Adam DuVander:
Twitter and Facebook are often lauded as shining examples of what a platform does for your business. And for good reason. They have very successful developer programs. But they are also extremely popular services on their own. A developer may not build where there is not the foundation of a loyal user base. But even that has exceptions.
The profile of the @ceoSteveJobs account in question even states:
Of course this is a parody account.
Truly awful "journalism", even by the Mail's "standards".
Roy Greenslade on The Sunday Times' retraction of article critical of climate research:
I think that sets the gold standard in "corrections". Its publication was brokered by the Press Complaints Commission, and I understand from the PCC that there were good reasons for the four-and-a-half-month gap between the article apparing and the settlement.
But why did it take so long for the paper to admit it had got the whole thing wrong. And why didn't its headline simply say: "Sorry, our reporter screwed up and we got it wrong"? Readers would like that candour and regard it as more credible because it had the guts to own up to its mistake.
Danny Sullivan:
On Friday, I broke a tasty story about a woman suing Google, claiming bad directions caused her to get hit by a vehicle. Today, I discover our story is everywhere, often with no attribution. Come along and watch how the mainstream media, which often claims bloggers rip it off, does a little stealing of its own.
BBC News examines propaganda from both sides in recent Korean conflict.