“To maintain a publication’s integrity, I think editorial should take the lead with input from sales + marketing. As a small biz owner + independent publisher, most all departments must have input + play multiple roles for mere survival. But regardless, all need to educate themselves in this area. ‘It’s not my job’ no longer cuts the mustard.””Edit should manage, with input/collaboration with marketing.””Mktg function for sure.””Edit!””Edit and design, with input from sales and marketing.””I think Editorial should play a significant role – if not the lead role – because it’s nice when the posts sound professional and include correct spelling and grammar. Of course, this is coming from an editor! Of course everyone plays a vital role, depending on your message. If you’re incorporating a graphic, for instance, it starts with your designers.””Web editors with help from marketing…communication is key!””You mean those are different departments?””Content marketers. Your silo choices are brick and mortar.” A recent MPA panel debated who should be in control of social media at magazine publishers-edit, sales, marketing or even IT, which may ultimately bear the costs of social media. It’s a similar dispute to the way various magazine departments squabbled over prime Web site territory 10 years ago when they realized that yes, this Internet thing does have legs on the business side.I pulled some of the Facebook responses to FOLIO:’s article about who ultimately should be the gatekeeper of social media, and listed them below. Considering the audience, it’s not surprising that most seem to feel edit should be in charge. However, several people noted that social media can’t belong to just one group, and should be divvied up across the organization (often out of necessity, given the resources in the current publishing climate). Social media is integral for most publishers and everybody needs to be onboard (as one MPA panelist said, “Nobody goes around bragging that they don’t know Microsoft World”). So what do you think? Does edit rule? Should sales and marketing get their say? Or does social media require its own dedicated crop of specialists? Facebook Responses:
WILMINGTON, MA — Below are recent articles about Wilmington — published online between February 18, 2019 to February 24, 2019 — that residents should consider reading:Wilmington Town CrierWilmington looking to hire veterans/seniors case worker by Lizzy HillFY20 school calendar not ready yet by Lizzie McDermottSchool Committee to have subcommittee discuss employment contract posting by Lizzie McDermottTwo Men and a Truck Mother’s Day campaign by Lizzy HillWilmington Town Crier sports stories can be read HERE.Wilmington AdvocateNoneWilmington PatchNoneLowell SunNew owners pay $3.25M for ice rink by Kori TuittLike Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email firstname.lastname@example.org. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedWILMINGTON AROUND THE WEB: The Best Stories From Wilmington’s NewspapersIn “Community”WILMINGTON AROUND THE WEB: The Best Stories From Wilmington’s NewspapersIn “Community”WILMINGTON AROUND THE WEB: The Best Stories From Wilmington’s NewspapersIn “Community”
Share Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesProposition bets for Super Bowl LI are displayed at the RaceUpdated 12:22 p.m. ETThe Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry.“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the court wrote in a decision released Monday.The law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed in 1992, prohibited sports betting, except in four states where it had already been legalized — Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon. It gave the other states one year to legalize such betting, if they wanted to.It was a busy day at the Supreme Court. It also handed down decisions on two other important cases, dealing with personal rights. They were:Byrd v. US: The court unanimously agreed with the driver of a rental car who said he had his privacy rights violated by police during a traffic stop in Pennsylvania. Police found dozens of bricks of heroin and body armor in his trunk after discovering a warrant for his arrest in New Jersey. The man said he did not consent to a search, but police argued that his consent didn’t matter because his name was not ono the rental agreement. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the man still maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court however remanded the case to the lower courts to examine whether Byrd had used subterfuge in renting the car and whether that mattered.McCoy v. LA: The court ruled, by a 6-3 margin, in favor of a defendant whose lawyer conceded his guilt to the jury disregarding the explicit instructions of his client. His lawyer wanted him to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. The court said, “Guaranteeing a defendant the right ‘to have the assistance of counsel for his defense’ is the defendant’s prerogative, not the counsel’s.”History of the sports-gambling law and the potential impact of the court’s rulingThe ban was known as the Bradley Act, after its chief promoter, former basketball great Bill Bradley, who served three terms in the U.S. Senate.Enacted 25 years ago, the law prohibited states from legalizing sports betting sports except where it was already legal.In an NPR interview, Bradley said his motivation was simple, and personal. “Betting on sports was betting on human beings, and I thought that was wrong,” he explained. “It turns players into roulette chips. It makes the game, which is a game of high-level competition and excellence, into slot machines, and I don’t think that should be what we do in this country.”Bradley said there was virtually no congressional opposition to his bill back in 1992, though Bradley added that Donald Trump, with failing investments in Atlantic City casinos at the time, lobbied against it, believing that sports betting was the answer to his financial problems there.After the bill passed, New Jersey did not seek to legalize gambling in its one-year window of opportunity.More recently, it tried to get out of the ban, hoping for increased state revenue, but the state repeatedly lost in the lower court.The Supreme Court’s court decision reversing that outcome will make it easier to open the door to sports betting.But the status quo struck down by the Supreme Court looks almost quaint in light of increased pressure to legalize sports betting across the board.The American Gaming Association estimates that illegal sports betting has grown to $150-billion-a-year market. And cash-starved states are salivating at the thought of raising billions from legalizing and licensing that activity, not to mention taxing the proceeds.New Jersey, home to at least a half dozen shuttered Atlantic City casinos, is a state where Republicans and Democrats since 2011 have been trying to overturn the federal ban or somehow get around it.After oral arguments in December, then-Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., said on the Supreme Court steps, “If we’re successful here, we can have bets being taken in New Jersey within two weeks of a decision by the court. We’re like boy scouts; we’re prepared.”What the law did and didn’t doThe law does not itself ban sports betting. Instead it prevents states from legalizing sports betting.Lawyers for New Jersey argued that the law forces state governments to enforce a federal initiative, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is unconstitutional.Lawyers for the sports leagues said that the federal law is not forcing states to do anything, but rather telling them what not to do, which wouldn’t violate the Constitution.As NPR reported after oral arguments in December, a majority of the justices appeared to have “serious doubts” about the constitutionality of the law.And on Monday, they put those doubts in writing.“Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution,” the court said in its decision. “PASPA is not.”America has seen a cultural shift on the question of sports gambling. NPR’s Uri Berliner reported in 2015 that ESPN has been increasing its coverage of gambling by, for instance, directly referencing the point spread set by oddsmakers.And while the major U.S. pro and college sports leagues have “always sought to distance themselves completely from gambling,” as Berliner put it, NBA Commission Adam Silver came out in favor of legalizing (and regulating) sports betting in 2014.Then there’s the popularity of daily fantasy sports — an industry that has weathered legal challenges of its own. Fantasy sports leagues amount to “thinly veiled gambling,” as ESPN’s Rob King told Berliner, and have helped push sports betting into the mainstream.Meanwhile, the sports betting decision could have implications for a wide range of other state laws — including those legalizing marijuana, Nina noted. Amy Howe, writing for SCOTUSblog, suggests state laws decriminalizing physician-assisted suicide and self-driving cars could also be affected.Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.
Kolkata: CPI(M) will not field candidates in the constituencies from where Congress candidates had won in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. This was decided at the two-day Central Committee meeting of CPI(M) in Delhi on Monday. In the 2014 Parliament election, Congress had won in four seats. Adhir Chowdhury and Abhijit Mukherjee had won from Baharampur and Jangipur seats in Murshidabad, while A H A Khan Chowdhury and Mausam Noor had been elected from Malda. Mausam has recently joined Trinamool Congress and is likely to be Trinamool’s candidate from Malda in the forthcoming election. Also Read – Bose & Gandhi: More similar than apart, says Sugata BoseHowever, CPI(M) is not ready to give up the Raigunj and Murshidabad seats, from where party candidates Mohammed Salim and Badaruddoza Khan had won in 2014. Salim and Khan had won by around 1,600 votes and 18,000 votes respectively. WBPCC leaders said that the party was strong in both these constituencies and their claims should not be overruled. WBPCC president Somen Mitra has said that CPI(M) should formally approach Congress to ink the alliance. The Left Front is meeting on March 8 to finalise the other seats. The Central Committee of the party maintained that a united India has taken a stand against terrorism. Instead of strengthening this, the post-Pulwama developments are seeing orchestrated efforts by the BJP and Sangh Parivar outfits to rouse jingoistic nationalism, it stated.
Captain Kirk himself has a mission for us: Develop new technologies and businesses in order to save the world from itself. “It’s not about closing down the government,” he explains, “but enhancing governmental research and development into new ideas. That’s where all you young entrepreneurs should be at.”We’d be wise to listen. After warping onto the scene in the original 1960s Star Trek TV series, William Shatner has proven himself a genius at staying relevant as an actor, author, musician and supporter of products ranging from travel websites to solar-panels to VR companies to electric bicycles.Related: From Rock God to Master Rosé Winemaker: a Conversation With Jon Bon JoviShatner chatted with Entrepreneur via phone (communicators weren’t available) to discuss his recent partnership with Pedego Electric Bikes — but the conversation soon reached the furthest reaches of the galaxy.What made you first hop on an electric bike?The whole idea that I didn’t have to pedal home. It’s true! I have an indelible picture in my mind: Years ago I was driving up a hilly coastal highway in Washington state in a convertible, and I passed by two bikers — a man and a woman — and the woman was crying. It just suggested to me that she couldn’t go up another hill; she was fatigued and couldn’t make it to the next town. I’ve sort of carried that picture with me whenever I go biking, because how many times have you enthusiastically set off to pedal your bike, gone a certain distance, then turned around and thought, “Oh my God, I’m really tired and getting back is hellish”? It doesn’t have to be that way with an electric bike, and that’s incredible.Your Pedego commercials are hilarious. Was shooting them as fun as it looks? Absolutely. Everybody brought the right equipment, there was a terrific director, the material was good, and the bikes all worked.I particularly liked the one with the guy getting the rectal exam.I thought that was hysterically funny. It’s obvious that you believe in the product you’re endorsing. I really do. I wanted to become part of the company, because it’s so good. Pedego is a company with a great product that’s run beautifully, and I’m so glad to be associated with it. Related: 20 Business Ideas You Can Start With Less Than $10,000Besides acting, you make music, write books, endorse products — do you think of yourself as an entrepreneur?I don’t think of myself as an entrepreneur, I like to think of myself as an artist. However, there is artistry in entrepreneurship. There is the joy of creativity, of making the business work, of being successful at whatever it is you’re doing. There is artistry in that. And so you can be an artist and an entrepreneur, in fact you should be an artist and an entrepreneur at the same time.Knowing how to deal with failure is also important.Well, it’s a well-known fact among us entrepreneurs that you have to fail. You can’t know what is successful until you find out what isn’t successful. You’d be hard pressed to find anybody who says, “Oh, I don’t know failure, I only know success,” because it’s a path untrod. You’re going to trip, and you have to learn where to place your feet.What inspires you to keep trying new things?The basic philosophy — if there is such a thing in my life — is to say yes. The books that I have written, the last one in particular, are all about saying yes to life. It’s very easy to say no and close the door and expire slowly. And it hurts to get out! The muscles are tight, the bones are grinding…but you gotta do it, otherwise you’re essentially dead. Are you excited about the race to send regular citizens into space?Well, I don’t want to go myself. There’s an amusing story that I’ve told about Richard Branson. Richard Branson offered me a seat in the airplane that’s going up into space, and he said it would cost me $250,000. I said, “You got the wrong idea, it’s going to cost you!” I never heard from him again. Absolutely! That should be an honor for him to have you on that flight.That, I think, is the definition of entrepreneurship.Related: The Best Employees Have Side Hustles — Here’s WhySo besides Richard Branson, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are also developing spacecraft. Who do you think has the best shot?Well, they all have their qualities, don’t they? I mean Branson has been at it a long while, and he’s got long wavy hair.It’s almost Khan-like, isn’t it?I suppose you could say that. But it’s long and wavy and streaked, and he looks marvelously dramatic. The picture I have of Elon Musk is him being sleepless in his office as he tosses and turns over the success of his rockets. And as for Mr. Bezos, after his divorce I don’t know that he can afford to go into space. Do have any advice for budding entrepreneurs?The future is rife with new technologies. But it’s not just a matter of which technology will be the one to advance, but which company of that technology is the superior company. That superiority usually resides in the management. It’s not the exterior — whether the buildings are made of glass and titanium or not — it’s what the management is doing. That’s where the entrepreneurship is.Related: Need a Business Idea? Here are 55Absolutely.There’s never been more need for new technology. The old technology has taken us to the brink of the extermination of human beings. And we may be over the brink!Hopefully not!Well, if we’re not, it’s up to technology to save us — direct the carbon dioxide and the methane out of the air. I just keep thinking someone is going to say, “Eureka!” The world needs a technological revolution in order to save itself; that’s where our energy should be. January 24, 2019 6 min read Growing a business sometimes requires thinking outside the box. Free Webinar | Sept. 9: The Entrepreneur’s Playbook for Going Global Register Now »