By Robert Niles: How can you increase your website's traffic by looking at your current website readership data? The answer to that question might seem obvious, but I warn you that too many news publishers approach this question from the wrong direction - and could be hurting their businesses as a result. The obvious answer to the website traffic question appears to be... to look at what's getting the most page views on your site, and to write more articles like those. Don't do that. Why? Chasing traffic by trying to duplicate your most successful content ultimately narrows the focus of your website, as you try to focus on specific topics, features and tone that's drawn visitors in the past, to the exclusion of other stories and styles. It leaves you (or your staff) feeling cynical, coming to believe that your coverage is being driving by chasing traffic instead of chasing the news. Trying to duplicate past success is reactive instead of proactive - and over the long run that too often leads to a dispirited staff producing formulaic, sterile, mechanical work that runs the risk of turning off readers and advertisers. So how can traffic data help you to create a more popular website? Instead of looking at what's attracting eyeballs, flip your analysis around. Focus not on what's working, but what isn't.

By Robert Niles: Newspapers and book publishers could learn some valuable lessons from one another. Unfortunately, it appears that the book industry's going to make the same costly mistakes as the newspaper industry did, instead. I thought again that as I read the New York Times' story about Barnes & Noble from last weekend, The Bookstore's Last Stand. The Times wrote of the publishing industry's hope that Barnes & Noble will be able to stand up to the challenge from Amazon.com, preserving a major retailer where their companies' products are king. Like many struggling businesses, book publishers are cutting costs and trimming work forces. Yes, electronic books are booming, sometimes profitably, but not many publishers want e-books to dominate print books. Amazon?s chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, wants to cut out the middleman ? that is, traditional publishers ? by publishing e-books directly. Which is why Barnes & Noble, once viewed as the brutal capitalist of the book trade, now seems so crucial to that industry?s future. Sure, you can buy bestsellers at Walmart and potboilers at the supermarket. But in many locales, Barnes & Noble is the only retailer offering a wide selection of books. If something were to happen to Barnes & Noble, if it were merely to scale back its ambitions, Amazon could become even more powerful and ? well, the very thought makes publishers queasy. If Barnes & Noble's future is tied to that of the print book publishing houses, then Barnes & Noble is as doomed as Borders, Crown Books and the other brick-and-mortar booksellers that have proceeded it into oblivion. The Nook alone will not save Barnes & Noble's business because the change that is roiling the publishing business today - whether it be for books or for newspapers - is not simply a transition from printed media to digital. It's a transition from a marketplace where information was controlled by a few gatekeepers to one where anyone may offer their content to a mass audience. This isn't about eBooks versus printed books. It's about a book industry where supply is controlled by a few publishing houses or one where supply is opened to all who wish to publish something. In short, it's not the medium; it's the market. If your business model is based upon controlling access to the information marketplace, you're doomed. If your business model is based instead upon enabling and expanding access to the market, you have a chance of succeeding. And that is what has the book industry scared.

By Steve Fox: A couple of weeks ago I was at a hockey game with my son. During the game, as I absentmindedly checked emails on my phone, I saw a Twitter note from an alumni of the UMass program saying "Look at what this person is saying about you!" Without thinking, I clicked on the link....and instantly kicked myself for doing so, as the link spawned a Twitter spam, sending the virus to hundreds of my Twitter followers. It was the first time for me, but definitely reminded me about the power of social media. I heard from friends, colleagues and students about the spam, and ended up apologizing more than once for not following my own advice to students: Think Before You Click! The social media dustup surrounding the early and inaccurate reports of Joe Paterno's death once again brought to the forefront how the rapid nature of social media can lead to bad journalism. It was deja vu all over again: A year ago NPR mistakenly reported that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had died after being shot in the head. Why do journalists keep botching the facts on Twitter? I posed a question along these lines on the Social Journalism Educators group on Facebook and received some of the requisite "it's not Twitter's fault;" and Twitter is "only" an amplification device. As much as I love most of what Matthew Ingram writes, his post on the Paterno screw-up being another example of "news as a process" worries me. Defenders of the social media realm rarely seem to want to get at why these massive ethical lapses continue to occur on Twitter. And I just won't buy the idea that "this is the way it is" or "letting everyone know you made a mistake is great for transparent journalism." Don't get me wrong, I love the many benefits of social media and I teach about its journalistic value. But I also feel that we all need to begin practicing "safe social media" practices to protect us all. After the Giffords debacle, Alicia Shepard, the former ombudsman for NPR, wrote a column about the need for journalists to re-learn the lesson of checking sources. And she counters the shrugs inherent in many comments from social media defenders by reminding us all why it's important to get it right, even if it's not first: "...To report a death, incorrectly, is a serious, serious error and may have caused untold grief and pain for many who know Giffords." Journalism is about process but the process is to get the correct information out, not to throw spaghetti against the wall, see what sticks and sort it all out later. So, what to do?

Remembering a unique campaigner for asylum and human rights.

A new learning resource,

The annual conference of NACCOM which works with destitute asylum seekers.

A meeting to audit human rights violations and victories over the last ten years.

As the prime minister derides the European Court of Human Rights as a 'small claims court', it isn't just the anti-human rights brigade who are worried by the its recent judgment.

Reading of the allegations of racism in football, it struck me as the more sad, that, over the years, football has been for me the great leveller, the international language which speaks across countries, class and gender.

Bernard Hogan-Howe's recent talk on 'total policing' at the LSE didn't go down too well.

A report on the UK Border Agency's management of foreign national offenders bears little reaction to the press' coverage.

A Holocaust memorial day reception.

A workshop examining climate change and how ideas around race and displacement inform understanding and action.

An afternoon of reflection and discussion, remembering the victims of Nazi Germany, as well as those of genocide in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur.

A new report on returns to the DRC challenges the government's assertion that refused asylum seekers are not at risk.

A talk on experiences of extradition (including under the European Arrest Warrant) and discussion of recent cases.

A meeting on families separated by immigration detention followed by the Bail for Immigration Detainees AGM.

An examination of the projected image of black history and culture in the media.

The furore about Diane Abbott's tweet reveals a wilful inability to distinguish between state racism and personal prejudice.

By Robert Niles: So, is Apple's new iBooks Author the solution for journalists looking for a simpler way to get into the eBooks market? Nope, not even close. Oh?kay, so is Apple's new iBooks Author at least another option for writers looking to pick up some extra money writing eBooks? Sure. Apple released its new eBook production tool last week, coupled with an upgrade to its iBooks app. Apple's trying to get into the textbook market, positioning its iPad as an electronic textbook reader. But to do that, Apple needs an ongoing supply of eBook textbooks. The company's signed deals with some textbook publishers, but it's also offering the iBooks Author tool to encourage more people to create texts, as well. The iBooks Author app's gotten plenty of attention since its release for its user license restriction that any book created with it can only be sold through the iBookstore. No Amazon. No Barnes and Noble. While iBooks Author can export files as a PDF, it won't generate the ePub file needed for best results in publishing eBooks through those and other online vendors. That alone disqualifies the iBooks Author app as a serious option for any journalist looking for a single eBook creation solution. Better to continue creating an HTML file using your favorite editor, then running that file through Calibre to generate your ePub, which you can submit to Amazon, BN.com... and the iBookstore. The iBooks Author app also requires that you be running Mac OS Lion - it won't download to Macs running Snow Leopard or earlier versions of the Mac OS. And if you're using Windows? Fuggedaboutit. But if you do have Lion, creating a book through iBooks Author and selling it exclusively through Apple is better than not making or selling eBooks at all.