Tune into the Advertising Show sometime during the next couple hours to hear me and [possibly] Robin being interviewed about EPIC. We’ll post the archived show when we’re done.

Update: Robin and I each spoke for a good sixteen seconds or so over the course of the two-hour show, most of which went like this:

Host: So this EPIC 2014 business, eh? What’s that about?
Robin: X–
Host: Fascinating. We’ll be back after 10 minutes to dig deeper into that fascinating answer.

Update: Here’s the link. Don’t go too crazy.

I’ve seen this Technology Review article everywhere, and I have only one comment:

It’s called collaborative citizen journalism (CCJ) …

Is it really? Because that’s hella lame. (Note that exactly one person in the article uses the term “CCJ.”)

I’ve snarked out NYT public editor Daniel Okrent before for his seeming tendency to focus his lens on himself rather than the newspaper. I eventually came around to Robin’s point of view. But for the most part, I always liked what he wrote, and I’ll be sad to see him go. Good show, Mr. O.

Having heard many a stricken, Webphobic news editor decry the introduction of “choice” to media consumption — “What about the delicious serendipity of discovering all the amazing articles we’ve carefully hand-selected for them?!” — this Rafat Ali quote rings of Absolute Truth:

One thing which somehow everyone lamented yesterday: the end of serendipity, as choice in news sources and methods of consumption becomes an increasing reality. My reaction: what you people call serendipity, we call links. What you people call the homepage, we call Bloglines. What you call indepth-reporting, we call blogging a story to death.

Via BM.

For the moment, The New York Times has put up an archive of coverage of the Star Wars films, from the first Vincent Canby review of A New Hope (May 26, 1977) to now. My favorite moment comes in Janet Maslin’s review of The Empire Strikes Back (written 25 years ago today!):

If George Lucas makes good on his promise to turn Star Wars into a parade of nine films and spend several years on the making of each of them, we may all be pretty long in the tooth before this story gets told.

Good Lord. Nine?! Sith was fun, but really … we’re quite sure Lucas is done with this now, right?

RELATED: The 1983 fan reactions to Return of the Jedi on USENET (via MeFi).

UPDATE: I clearly was not paying enough attention. The Washington Post has a much nicer archive. (Although they do need to do a better job of copy-editing the old articles.)

CAPSULE REVIEW: Everyone’s pretty much agreed that it’s a very fun film with awful dialogue, and I’m no different. Some would call it the apotheosis of epic; I’m going to stick with fun film. While I’m impressed by the scope of Lucas’ story and how well it tied together, the writing and acting pretty much disqualifies this from the category of great cinema. It’s a wonderful spectacle, though.

The site’s online. Previously mentioned. And also. (Via MeFi.)

The Long Now Institute has been mentioned at least obliquely in these pages before. But it wasn’t till today that I encountered Long Bets, a Long Now spinoff. The discussions are the real attraction.

Clive Thompson isolates this fantastically revealing kicker from an NYT article about correction fluid:

An enduring drawback of correction fluid is the solvent vapor. That could be fixed, but not without damaging the psyche of faithful consumers, said Mr. McCaffrey of Liquid Paper: “People who have grown up using a product tend to equate its smell with quality, and you don’t want to change that – whether it’s crayons or correction fluid.”

Halfbakery. This site’s been around forever, but I’ve spent precious little time there. Until now. This is awesome!

Meh. Pretty much the only one I’ll miss is Kristof. Krugs, occasionally. The NYT‘s announced a decision to charge for the op-ed page online, and bloggers are already saying their sayonaras. (This will be on Every Blog in the World in 5 … 4 … )

Update: Changed the link to a more complete story. The $50 annual fee (yowza!) will also allow subscribers access to the NYT archive.