Are people talking about your product because it's cool -- in other words, posting organic comment? Or is this firestorm of positive opinion the result of Pay for Say? Or both?

Back to that loopy line between what we used to call editorial and advertising. Ethically, it seems necessary to promote guidelines for transparency. I don't care if you're trying to persuade me as long as I kknow exactly how I'm being influenced to think and behave.

And how do you measure the validity of online conversation in the world of social networking? A robust discussion now is underway. More

Swine flu or H1N1, the outbreak that caused death, extensive illness and global panic is having an identity crisis. The attempt to take the emotion out of the name makes sense. But do people find information they need when it's time to communicate urgent health news quickly?

Swine flu: New York Times, Chicago Tribune (barely a news story today), MSNBC, FOX News, NPR, Grand Rapids Press, The Onion, El Vocero, WOOD Radio, Star-Tribune (with references to virus and outbreak), Houston Chronicle, China Digital Times, BBC, Toronto Star, Washington Post, Denver Post, New Zealand Herald

H1N1: Wall Street Journal (headlines refer only to flu now), American Hospital Association, whitehouse.gov, WZZM13.com (headline H1N1 with summary of many stories showing all forms)

Both: Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, USA Today (H1N1 in the headline and lead but Swine Flu in the URL), Center for Disease Control, London Times, WOODtv.com, Wikipedia, youtube.com, Times of India 

Flu, virus: stltoday.com, Associated Press (Mexico City)

Flue: JTA wire story headline from Jerusalem (assuming a translation issue)