details, someone else did. And the mistakes of the media include fact-checking, independent sourcing and pushing a nice story that's already been told... not making something up. Newspapers and TV reporters aren't generally that bad, just creating facts. No, these had to presented by someone.. the son to the father? The father to the media?

That Notre Dame first sat on knowing the story was a hoax (three months after it started, they said they learned but waited until it broke to share that?) is bad enough, but to push the idea that the player is a victim of the hoax means that the media and his friends/family created such rich and deep false details. They said he was on the phone with her overnight to hear breathing. Their stares had intertwined when passing by one another at Stanford? A good hoax needs details, if the story is going to jump from conversation to front page.

Now come the jokes, and they are good, highlighted by a photo gallery.

Let's hope we don't hear the last of this, and gain, great job Deadspin. And Slate has a nice piece of analysis, noting that the narrative gets in the way of fact-checking, too often.

Oh, and again, if it's on the internet, you can delete it, but it's never gone forever.

I wouldn't call it the B-1 curse.

Plenty of teams and players have graced the front of our wonderful sports section and gone on won games, trophies, and championships.

But when the timing is off, I do notice. We finally had a nice column from our excellent Detroit Pistons beat writer, Dave Pemberton, on Sunday, the most important day of the week for newspapers, especially their printed product.

"Pistons finding ways to win tight games," Pemberton's column's headline proclaimed.

On Monday morning, with the Sunday paper on my desk to ensure that Sunday's content missed on Sunday's web site received proper play on Monday morning, the biggest day and time of the week for the newspaper's digital product.

Headline on the home page: "Pistons fall at home to lowly Bobcats in OT, 108-101 WITH VIDEO"

The four-game winning streak was gone. Oh well, we tried to promote the team, and I'm optimistic they are still on their way up. I'm even rooting for a playoff birth, still, kinda, though it's anchored in realism.

At least they are making it worth watching.

One man died in one of the most horrific ways I could imagine: pushed into the path of a subway and unable to climb out to safety in time. Image the terror.

Another man took pictures.

The freelance photographer for the New York Post says he took the pictures (one of which ended up on the front of the NY Post) as a way to alert the train's conductor to the plight of the victim, using the flash to signal the driver.

Yeah, I don't quite believe that.

HOWEVER, I'm not one to argue the man should have risked his own life to save the victim. Running or jumping into the path of danger is not easy to do and it's not my place to say what someone should have done. I likely would have hesitated. I also likely would have hesitated to take a picture.

Here is an update to the case from the NYT, looking at the various ethical implications and reflections that this case has on our society.

No one helped the victim. I don't know how far away people were but some reports say the victim had about 20 seconds. I would like to think someone close enough could have reached down to grab his arm and help him up. I wasn't there though, and my guess is that no one did because no one could.

While I don't believe the photographer's excuse, I don't begrudge the photographer. Too many people nowadays like to jump on someone from afar. I'm amazed at the calls to fire people, jail them, or shoot  them by people who simply see a post of Facebook or read an online story. Yes, we all have opinions, and I share mine here sometimes. But people are too quick to condemn.

Why isn't there more outrage for the man who pushed this poor guy? That guy, I could say, should burn in hell after finishing his life in a nasty New York prison. I don't know what led him to push the victim, but my first thought is he shouldn't be, to use the popular phrase, walking the streets, or in this case, taking the subway.

Leave the photographer alone. If people really cared, the newspaper would fold for its insensitivity, but hey, it was a big story, a great photo and a true snapshot into what happened in that instance.

We had a small problem with the website, with a virus causing a few headaches. (Maybe more, but I only heard of one.)
It's been fixed, but what's neat is that the story about the issue generated debate over the left-versus-right leaning nature of the paper as well as paywalls.
Let's the bring the debate to my blog.
Fire away!

We constantly debate our policy on allowing online comments with our stories. Currently, we rely on readers to report abuse and we do not require registration nor do we pre-monitor the comments before they are posted.
But a New York Times article sheds light on the fact that many papers are revisiting their policies.
That is refreshing because I don't see an easy answer to the problem. Too much registration (asking for phone numbers and such) will turn people away.
We want to provide an open forum for people to say what is on their minds. And you can see how people really feel about something by the comments. Often, though, it can be ugly.
Out of the muck, I've seen many good things: information coming out from breaking stories, insight into how the community feels about a topic (oh, smoking in public places, I never knew you were such a hot subject), heartfelt condolences over losses, anxieties about economy and the impact on families' lives, and how residents in one area feel about other areas.
Too often, though, it can be racist and crude. And those commenters will either drive away people seeking thoughtful insight and healthy debate OR they will drive away the open forum.
So let's see where this goes and I'll continue to explore what we can do to improve this.
Oh, and I love the concept of ranking comments by the insight and thoughtfulness of the commenter, as the Washington Post is exploring. Like Facebook and Twitter, it will certainly encourage healthy debate. Hooray for technology.
These are not going away, so it is our job to make sure it's done as well as possible, and readers are now part of the stories. We can't change that; we shouldn't change that. But we'll encourage it by giving them a better, and easier, way to participate.

According to a biting reaction by media critic Jeff Jarvis on Rupert Murdock's decision to go with the pay wall around some of his UK properties, the answer is NO. And I don't see how excluding a large part of the population — those of us who are used to getting our online news the easiest way possible, without a credit card — will help grow an audience, benefit advertisers and actually make money.
Isn't the point of the Web to expand outward, reaching people you could have never reached before? Doesn't sound like the Times and Sunday Times is seeking to do that.
If the proper way forward for this business is to generate revenue directly from the users, then it appears news will be more narrowly focused and reach a small but dedicated audience.
It is not reaching the masses, and if advertising is no longer a part of the news economy, then the masses need not be bothered.
However, I don't see the news economy changing the much. The medium will change, though. Newsreaders will still seek out what interests them and they will do so for a minimal cost — instead of a dimes-a-day subscription, they'll pay for general internet or mobile access — and advertisers will continue to crave them.
And the best news content will generate the greatest interest and hence the strongest advertising dollar.
TV commercials are almost pointless as I DVR nearly everything, even pausing sporting events, so I can skip over the ads. (I do like some movie previews on the big TV screen, much better than small laptop screen). Radio ads have long been ignored in my car, first by the button and variety, then by CDs and iPod, and now with satellite radio and its plethora of channels, mostly commercial free.
I get the radio for free with the car for now, but will I renew for a little bit a month. I'd pay for radio I think, because of the content, but I may not because I'm not in the car that much and we also have a DVD player. So it's unlikely I would pay for that.
I do not see myself offering up to pay for news, though, because it'll be somewhere for free or else it's not that important to me.
I mean, it's a paywall. That's what it's called. That sounds like a bad business model, keeping people out.
Like the inheritance tax becoming the death tax, Murdock should rename it.
Let's see....Exclusive club? Maybe, but I don't see mass readership. Restricted site? That'll keep em away. Going alone? Hmmm, sounds like a blogger. I look forward to seeing some numbers down the road.