MediaShift: Interview with Placeblogger’s Lisa Williams. Read this for some insight into why I’m excited to have joined the advisory board.

KCNN: Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News?. I was honored to be interviewed and a few of my answers are quoted in the report.

fortuitous: How Ads Really Work: Superfans and Noobs

NYTimes: For Pornographers, Internet’s Virtues Turn to Vices

TechCrunch: The New Portals: It’s the Bread, Not the Peanut Butter (wow, I’ve linked to TechCrunch – it’s gotten better as of late – gotta give credit where it is due.)

Deep Jive Interests: The Trouble With “The Decline In News” Has Nothing To Do With Journalists

Dare Obasanjo: Why Facebook is Bigger Than Blogging

Publishing 2.0: User-Generated Content Is Not A Panecea

Chris Daly’s Blog: Readers to the rescue?

Doc Searls: Because paper is scarce. And so is time.

Mathew Ingram: Doc Searls is dead wrong on newspapers

Kent Newsome: News in an Accelerated World

Rough Type: Happy Birthday, Cathedral & Bazaar. Notable for ESR’s comment:

…Open source is, fundamentally, about the software. Spewing a lot of Web 2.0 hype around it confuses more than it clarifies.

It’s legitimate to argue that open source software is strongly suggestive that similar arrangements that might work elsewhere. But it’s also way too easy to forget that some of the critical enabling factors for the open-source software movement are hard to replicate elsewhere.

Of these, the most important is the fact that the correctness and performance of software can be objectively measured — whether or not an application segfaults is not a matter of political dispute.

This, not the presence or absence of particular kinds of authority structures, is why Linux succeeds and Wikipedia fails.

Yaouch!

Dave Winer: What is Web 3.0?:

…There’s always been too much made of death in the tech world, in fact newspapers are still published, you can pick one up at any airport or train station. Many people have them delivered at home. We often go to newspaper websites for the news. Sure, there are problems, and the world is changing, but imho, we’ll all do better if something called the San Francisco Chronicle continues to be published, even though the form of the newspaper will certainly change in the future. It would be a waste of a tradition, of a good coral reef, if newspapers really died. They need to change, and imho, when that change happens, we will safely be in the era of Web 3.0.

Congratulations to Will Bunch whose book, “The News Fix: Ink-stained Wretches and Digital Rabble Rousers Reviving American Media” is available for pre-order at Amazon.com. Will Bunch, one of the terrific columnists at the Philadelphia Daily News, coined the term and kicked off the norgs conversation, when just under two years ago he broached the idea on his blog and courageously, openly, talked of re-inventing the news organization business.

Congratulations to the Winners of the Knight News Challenge who have been awarded grants to innovate in community news.

Comments from some winers and commentators:

holovaty.com: Knight Foundation grant

Placeblogger: Placeblogger Wins Knight News Challenge

Global Voices: Global Voices wins Knight Foundation News Challenge

Center for Citizen Media: Citizen Media and the Law a New Project

Recovering Journalist: Hyping Hyperlocal

Publishing 2.0: Knight Foundation Funds Innovation In Online Journalism And Civic-Minded Digital Media

Socialmedia.biz: News Challenge winners

I almost applied for the grant for Philly Future, however, it just didn’t feel like the right time for Philly Future, or for myself. Maybe next year.

Speaking of myself, congratulations to, ummm… me, for joining the Placeblogger advisory board. Philly Future is a placeblog. It’s a place blog of placeblogs 🙂 And if PF can help, I hope, me and we, can be of some service.

This morning I read a few posts, about a conference session and a panel at Berkley, that focussed on “Web 2.0”, online journalism, and amateur participation.

While the topics discussed at both meetings seemed to overlap with many of those we discussed at the norgs unconference, I couldn’t help but feel that the folks involved are far behind the discussion that’s been ongoing in Philly.

So much so, I actually felt a bit sad. So wound up they are in false choices and pointing fingers. Jeff Jarvis had a recent, heated thread on the subject.

Read for yourself at down the avenue and Union Square Ventures (who has yet to approve my following comment – update:comment approved, good old spam filtering :)).

I posted the following at both blogs, and fully expect to be ignored or put down, because what we did in Philly was to stop pointing fingers. We stopped preaching to each other. And we listened (read Jeff Jarvis’s take here and here).

For some weird reason, folks on either side of this debate, don’t seem to care for that.

My comment:

————————————

I wish I was at this event.

We had a similar event in Philadelphia last year that was focussed on news journalism and the web. It sounds like it covered related territory. (link).

Fact of the matter is, there is room enough for numerous approaches to filtering/finding news.

Algorithmic – Memeorandum, Google News

By the crowd – Digg, Newsvine.

By a single unpaid editor – A blogger.

By communities of unpaid editors – A genre specific slice of the blogosphere.

By a news organization – A newspaper with staffed editors – Yahoo News, Salon, Slate.

By hybrid community/editor efforts – Slashdot, Indymedia.

There seems to be an effort on the parts of some to create some false conflicts between these approaches. To promote one approach over the other as the *ultimate solution*.

That’s a shame really, because in the dust of that are people becoming less and less informed (check out the latest Pew research) while wealth and fortune flow from one kind of media organization to another.

We can do far better. All of us can. My bet is that will happen when groups of us decide to put down our guns and work together.

Karl
————————————

We’ve seen this story before. Newspaper announces cuts. Pundits and experts speak out about how to fix things. Then, more cuts, then, a sell off. It doesn’t need to be that way.

SFGate.com: Chronicle to cut 25% of jobs in newsroom:

To cut costs and try to adapt to a changing media marketplace, The Chronicle will trim 25 percent of its newsroom staff by the end of the summer.

IP Democracy: Why Can’t Newspapers Get With the Program?:

If somehow the newspaper industry just understood that even now the Internet is still the wild west, they’d take the journalists they’re jettisoning and instead use them to create new web-based businesses.

Dan Gillmor: San Francisco Paper Whacks Jobs:

When Hearst bought the Chronicle years ago, it pledged to keep all the employees from the old Chronicle. Then it brought the SF Examiner employees along, and had what can only be called a bloated staff.

But the paper did improve – wow, did it improve.

The city always deserved a vastly better paper than it had. It still deserves a better paper, but the positive change has been incredible since the Hearst buyout.

Yet that didn’t translate to subscribers – circulation kept dropping, in part due to deliberate corporate decisions, and advertising didn’t recover after the burst of the tech bubble and the increasing inroads from classified-ad competitors that work better for buyers and sellers. The newspaper was said to be losing $1 million a week a year ago, an amazing number. I’ve heard that the losses were slowing, but obviously not enough to matter. (For the record, we get the Chronicle – and several other papers – delivered to our door each morning when we’re home.)

The Chronicle’s website has been among the most progressive anywhere, and it reflects the dilemma many publishers face. The site is free, with no registration requirements. There are ads, but not enough revenue to make up for the whacks to the print advertising that are hard to stop. The archives are also free and open – which I have to believe is on balance a revenue booster over the paywalled archives at most other local papers.

Reflections of a Newsosaur: Staff cuts won’t cure Chron woes:

The Chronicle’s year-to-date deficit of $165,563 per day is roughly equivalent to the annual pay and benefits of two journeyman reporters. If the paper continued losing money at the same rate every day for the rest of the year, it could fire every journalist in the joint and still not break even.

With continuing uncontrolled losses of this magnitude, the Chronicle, if it were a standalone company, would be going out of business.

The only reason the Chronicle is still around is the continuing forbearance of the Hearst Corp., a family-owned, $7 billion-a-year media conglomerate whose other newspaper, magazine and broadcasting interests are sufficiently profitable to effectively subsidize the struggling newspaper.

Not directly related, but worth a read or re-read:

Recovering Journalist: Betting on the Future:

Or this, from a Microsoft exec: “This is about the opportunity,” said Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s platforms and services division. “We believe that there are tens of billions of dollars in economic value that can be generated in this industry, and we are committed to getting a bigger share of it.”

Bingo. We’re in the very early stages of Web advertising, and there’s nothing but growth ahead. That’s what Microsoft, Google and others know, and are betting on–while newspaper execs complain that the online business can’t seem to catch up to the losses on the print side.

Oh, and why didn’t a big newspaper company, or perhaps a consortium of them, step forward and buy DoubleClick or aQuantive? Good question. It would have been a very smart acquisition, a real bet on the future. The technology companies seem to have that vision. The newspaper companies apparently don’t.

A few years ago, I was privy to a conversation among board members of a newspaper-centric media outfit about the possibility of buying a major Web company (I have to fudge a few details here to protect confidences). One short-sighted board member protested, “It would cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.” But a smarter exec said, “Yeah, but if we don’t do it, in a year it will cost us a couple billion dollars.” He couldn’t convince the others, and it turns out he guessed low: The Web company was sold a year later for several billion dollars–to another technology company. Once again, the newspaper industry failed to pull the trigger on the future. Some things never change.

Publishing 2.0: The New Vertically Integrated Media And Advertising:

It’s clear now that the media and advertising industries, which thanks to Google and Web 2.0 now include the software industry, will be dominated by a new breed of company – the vertically integrated media and advertising company. Google’s AdWords created a new model by combining a media company – Google’s search results and its network of AdSense affiliate websites – with an advertising agency, i.e. advertisers buy ads directly from Google through its AdWords platform. Google also revolutionized the media and advertising business by introducing a data-driven dynamic marketplace into what had once been a market based largely on human relationships.

Doc Searls: How to Save Newspapers:

Informing is not the same as “delivering information”. Inform is derived from the verb to form. When you inform me, you form me. You enlarge that which makes me most human: what I know. I am, to some degree, authored by you.

What we call “authority” is the right we give others to author us, to enlarge us.

The human need to increase what we know, and to help each other do the same, is what the Net at its best is all about. Yeah, it’s about other things. But it needs to be respected as an accessory to our humanity. And terms like “social media”, forgive me, don’t do that. (At least not for me.)

norgs.pbwiki.com: The Norgs Unconference Statement Of Principles:

7. The Internet ‘disintermediates.’ Business models based on scarcity of media and high barriers to production and distribution, are not only threatened, but are terminal. It’s change or die time for broadcast TV, traditional record companies, and yes, newspaper companies.

Not all “old media” has turned against “new media”. The situation isn’t as bad as this discussion on Techmeme may present. Far from it.

Here is, what I am sure, is just a small example: On March 25, 2006 a group of about 40 technologists, bloggers, newspaper and media execs and business leaders got together to discuss the future of journalism and held an unconference in Philadelphia.

The history of the unconference and on going conversation can be found here, but an important artifact of that day has been missing online until now.

A statement of findings by those that came to the unconference and conversed.

There’s a lot here to chew on, as it walks the line between recognizing reality and finding a way to meet the needs of the future.

Some will find the following too general to be useful, others will think it nothing more than marketecture-PR-speak, others will be surprised that newspaper folks and bloggers, in a heated, intimate, discussion, came to conclusions as robust as these are.

I tend to think it it was great start, and I am working to gather the sign offs of those who attended the conference on what will be an evolving document.

The Norgs Unconference Statement Of Principles:

1. The ‘product’ of a newspaper isn’t the newspaper. In the sense that the ‘product’ of a musical act has never been the CD, or the Cassette, or the Album – mediums come and go – the music lives on.
2. Newspapers are aggregates of information *and* relationships.
3. Newspapers have been traditionally bounded by time and space. Inches on paper, space on news stands, the daily news cycle. The Web changes our relationship with time and space. The ‘audience’ isn’t confined by physical boundaries now, neither should the ‘newsroom’.
4. Healthy democracies must have informed citizens. The reach and production of acts of journalism plays a major role.
5. Lets be honest, most of the pieces in a newspaper aren’t acts of journalism, but these additional bits are almost as important.
6. Newspapers – for a time – defined the ‘fourth estate’, having near monopoly over attention driving influence. They were influence intermediaries.
7. The Internet ‘disintermediates’. Business models based on scarcity of media and high barriers to production and distribution, are not only threatened, but are terminal. It’s change or die time for broadcast TV, traditional record companies, and yes, newspaper companies.
8. The Internet and Web are a platform for collaborative communications and social/participatory media. Blogging, Citizen Journalism, message forums, email lists, Usenet, YouTube, Google, Digg, Slashdot, Flickr, Wikipedia, are just some examples of the many.
9. The most successful Web services have recognized and utilized its participatory architecture. It’s a read/write Web. eBay, Amazon.com, Slashdot, Yahoo!, Google,MySpace, have all leveraged this and based their businesses upon it.
10. As technical barriers have fallen, and broadband availability widened, different forms of participation have proliferated – text, software, images, music, and now movies.
11. ‘Users’ of the Web are not passive consumers. They are ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience’. They know more then you do.
12. Acts of journalism can be produced by anyone and the Web blurs distinctions between the professional and the amateur.
13. Producing certain successful (but not all) acts of journalism requires knowledge, skill, infrastructure (legal and financial), marketing and influence.
14. The existence of ever increasing flows of media does not portend the same for acts of journalism.
15. There is no news media versus blogging conflict. Blogging does not remove the pressures that existed on journalistic endeavors – corporations, politicians, forces of power – anyone who wants to manipulate a message – will try to do so.
16. Journalists must become familiar with the medium they are communicating over. Editors have an important new role that will be embraced by someone, if not them.
17. Participating on the Web means more then simply publishing files to a Web server. It means providing a means for those outside the organization, for the community, to participate in what you’ve published (link to, comment on, extend). It means going out of the confines of your Web presence and participating elsewhere.
18. Authenticity, transparency, voice, and ultimately trust not only matter – they are central.
19. Publishing systems and CMSes must be far more nimble. Stories are no longer static pieces that once published, are of no additional use. Collaboration must be enabled not only across a newsroom, but across the world, especially taking into account a newspaper’s existing community.
20. Stories on the Web gain in value long after original publication. It’s the economics of the Long Tail. Reference archives – link to individual items prominently!
21. Collections of stories, and our interactions with them, define communities.
22. While birds of a virtual feather may flock together, this presents opportunities for those willing to provide new aggregates of news, opinion, and information.

Norgs discussion participants Lisa Williams, and Dan Gillmor, along with Jane Mackay produced a must read report that documents a group of newspapers that have either dived in and embraced social/participatory media as part of their mission, or are dipping their toes in the water.

The report shares the tools, methodologies, and approaches these newspapers have taken – along with splashing some cold water on the hype that some of us are apt to shout.

The report includes findings on what works, what hasn’t worked, and provides recommendations.

You can read it here: http://citmedia.org/frontiers.

Google now makes it easy to read ratings, reviews and other associated information about businesses you find on Google Maps. Google has taken its usual approach of aggregating the participation of multiple services and communities across the web to provide a fast way to consume related information. It’s an impressive effort since no metadata or microformat standards exist that make it easy to produce.

Lets use a local Philadelphia business, the Khyber rock club as an example, to contrast and compare Google’s approach with that of its competitors.

Click to open a new window: Google Maps page for the Khyber.

It’s a very tight page featuring most of what you need to know about the Khyber at a glance. Contact information. Hours of operation. Reviews and ratings posted from various services across the web, including Citysearch and Yelp. There is a details page with aggregated information about the Khyber including the club atmosphere. There is a link for me to go to the Khyber’s home page, but at this point, do I need to? I have the many of the vitals I need right here. Except for an events listing.

Now lets check out Citysearch.com and AOL’s Digitalcities entries on the Khyber. Citysearch and Digitalcities have been around for as long as I can remember.

Click to open a new window: Citysearch Khyber page

Click to open a new window: AOL Digital Cities Khyber page

Both Citysearch and Digitalcities incorporate hosted user communities to provide ratings and reviews, these accompany information provided by editors and the businesses themselves. The additional information, which in this instance includes an Events listing – very important for this kind of business – makes them well rounded resources. There is even less reason here for me to visit the Kyber home page.

The last two services I want to compare are Yahoo!’s and Yelp’s entries for the Khyber. First Yelp.

Click to open a new window: Yelp Khyber page

Yelp’s page on the Khyber is information sparse. No editorial reviews. No business provided information. No information aggregated from any other source. Businesses do have the capability to add some basic info to their Yelp page however.

What you do find is an intense social networking focus. Yelp encourages reviewers to maintain profile pages like those you would maintain on Digg, Facebook, Myspace, etc. The kind of information you would share on your own personal blog if you had one. The intersection of sharing local places and services you use, with social networking, provides social opportunities along the lines of MySpace.

So is Yelp a good place to learn about businesses in your area? Maybe. In comparison with Google Maps or Citysearch? No. But it maybe a good service to meet people.

Lastly, lets look at Yahoo!. Yahoo, provides elements of *all* of the previously mentioned services. Aggregated reviews. Editorial content. Some social networking. But participation is lacking. I get no sense of an existing Yahoo! local community I want to interact with.

Click to open a new window: Yahoo! Khyber page

Some thoughts

Local newspapers have been urged by many to go ‘hyper-local’, precisely because they used to have the market cornered for such information. Each of these services attempts to be a regional information and community home page and if the papers don’t look out, these services will eat the last of their lunch left over by Craigslist.

If you’re a local business owner, you have to be concerned. Why? Because these pages are indexable by search engines and will compete with your own home page for visibility in search result placement. Where before a local business would only need to concern itself with an advertisement in the Yellow Pages, and local advertising, now it must gain competency in online marketing to compete for attention-share across enumerable services. It’s a whole lot more work. And if your product isn’t one that is globally deliverable – lets say – pizza – then that work offers no real reward for effort.

Yahoo! is a sad case. If it leveraged Flickr, deli.icio.us, upcoming.org and its other engaged online communities in a coordinated fashion, could be a winner here, but for now, especially since search is the biggest ‘front door’ to this kind of information, it’s Google for me.

And I’d be at Yelp if I was single or looking to network with others.

Update 2/2/07: It looks like Yahoo! is working on *exactly* what I suggested above! GigaOM: Yahoo tests Local mashups. I wonder how long they are going to take before rolling this out. Like Om, I think missing Yahoo! Map integration is a mistake. That, and adding Yahoo! local and Yahoo! Answers to the mix, could make it a useful service to any particular region.