Over the last several years, it has ranked as the most murderous city, the poorest city, the most segregated city, as the city with the highest auto-insurance rates, with the bleakest outlook for workers in their 20s and 30s, and as the place with the most heart attacks, slowest income growth, and fewest sunny days. It is a city without a single national grocery store chain. It has been deemed the most stressful metropolitan area in America. Likewise, it has ranked last in numerous studies: in new employment growth, in environmental indicators, in the rate of immunization of 2-year-olds, and, among big cities, in the number of high school or college graduates.

Men’s Fitness magazine christened Detroit America’s fattest city, while Men’s Health called it America’s sexual disease capital. Should the editors of these two metrosexual magazines be concerned for their safety after slagging the citizens of a city which has won the “most dangerous” title for five of the last ten years? Probably not: 47 percent of Detroit adults are functionally illiterate.

What I like about this piece is that the writer doesn’t devote his space to slamming the city, even though that would be easy. Instead he talks to people who live in the city, from firefighters who battle blazes in the abandoned, dilapidated buildings that plaque Detroit, to a homeless man from the South who thought the job prospects in Detroit might be better than his former home in Alabama (he was wrong). They’re all fighting the same fight, hoping and fighting for a city that’s probably hopeless.

UPDATE: For a little more perspective on this story, Flickr user smooveb has a goal of photographing 100 abandoned homes in Detroit. At the time of this posting, he’s got 72 hauntingly beautiful photos in the set.

Got any words that deserve to make the 2008 list? LSSU is accepting submissions. If you need inspiration, I recommend watching any post-game interview of a losing NFL coach.

New regulations require soldiers to clear content of blogs and e-mails with a superior officer, Wired said. The directive, issued April 19, could lead to the end of military blogs — known within the military culture as ‘miliblogs’ — observers told Wired.

Military officials have wrestled for years with striking a balance between the need for discretion in wartime and the benefits of allowing troops in the field to connect personally with the public, the magazine said — especially since the troops are often seen as among the most effective advocates for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand that some of the information coming out of the war is extremely sensitive, and the military needs to ensure confidential information isn’t accidentally distributed. In the real world, though, the majority of superior officers will simply not have the time to go through each and every blog post for approval, and blogging will shrivel up. It’s a shame, because most milbloggers strongly believe in their mission and are able to articulate their hopes and successes. They’re a rare source of positive PR in the war.

I would have really liked to have seen the military adopt a blogging policy similar to some large companies (such as IBM) which outlines what you can and cannot say, what information is confidential, and so on, and possibly require milbloggers to simply alert their superior officers to their blog’s presence. They would have the best of both worlds in terms of accountability and freedom, and I’d still be able to look forward to stories from the front lines.

They also give a handy list of guidelines for using e-mail. This is my favorite, which really applies in today’s online environment:

Always assume everything you write online — be it an e-mail, instant message or chat conversation, forum post or blog comment — has the potential to become public, especially if it’s terribly personal and horribly embarrassing and probably incriminating.

It can get very easy to get caught up in the moment, especially on a forum or comment thread, and that moment can lead to one posting less-than-wise words. Articles like this one are a good reminder that we all need to police ourselves and watch what we make available to the public, especially when our colleagues and bosses are only one quick, accidental click away.

Doc Searls has eleven insights for saving newspapers, and includes comments from Web luminaries Dave Winer and Tim O’Reilly. Much of his advice seems to borrow concepts from blogs and social media, such as linking out, ceasing charging for news online, opening up archives, and partnering with bloggers.

Some “old media” giants are slowly opening up to new ways of reporting the news- USA Today recently adopted several “community” features, such as allowing readers to vote on stories (ala Digg). CNN launched I-Report, a call for citizen journalists to send them stories. While it’s been good for topics like reporting severe weather, the full potential hasn’t come close to being realized.

I know it’s cliche, but it’s a changing media landscape, and newspapers are beginning to feel the heat. I look forward to seeing how newspapers can adopt new strategies and innovations to “adapt and thrive,” as Doc Searls writes, in such a world.

While I hemmed and hawed about posting a response, the far more qualified and eloquent Shel Holtz just nailed it, dropping knowledge on why the press release “still matters” and why the “new media release” makes sense. It’s a long post, but all of it is crucial reading.

UPDATE: For a little background, Todd Defren of SHIFT Communications has been tracking the “Stowe Meme” with a customized del.icio.us page.

If you’re paranoid about accidentally exposing your tracked changes to the world, don’t fret. Shauna Kelly suggests simply going to Tools -> Options -> Security and clicking the boxes labeled “Warn before printing, saving or sending a file that contains tracked comments” and “Make hidden markup visible when opening or saving.” Now you’ll be presented with an ominous dialog box before you attempt to print, save or send.

Knowledge is power!

That word completely took me out of the overall context of the letter, which was actually very kind and gracious. However, my thought process was interrupted by that word, and having to look it up.

I was instantly reminded of advice I’ve read many times- Write for an eighth-grade audience. When you write over someone’s head, you instantly lose them, and at that point all of the work you put into writing a particular piece is pointless. Most people aren’t going to take the time to break out a dictionary to find out what you’re talking about. They’ll move on.

I think I grapple with this from time to time, in part because I write a good number of articles and releases addressing medical terms and procedures, which are rarely clear to non-medical personnel (myself included). Still, why say "myocardial infarction" when "heart attack" gets the point across so much more effectively?

The classics, as they say, never die.

At the same time, the "standard" press release has it’s upsides, too. Most importantly, the media is familiar with the format, and is accustomed to scanning releases for relevant and interesting pieces of information. I’d be worried that if I sent a release in a radically different format, a reporter might not (at least at first) respond to it at all simply because it’s unfamiliar. It must be said that a well-written press release about a newsworthy topic still works, even if it is "boring."

While it’s certainly worth investigating alternative methods to distributing messages, I think the press release will remain the most important piece in any PR pro’s toolbox, at least for the time being. Using new and innovative means of communication alongside the press release, however, could offer the best of both worlds, piquing the interest of reporters while still providing them with familiar tried-and-true methods of communication they’re used to.