Questões de Inglês

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

Cell phones Now Used More for Data Than for Calls

By JENNA WORTHAM

Published: May 13, 2010

[1] For many Americans, cell phones have become irreplaceable tools to manage their lives and

stay connected to the outside world, their families and networks of friends online. But

increasingly, by several measures, that does not mean talking on them very much.

For example, although almost 90 percent of households in the United States now have a cell

[5] phone, the growth in voice minutes used by consumers has stagnated, according to government

and industry data. This is true even though more households each year are disconnecting their

landlines in favor of cell phones.

Instead of talking on their cell phones, people are making use of all the extras that iPhones,

BlackBerrys and other smartphones were also designed to do — browse the Web, listen to

[10] music, watch television, play games and send e-mail and text messages.

The number of text messages sent per user increased by nearly 50 percent nationwide last year,

according to the CTIA, the wireless industry association. And for the first time in the United

States, the amount of data in text, e-mail messages, streaming video, music and other services

on mobile devices in 2009 surpassed the amount of voice data in cell phone calls, industry

[15] executives and analysts say.

“Originally, talking was the only cell phone application,” said Dan Hesse, chief executive of a

large American telecommunications company. “But now it’s less than half of the traffic on

mobile networks.”

Of course, talking on the cell phone isn’t disappearing entirely. But figures from the CTIA show

[20] that over the last two years, the average number of voice minutes per user in the United States

has fallen. When people do talk on their phones, their conversations are shorter and the unused

voice minutes mount up.

“I have thousands of rollover minutes,” said Zach Frechette, 28, editor of Good magazine in Los

Angeles, who explained that he dialed only when he needed to get in touch with someone

[25] instantly, and limited those calls to 30 seconds.

Mr. Frechette said part of the reason he rarely talked on his phone was that he had an iPhone.

But also, he said, most of his day was spent swapping short messages through services like

Gmail, Facebook and Twitter. That way, he said, “you can respond when it’s convenient, rather

than impose your schedule on someone else.”

[30] Others say talking on the phone is intrusive and time-consuming, while others seem to have no

patience for talking to just one person at a time.

“Even though in theory, it might take longer to send a text than pick up the phone, it seems less

disruptive than a call,” said Jefferson Adams, a 44-year-old freelance writer living in San

Francisco. By texting, he said, “you can multitask between two or three conversations at once.”

[35] American teenagers have been ahead 35 of the curve for a while, turning their cell phones into

texting machines; more than half of them send about 1,500 text messages each month,

according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project.

Mrs. Colburn, from Massachusetts, said she caved to the pleading of her 12-year-old daughter

Abigail for a cell phone to send text messages with her friends after she and her husband

[40] discovered it was hindering her from developing bonds with her classmates. “We realized she

was being excluded from party invitations and being in the know with her peers,” she said.

Mrs. Colburn said texting had also become a much easier way to stay in touch with her daughter

and receive quick updates about after-school plans. “The other night she texted me from upstairs

to ask a vocabulary question,” she said with a laugh. “But I drew the line there. I went upstairs

[45] to answer it.”

Adapted from HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2010/05/14/TECHNOLOGY/PERSONALTECH/14TALK.HTML?REF=TECHNOLOGY ACCESS ON MAY 15TH , 2010 

Cell phones Now Used More for Data Than for Calls

By JENNA WORTHAM

Published: May 13, 2010

[1] For many Americans, cell phones have become irreplaceable tools to manage their lives and

stay connected to the outside world, their families and networks of friends online. But

increasingly, by several measures, that does not mean talking on them very much.

For example, although almost 90 percent of households in the United States now have a cell

[5] phone, the growth in voice minutes used by consumers has stagnated, according to government

and industry data. This is true even though more households each year are disconnecting their

landlines in favor of cell phones.

Instead of talking on their cell phones, people are making use of all the extras that iPhones,

BlackBerrys and other smartphones were also designed to do — browse the Web, listen to

[10] music, watch television, play games and send e-mail and text messages.

The number of text messages sent per user increased by nearly 50 percent nationwide last year,

according to the CTIA, the wireless industry association. And for the first time in the United

States, the amount of data in text, e-mail messages, streaming video, music and other services

on mobile devices in 2009 surpassed the amount of voice data in cell phone calls, industry

[15] executives and analysts say.

“Originally, talking was the only cell phone application,” said Dan Hesse, chief executive of a

large American telecommunications company. “But now it’s less than half of the traffic on

mobile networks.”

Of course, talking on the cell phone isn’t disappearing entirely. But figures from the CTIA show

[20] that over the last two years, the average number of voice minutes per user in the United States

has fallen. When people do talk on their phones, their conversations are shorter and the unused

voice minutes mount up.

“I have thousands of rollover minutes,” said Zach Frechette, 28, editor of Good magazine in Los

Angeles, who explained that he dialed only when he needed to get in touch with someone

[25] instantly, and limited those calls to 30 seconds.

Mr. Frechette said part of the reason he rarely talked on his phone was that he had an iPhone.

But also, he said, most of his day was spent swapping short messages through services like

Gmail, Facebook and Twitter. That way, he said, “you can respond when it’s convenient, rather

than impose your schedule on someone else.”

[30] Others say talking on the phone is intrusive and time-consuming, while others seem to have no

patience for talking to just one person at a time.

“Even though in theory, it might take longer to send a text than pick up the phone, it seems less

disruptive than a call,” said Jefferson Adams, a 44-year-old freelance writer living in San

Francisco. By texting, he said, “you can multitask between two or three conversations at once.”

[35] American teenagers have been ahead 35 of the curve for a while, turning their cell phones into

texting machines; more than half of them send about 1,500 text messages each month,

according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project.

Mrs. Colburn, from Massachusetts, said she caved to the pleading of her 12-year-old daughter

Abigail for a cell phone to send text messages with her friends after she and her husband

[40] discovered it was hindering her from developing bonds with her classmates. “We realized she

was being excluded from party invitations and being in the know with her peers,” she said.

Mrs. Colburn said texting had also become a much easier way to stay in touch with her daughter

and receive quick updates about after-school plans. “The other night she texted me from upstairs

to ask a vocabulary question,” she said with a laugh. “But I drew the line there. I went upstairs

[45] to answer it.”

Adapted from HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2010/05/14/TECHNOLOGY/PERSONALTECH/14TALK.HTML?REF=TECHNOLOGY ACCESS ON MAY 15TH , 2010 

In 1946 a young U.S. diplomat named John Fischer wrote

an earnest little book called Why They Behave like Russians.

Fischer, who’d served with the United Nations in postwar Kiev

and Moscow, was attempting to explain to a bewildered U.S.

[5]  public why their wartime ally Joseph Stalin, recipient of billions

of dollars in American Lend-Lease aid, had suddenly turned on

Washington, declaring it a deadly enemy, and seemed hellbent

on starting a Third World War.

The book is still a fascinating reading – not least because

[10]  so many of its conclusions continue to ring true today. Fischer

calls Russia’s leaders “ the scared men in the Kremlin,” deeply

insecure behind their aggressive bluster and suspicious of any

internal political threat to their power. Russia is traumatized by

catastrophic historical upheavals and far weaker than it likes to

[15]  pretend. The nation, he warns, “may blunder into war as it

strives to build up a protective belt of satellite states outside

its vulnerable borders.” Today, with tensions rising again over

two Georgian breakaway regions effectively annexed by

Russia last summer, that line rings as true as it did at the dawn

[20]  of the Cold War.

(from The World According to Russia, in NEWSWEEK, September 7, 2009)