Results matching “a conversation with google”

The I Want Media's The Future of Media: 2009 discussion held at NYU yesterday gathered the most renowned names in the new media world to present their visions of the future of information media.  Present were Gawker chief Nick Denton, Jack Dorsey, cofounder and chairman of Twitter; Bonnie Fuller, creator of Us Weekly and founder of Bonnie Fuller Media; Alan Murray, deputy managing editor and executive editor online at The Wall Street Journal; and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.

Perhaps of most interest to have come from the exchange were Denton's statements about journalists' attitudes, their inaptitude for internet blogging and the pay wall debate which is currently dominating news provision dialogue.

Speaking at the Google I/O Developer Conference that took place in San Francisco between May 27-28, Google has unveiled Google Wave, a new online communication service.

Described as a "personal communication and collaboration tool," Google Wave allows users to chat and share documents including audio files, videos and photos in real-time.

According to the New York Observer, the New York Times is considering two different proposals for charging for content. Executive editor Bill Keller told staff about the ideas that the paper is looking at.

One is a "meter system" which would allow the reader to surf the site without charge until reading a predetermined limit - words or pageviews - after which a metre will start running and the reader is charged for the rest of their movement on the site. It is not clear whether readers would be allowed a certain limit per day, or how else this would be measured. Keller apparently warned staff at the meeting that this pay model would be "tricky" as a fine balance would have to be found: if the limit of free content was too small, readers could be discouraged and traffic would fall, while as if it was too high, there would be little improvement in revenue.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal issued a new set of guidelines for professional conduct to its staff which, among other things, detailed the do's and don'ts of social networking. At the time, reaction to the rules was unknown, but writing on her Save the media blog, newspaper journalist, Gina Chen, clearly disagrees with the WSJ bosses.

"This is an open letter to the Dow Jones and Co.," begins the post. The author says that executives at the WSJ "fail" to grasp the point of social media and proceeds to address each specific rule, line by line.

Last Wednesday, May 6, the US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to review the plight of the newspaper industry, to better understand new media and the new model emerging, and to assess the role that government should play in the media as it evolves. The Future of Journalism hearing was presided over by Subcommittee chair Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who called the hearing in response to the threatened closure of his local paper, the Boston Globe, and the troubles facing newspapers across the country as advertising and circulation decline and the Internet replaces traditional media.

In his opening statement, Kerry says the committee has met to discuss not only the jolting condition of the newspaper, but also its implications for the future of journalism and the country. He believes it is important to "preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media" and questions whether online journalism will "sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has." The committee invited five prominent representatives of various types of media to express their views about the Future of Journalism and offer their solutions.

"Why is the government interested?" asks Kerry. "We do have a responsibility for the licensing of broadcast. We have a responsibility for the regulatory oversight of ownership of cable, satellite, other issues with respect to communications; and needless to say, how the American people get their information--what the structure of ownership is--is of enormous interest to all of us because it is the foundation of our democracy." Is there even any government role at all, he wonders, or is this simply a normal transition in the marketplace?

Considering the nonprofit model

Before it heard from the media representatives, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the committee about his Newspaper Revitalization Act, which proposes a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status for newspapers. Cardin stresses that online journalism does not supply the in-depth reporting and investigative journalism provided by traditional newsrooms that are essential to a free and democratic society. His bill would provide an opportunity for local supporters--whether individuals, foundations, or educational institutions--to come together to preserve their community newspaper.

The major criticism of Cardin's bill is that it could threaten a newspaper's freedom of speech: 501(c)(3) status allows editorializing but prohibits a paper from endorsing political candidates. The independence of journalism from government is crucial to its role as watchdog, and it is undesirable for a newspaper to have the government involved in judging its content. However, in their addresses to the Committee, both Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Washington Post, and former newspaperman David Simon, say that while they seriously oppose government interference in newspapers, they are intrigued by the nonprofit model.

Newsrooms provide an important public service, so why shouldn't the government give them the tax exempt benefit of becoming non-profits? After all, the danger of government interference in content could be exaggerated. Any single politician or political party attempting to manipulate a publication would be immediately exposed through other media outlets, and the threat is not much greater than private ownership where powerful investors might maneuver the paper to serve their own interests. Nonetheless, the greatest issue faced by nonprofit newspapers and their investors will be where to draw the line between endorsing and editorializing. If a newspaper's responsibility is to provide the public with unbiased information, then blatant political endorsements seem in violation of that role anyway, but nonprofit status could limit criticism and commentary on politicians and legislation that might reduce the media's role as watchdog.

As Coll and Alberto Ibargüen, President of the Knight Foundation, point out, nonprofit is not a universal remedy nor will it solve newspapers' profit problems. The initiative could be viewed less as a savior of the newspaper entity and more as a bridge to preserve local journalism during a transitional period. Ibarguen says that relieving profit pressures with nonprofit status might help newspapers "extend their useful life until we figure out what's next and what online model can afford professional journalism."

Relaxing antitrust could help publishers charge for online content

The other great appeal for government intervention in newspapers has been the request for changes to media ownership and antitrust policy. Last month the Justice Department rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to change the boundaries of media antitrust to include all media in a geographic area--including radio, TV, and newspapers--when deciding whether a sale is anticompetitive.

Pelosi's antitrust proposal raised obvious criticism about the independence of newspapers and consolidation of ownership. However, at the Senate hearing, Simon and James Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, approached antitrust from a different angle: they urged the Committee to give newspapers an antitrust exemption so that industry leaders could convene to discuss copyrighting from aggregators and charging for content online.

Unable to foresee the digital future, at the advent of the Internet newspaper publishers made the mistake of offering content free online. Now readers are accessing that content for free, not through the publisher's site, but through aggregators like Google News, which also does not pay publishers for content. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience at Google Inc., defends Google to the committee, calling it a "conduit" for journalism that provides a free service to online newspapers by driving traffic to their sites.

However, Simon and Moroney argue that aggregators do not provide adequate compensation for the revenue generated from publishers' original content. They contend that as of now, the profits publishers make from online advertising are not enough to sustain the quality journalism newsrooms have been providing. There must be an industry wide initiative to charge for content online, says Simon, as no individual can swim against the tide. According to Moroney, under the current antitrust laws, publishers cannot even begin to have a conversation about possibilities for pricing or charging aggregators.

If the government does relax antitrust to allow for this industry wide "conversation," it could possibly lead to major publications placing a pay wall around content, charging users and aggregators, but does such a pay wall threaten the free market? One of the virtues of the Internet is the accessibility of information, so where do pay walls and content hoarding fit in? A generation of Internet users already views information as a free commodity, and charging online users for content will significantly reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce advertising revenue. Even if industry leaders can convene and discuss, they still might find themselves at a loss for a viable solution.

Experimentation and innovation rather than government intervention

The hearing's last speaker, Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, opposed antitrust exemptions, paywalls, or really any government intervention. In fact, she countered some speaker's doom and gloom position with the opening statement, "Journalism will not only survive, it will thrive." Her main point is that the industry has changed and moved forward and there is no going back.

Huffington says, "The future is to be found elsewhere: it's a linked economy, it's search engines, it's online advertising, it's citizen journalism, and the foundations supporting investigative journalism. That's where the future is, and if you can't find your way to that, then you just can't find your way."

Ibargüen, Mayer, and Huffington all support embracing new media and encouraging experimentation and business models that promote digital possibilities. For Ibargüen that means providing universal, affordable digital action and adoption in the US and more inclusive public media that reaches every American. Neither he nor Huffington mourn the decline of investigative journalism, and both praise the efforts of nonprofits like ProPublica and the Knight Foundation supported Voices of San Diego for providing quality journalism outside the traditional newsroom.

According to Mayer, "The structure of the web has caused the basic unit--the atom of consumption--to migrate from the newspaper to the individual article," and because of the Web's ability to operate in real time, this allows for "living" instead of "static" stories that are constantly changed and updated like Wikipedia or the New York Times' "Times Topics." These changes to the way information is viewed, insist Mayer and Huffington, mean a different approach to monetization is necessary, which requires innovation and creativity. The solution for newspaper publishers is not to appeal to the government for a handout to preserve the old ways, but to adapt quickly and direct their time and resources into experimenting with the monetization of traffic through advertising.

What will the Senate decide?

Despite Kerry and Cardin's concern for the American newspaper, more than one of the subcommittee's senators held up a Blackberry during the hearing, proving themselves a part of the new digital audience. The general consensus of both the senators and media representatives seemed to be that their priority is not to save newspapers but to promote policies that sustain journalism.

How enlightening were the testimonies of the media representatives? Though certainly thorough in unveiling all the problems facing the media today, they failed to provide the government with a cure-all solution as to how it should proceed.

It seems fairly likely that the Senate could pursue the nonprofit solution as it seems basically harmless and might help some local newspapers stay on their feet at least long enough to find another answer. Relaxing antitrust could prove more risky, giving industry leaders the occasion to consolidate prices and possibly restrict information in a move that could prove more harmful than helpful to their own purpose.

The testimonies may have encouraged the Senate to do nothing at all for the newspaper but instead to accept that the audience and the market is evolving and no legislation can hold it back. If this is the case, then publishers will be faced with only one choice: innovate or fail. Instead of resisting change, they must get a grasp on technology and the new audience, paying attention to the success of others, then find ways to provide creative content and advertising solutions. As a few of the speakers said, this is still a transitional period for old media and new media, and there is still immense possibility for originality and advances. Though certain publications might lament their own fate, it is too early to be mourning the future of journalism.  

In anticipation of the Senate Commerce Committee hearings that will be held later today to address the future of the US newspaper industry, NPR's Diane Rehm interviews media and journalism analysts to examine the fate of journalism in the midst of recession and changing media.

In the interview Rehm speaks with Associate Professor of Journalism at American University Jane Hall, former newspaper editor and Reflections of a Newsosaur blogger Alan Mutter, Editor and Senior Vice President of the American Journalism Review Rem Reider, and Editor of the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel and new President of ASNE Martin Keiser. The four journalists agree on essential points that echo what many media analysts have said before: economic recession and decreased circulation and readership are leading to the decline of newspapers; the issue at hand is more about preserving quality journalism than about saving the printed newspaper; the development of a new business model is crucial to the survival of journalism; and government intervention is risky because it might conflict with the media's role as watchdog.

Google has just added a comments section to its Reader service: making it "your new watercooler," according to the Google Reader Blog. Previously, readers could add a comment if they shared an article, but users could not start a conversation. VentureBeat described the new feature as "the crucial missing ingredient."

Venturebeat writer Anthony Ha believes that this is "a big step towards turning Google Reader into a real social news service, that may eventually compete more directly with sites like socialmedian and MeeHive." He does, however, see a downside to this expansion of Google Reader's scope: the fact that "this only increases the fragmentation of online discussions," as many people already use more than one social network to link to or comment on news articles. He suggests a service called UberVu, described by VentureBeat as "a one-stop shop for dealing with all of the online content you create," to keep track of discussions.

The Associated Press suspended the use of US military photos on November 14th after the US Government body distributed doctored photographs of General Ann E. Dunwoody, the first female four star General in US history. This is the second hand out photograph that has been altered by the US army in a matter of months. The fact that a government institution would manipulate a photograph begs the question: can we trust what we see?

The Editors Weblog spoke to Santiago Lyon, the Director of Photography at AP about the events surrounding this suspension and the issue of photo manipulation.

First case - flag appears

Lyon reports that when Dunwoody was promoted, the AP searched for an image of the new General on a US military website that gathers photos of armed services personnel. Unable to locate a photograph, the AP contacted the website and requested a photograph and subsequently received a picture of the General by email. This photo showed Dunwoody with a US flag behind her (the photo on the right). The photo was immediately passed to the editing desk (all AP photographs go through at least one editing desk) where it was vetted and examined; it was then released onto the wire.  The San Antonio Express-News, a Texas-based local newspaper, contacted the AP alerting them to the fact that they had found a very similar image of Dunwoody on Google images, but with no US flag behind her (both photos shown above). Lyon and his team immediately investigated and discovered that a member of US military staff had added the US flag background and changed the number of stars on her uniform from three to four. The photograph was then immediately removed from the AP's wire.

Second case - superimposing a head
 
This was the second such incident involving the US army in a matter of months. The AP collects headshots of all the US personnel that have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and as part of this effort the AP received a photo that on closer inspection was not what it appeared. The army had the cut out the face of the dead soldier in question from one photo and superimposed it onto an existing mug shot with a uniform and an American flag in the background.

Lyon says, "Because this had been the second incident in as many months, we decided to suspend the use of US military photographs while we examined our own internal policies as well as have a conversation with the US military about what they were doing to these pictures and how this was unacceptable."

Army were, "at a loss to explain it"

Surprisingly when Lyon contacted the military to complain about this incident, it did not appear to accept the gravity of the situation. Lyon reports, "Initially they were a little bit defensive, claiming that this photo did not really alter the substance of the image. Our policy is of course zero tolerance, we do not accept that images be manipulated or that content be added or subtracted more specifically, unless there is a pressing need to for security reasons for example, and in that event we flag this." In further conversations, the army were, "at a loss to explain it." Lyon goes on to say, "I was shocked, but we wanted to deal with it as forcefully as possible and put it behind us."

The Pentagon later told the AP that they would redistribute their guidelines again to staff, which are also firm on the issue of manipulation. Lyon says, "They pretty much admitted that there had been a mistake and that they weren't proud about it, and that they wanted to work with us to try and ensure that this does not happen again."

As a result, the AP has now strengthened its internal policies with regard "hand-out" images (images that it receives from non-AP staff and external bodies). "We have instituted a more rigorous policy of examining those images now, at least two editors have to examine the images closely and if there is any doubt at all, the image is then held pending further examination." Previously, the standard procedure was to examine all images but not in the kind of minute detail that they do now with hand out images. Lyon reports that the AP receives vast numbers of these hand out images from various bodies, including the police, industry and so forth. AP staff know its strict zero tolerance policy for photo manipulation, but is it something that these external organisations adhere to?

In recent weeks not only do we have the AP case, but also the issue of a French Government minister and a disappearing and reappearing diamond ring. A Le Figaro front-page photo of Justice Minister Rachida Dati was doctored to erase a substantial diamond ring she was wearing. The practise of photo manipulation is nothing new: in 1942 Mussolini had a horse handler removed from a photograph of him sitting on a horse in order to make him look more heroic.

As long as there has been photography, there have been photo manipulations. However, with advanced technology and increased use of photo shop, it is now easier to achieve and harder to detect. Lyon says, "It is the click of a mouse and you can add or subtract things from a photo quite easily. What that means for an organisation like ours, whose whole reputation is based on the voracity of the information and telling the truth, is that we have to be ever vigilant." These incidences raise the question of how often these doctored images make it onto our front pages - unintentionally in the case of AP and intentionally in the case of Le Figaro  - as we generally only hear of this when the culprits are caught out. Can we now trust what we see? "You see images that are printed by others and are you always sure of the truthfulness of what you are looking at? It's hard to say. Sometimes you look at an image and you wonder," say's Lyon on the issue.

Lyon says that the Dunwoody image has highlighted the problem to AP. "What this has done is that it has shown us the need to be as vigilant and as careful as possible with hand out images from third parties whose provenance we cannot be 100% sure of. It has heightened our vigilance."

Today's newspaper reader is well aware that anything can be done with an image, even if it is just from their experiences watching the magic of CGI at their local multiplex. However, this is an arena where they expect the full trickery of the camera to be on display, the public does not expect it when they open the newspaper.

Due to the Internet and various other factors, "there has been a huge increase in the number of images that are being sent by international news agencies. 20-years ago we were probably sending 100 images a day in a 24-hour period. Now we are closer to sending 3,000 images in a 24-hour period. When you do the maths, the news agencies are handling close to a million images a year. That's a huge amount of imagery." This increase in distribution and use of photographs highlights the need for there to be strict rules on the doctoring of photographs. The role of a photojournalist is to capture a story for the reader, to bring a story to life, and to tell the truth. Just because we have the technology to do something, it  doesn't mean we should.

Source: AP, Straits Times, National Press Photographers Association, Ethics of Digital Manipulation, Daily Tech

Chances are you've heard all about the now-'resolved' dispute that opposed the Associated Press to social news sharing site Drudge Retort, over the fair - or unfair - use of AP quotes. Even more likely is the possibility that you've heard emotion-filled - and perhaps inaccurate - coverage of the affair. So this is an attempt to untangle some of the knots.

The four-point recap, clarifications
Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard
Lesson two: but the winner is?
Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?


The four-point recap, clarifications

If you haven't followed the story, here's a four-point recap (or skip to next):

- Earlier this month, AP demanded that the Drudge Retort take down seven entries, which were in its view violating policies of fair use of content and the agency's copyright (AP wants to charge outside sources for using for excerpts longer than four words).
- Drudge Retort Web host Rogers Cadenhead consequently blogged about the takedown notice, and this created a ##-storm in the blogosphere, with many influential bloggers including TechCrunch's Michael Arrington and BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis calling on the boycott of AP content.
- Shortly after, on June 16, AP retreated, but didn't recant: it admitted that its request had been "heavy-handed" but didn't withdraw the takedown notices.
- Then, on June 19, AP issued a statement to say its conflict with Cadenhead had been resolved, after AP lawyers gave him guidelines to make the postings suitable, and that "both parties consider the matter closed." This really meant that Cadenhead agreed to modify the contested items and ended up not reposting them.

The guidelines discussed with Cadenhead have yet to be made public though, and the AP is working on a new set of guidelines for "fair use" of its content in general. "If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use," Cadenhead wrote on his blog. He told the New York Times' Saul Hansell that some of the key issues for AP related to protecting headlines and first paragraphs of stories.

First clarification: unlike what has been widely echoed on the Web and suggested by another New York Times article on June 16, AP was never supposed to meet the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) in order to draft guidelines for all bloggers, according to MBA President Robert Cox.

Another clarification: the blogosphere went ablaze when it learned that AP had filed a lawsuit against Cadenhead in June, seemingly out of the blue. According to Cox though, "Drudge Retort got on AP's radar due to the posting of entire articles with exact headlines which all parties agreed constituted copyright violations two months BEFORE the most recent spate of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Take Down Notices."

Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard

News of the Associated Press' June take-down notices was met with severe criticism, calls for boycott - and many profanities - by the blogosphere.

In one of his posts, entitled "FU AP," Jarvis wrote: "Bloggers, unless the AP recants and apologizes to Cadenhead, I urge you to avoid linking to the AP and to link to reporting at its source." Jarvis also encouraged bloggers to copy-paste full AP stories.

In a self-admittedly "ridiculous" post, after being quoted in an AP story, Harrington announced that "I've called my lawyers (really) and have asked them to deliver a DMCA takedown demand to the A.P. And I will also be sending them a bill for $12.50." According to Harrington this "is exactly what the A.P. would have charged me if I published a 22 word quote from one of their articles."

That short posting alone generated more than 230 comments - most of which were harshly critical of AP's stance at the time. The wildfire that spread in the blogosphere and the seemingly rapid turn-about of AP once again illustrated a known fact: blogs have gained enough traction and buzz-generating capacity to concretely influence and shape the media landscape.

Lesson two: but the winner is?    

One - erroneous - interpretation is to say that bloggers - won their battle against the traditional media Goliath, which was trying "to impose some guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common," - a quote from a New York Times story. (The Times' coverage of the affair was, according to Harrington, hindered by a conflict of interest, considering that the Times is one of AP's members and sits on its board of directors.)

But this isn't a victory for bloggers. "The A.P. is going to assert a much stricter interpretation of fair use than most people on the Internet are used to," reported Hansell on the Bits blog.

As mentioned above, Cadenhead had to agree to AP's proposed modifications, and ended up not reposting the material. Furthermore, this case is really a microcosm for the bigger issue of how to adapt "fair use" policies and copyright to the digital age in general.

"I'm glad that my personal legal dispute with the AP is resolved, thanks to the help of the Media Bloggers Association, but it does nothing to resolve the larger conflict between how AP interprets fair use and how thousands of people are sharing news on the web," wrote Cadenhead, following his two-hour conversation and settlement with the AP.

"I think AP and other media organizations should focus on how to encourage bloggers to link their stories in the manner they like, rather than hoping their lawyers can rebottle the genie of social news."

While Cadenhead may be right in terms of global news consumption trends on the Web, the AP was clearly in its own right under the US DMCA, at least regarding the stories posted in their entirety with the same headline. But the legal provisions concerning "fair use" of content for smaller excerpts have remained vague - simply undefined - until now, something the AP hopes to reform by setting guidelines.

"I think it would be helpful for bloggers and users of social news sites to know what the AP believes to be fair use of their copyrighted work," said Cadenhead's lawyer. But "I hope that any guidelines that are issued are not interpreted as an agreed definition of fair use" under copyright law.

Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?

The Associated Press versus Drudge Retort - blogosphere - affair throws light onto two main issues:

- Does this case exemplify the 'old media' versus 'new media' divide? Is the AP's stance representative of its inability to adapt to a new context?

Yes, in the eyes of new media guru Jarvis: "I value the AP and don't want it to die. I want it to morph to a new model and a new future. But I am afraid that in its fights, we are seeing its inability to adapt."

On the other hand, few bloggers have pondered the more controversial view that the AP's approach may actually be a sign of its willingness to adapt - granted, not yet to the 'utopian' world copyright-lessness. But the AP, in its own way and after being "heavy-handed," is now attempting to define new standards that are adapted to the digital age. (Read this note on June 13 by Jim Kennedy, VP and Director of Strategy for AP.) No doubt some of the outspoken bloggers mentioned previously could be quick to shatter this argument.

- As is often the case, the law doesn't evolve as rapidly as the context it seeks to protect. The blurry wordings of the current DMCA must either be reformed quickly, after multilateral consultation, or the issue of "fair use" of content will eventually be settled in court and set a precedent, costing either news organizations or bloggers - presumably both.

This is the real issue at stake: how fast can the law be adapted to the reality of the Web, in order to avoid costly conflicts over subjective interpretations of "fair use" of content? As Hansell concluded in the Bits blog, "the unsettled state of the law makes it a gamble to take the matter to court."

A costly gamble, whether it ends in a loss for the AP or for bloggers. Or both.

Note that, just in case, no AP material longer than four words was excerpted in the above.

Bloggers: you can also watch this video by DigitalJournal.com for advice from Harvard Citizen Media Law Project Director David Ardia.



Source: Buzzmachine (here and here) - Techcrunch (here and here) - Associated Press - New York Times - New York Times Bits blog - Mediabloggers.org - The Moderate Voice - paidcontent.org

Newspaper readers and editors agree on the basics of good journalism, but readers desire looser rules for online conversations, finds a study on online news credibility.  

Reader and editor responses diverged most sharply on the topic of anonymous remarks: approximately 70% of editors surveyed said "requiring commentators to disclose their identities would support good journalism," a sentiment shared by only 45% of readers, reports the Associated Press.    

Readers were more likely to favor an online news model in which journalists engage in conversation and give their opinions, with only 36% of the public seeing this as detrimental to journalism, compared with 58% of editors.  

In contrast, the study found a general agreement amongst readers and editors on basic practices such as the need to ensure accuracy, the importance of fairness in news coverage, and desirability of depth, meaning providing links to other related material so readers can gain a fuller understanding of a story.

The Online Journalism Credibility Study was released April 8th by the Associated Press Managing Editors group and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri. Click here for the complete report.

According to John Bartosek, editor of The Palm Beach Post in West Palm Beach, Fla., and chairman of the credibility committee for the AP managing editors group, sites that allow journalists to express personal views are perceived as more credible, a finding which runs contrary to journalism's traditional emphasis on maintaining complete objectivity.

Editors' reluctance to inject journalist commentary is understandable; it's a blurry line between expressing opinion and assuring fair news coverage (the study shows that readers want both).

So what to do to meet both demands? A possible solution can be found in the recently incarnated service Hubdub, which allows users to make predictions on the outcome of a given story (e.g. Barack Obama being elected president). Hubdub founder and CEO Nigel Eccles, who recently noted readers' desire for journalists to make predictions, said that Hubdub is now looking to distribute a continuously-updating widget that will display the state of the market ie. the percentage of users who believe that a certain outcome will come to pass (e.g. Obama will be elected).

By incorporating a Hubdub style widget in their news sites, editors could have their journalists rest neutral, while meeting readers' desire for opinion. The only difference: readers would get the opinion of thousands of other readers rather than that of single journalist.

Source: AP through IFRA Executive News Service

There is a major shift from traditional media toward online media, and journalists should consider the journalistic possibilities of social networks, YouTube, and other new technology instead of using them for fun and socializing.

Readers of online news is up to 71% in 2007 from 60% in 2000 and 37% said they went online for news "yesterday" compared to the 22% in 2000, according to Project for Excellence in Journalism.

MediaShift journalist Mark Glaser outlines "The New Rules of Media" with this shift:

1. "News is a conversation, not a lecture"
Traditionally, reporters had the answers and told the rest of us what was going on in the world. In reality, the audience and its "collective wisdom" knows more and can be experts on a subject. Thus, news is a conversation that may begin with a journalist but extends its form online where audience can help with ideas, comments, corrections, updates, etc.

2. People control their media experience
People are now listening and watching to what they want on the devices they want, whether it be podcasts, radio, TV, etc. This allows more control over media experience, and people are "no longer slaves to programmers," according to Glaser. But what people lose are shared experiences: watching shows or sport events together or at the same time. Now with TiVo-ing or taping shows for later, people no longer can immediately talk about these shows until everyone has finished watching them.

3. "Anyone Can Be a Media Creator or Remixer"
Anyone with a cell phone or video camera can capture and share experiences, and these devices and editing software are becoming increasingly affordable. Amateurs are noticed by the work they post online, which has the power to change the agenda in politics. However, anyone can create or remix their own media, but skills to use these tools are required to stand out from the millions of others who are doing the same thing.

4. "Traditional Media Must Evolve or Die"
Because of the speed of innovation and change in technology and its importance in news dissemination and analysis, the media business must live by this same rule, originally a Silicon Valley mantra.

In the mid-'90s, the New York Times launched online-only publication called CyberTimes which later had a pay wall around its archives in order to increase diminishing print subscriptions, rather than innovate online. Eventually the Times opened all online archives and began blogs (though opposed to them in the beginning) after learning that "traditional media must live in the digital world on its own terms."

Traditional media must evolve by changing their mindset first, before adding new features.

5. "Despite Censorship, The Story Will Get Out"
People have the knowledge to get a story out around repressive governments, for instance, when China blocked YouTube because of the videos of conflict in Tibet, people viewed the sites through Google cache. Also, people can get around new technology that cannot be suppressed, for example: the music business shut down Napster, but people are still sharing music online.

As Glaser puts it, "Once the technology genie is out of the bottle, there's no way to put it back in."

6. "Amateur and Professional Journalists Should Work Together"
With the distinction between the bloggers and journalists becoming blurrier, the animosity between the two should end, and theyshould learn from one another. Bloggers can learn about "being fair and having ethical standards" while journalists can "learn the 'incremental journalism' of bloggers, adding facts, analysis and aggregation over a period of time."

7. "Journalists Need to Be Multi-Platform"
Journalists need to learn the skills of broadcast, print, and photojournalism to reach different audiences. Becoming a community moderator, a freelancer (as journalism jobs are no longer stable), learning how to design or run a website are all essential skills to acquire.

Ultimately, journalists need to understand the basic journalism skills before knowing the new technology.

Glaser writes, "It's crucial that those skills, those ethics, that fairness, is not lost in the rush to new technology...This is the best time in history for new journalists to make their own way, start their own media outlet and get noticed."

Source: PBS through I Want Media

Anne Spackman, editor of Timesonline told delegates at the Society of Editors conference that Google is ”hugely dangerous” and ”the number one topic of conversation at News Corp is Google.”

In an excellent article, Editor & Publisher’s (E&P) Joe Strupp gathers 12 important lessons learned from online flops and failures, such as… 

An Online Journalism Review wiki aimed at independent publishers provides some key tips to choosing which advertising programs work best for individual news content websites.

The Mail and Guardian (MandG) Online has just launched a South African blog aggregator, Amatomu, which ranks and sorts out the country’s blogosphere according to ‘most-popular’, categories, newest postings and more. Amatomu symbolizes the paper’s evolving philosophy, from being a content producer to being a “facilitator of knowledge-makers.”

Here’s a new idea from Amy Gahran of Poynter Online: local papers offering “news cards” akin to grocery store discount cards to provide customized content and advertising to readers.

More from the UK Guardian's Changing media Summit. User Generated Content (UGC), copyright and community engagement are the main discussion topics for this session.

The world's most popular search engine has come under a lot of fire from traditional publishers, even being charged €1million per day in Belgium for failing to remove copyrighted content from its news aggregator, Google News. Most recently at the Society of Editors' annual conference in Glasgow, CEO of Press Holdings, Andrew Neil, called for more negotiations with Google.

When it comes to large traditionally print media entities, the Washington Post has always been ahead of the curve on the web side. Washingtonpost.com’s executive editor Jim Brady’s presentation at the World Editor’s Forum in Moscow showed why. Brady told the audience what the Post had done, and what it was planning on doing, to ensure that its newsroom was steeped in the hi-tech art of convergence.

Ever hear of Bluffton, South Carolina?  If you are a newspaper professional, you should know about this small US community of 15,000 people, where a new model for newspapers and newspaper web sites is succeeding.

The Internet has arguably been the biggest boon to newshounds since the first newshound scanned his first headline. The nearly infinite amount of content available at the click of a mouse has liberated the reader, creating a freedom that he fears could be taken away by the very newspapers that feed his obsession. At the same time, newspapers are having trouble surviving on the very tool their readers now take for granted. Below are some ideas of how newspapers can keep their readers happy while simultaneously earning revenue.

Journalism is under fire. It has lost the public's trust. It is marred by scandal. It is looked at by those who "own" it as an aside to a profit machine, not a community service.

Although all this looks bad, we still depend on journalism as one of the guiding forces in democracy. So who's going to fix it?  

The New York Times' decision to merge its print and online newsrooms will be looked back on as the tipping point for the future of newsrooms everywhere. It will be considered the moment in history when newspaper organizations realized and began to capitalize on the true potential of the internet. The engines have been purring at the starting line for some time as several smaller papers have already adopted similar strategies, but the Times just waved the green flag and sent them roaring down the track. Powered by the rapid spread of broadband, newspapers the world over will all be racing for the golden cup of multimedia convergence.

One of the reasons that newspapers and TV broadcasters are losing their audience is because there are too many other forms of media attracting their attention. By combining these media, news organizations will retain and attract more customers. A sole piece may just scratch the surface of a story, but packaged with multimedia compliments, the audience will dive deeper, consuming a thorough and educational news experience. Senior VP of digital media at NYT Martin Nisenholtz sees the eventual inclusion of 30 to 40 daily multimedia reports on his paper's website: "(NYT multimedia is) still baby steps, but it's a hell of a lot more robust than even two years ago. Our multimedia now is embedded into the rhythm of the way we produce the Web site, and all of that is done in collaboration with the newsroom."

For the moment, the Grey Lady has said that it will not oblige its staff to adapt to the net, that it expects some resistance. But the fact is, the multimedia race has begun and you'll be disqualified pretty quickly if you don't step on the gas. Ultimately, multimedia internet capabilities will change everything for everybody in the news cycle...

The New York Times' decision to merge its print and online newsrooms will be looked back on as the tipping point for the future of newsrooms everywhere. It will be considered the moment in history when newspaper organizations realized and began to capitalize on the true potential of the internet. The engines have been purring at the starting line for some time as several smaller papers have already adopted similar strategies, but the Times just waved the green flag and sent them roaring down the track. Powered by the rapid spread of broadband, newspapers the world over will all be racing for the golden cup of multimedia convergence.

One of the reasons that newspapers and TV broadcasters are losing their audience is because there are too many other forms of media attracting their attention. By combining these media, news organizations will retain and attract more customers. A sole piece may just scratch the surface of a story, but packaged with multimedia compliments, the audience will dive deeper, consuming a thorough and educational news experience. Senior VP of digital media at NYT Martin Nisenholtz sees the eventual inclusion of 30 to 40 daily multimedia reports on his paper's website: "(NYT multimedia is) still baby steps, but it's a hell of a lot more robust than even two years ago. Our multimedia now is embedded into the rhythm of the way we produce the Web site, and all of that is done in collaboration with the newsroom."

For the moment, the Grey Lady has said that it will not oblige its staff to adapt to the net, that it expects some resistance. But the fact is, the multimedia race has begun and you'll be disqualified pretty quickly if you don't step on the gas. Ultimately, multimedia internet capabilities will change everything for everybody in the news cycle...

The New York Times' decision to merge its print and online newsrooms will be looked back on as the tipping point for the future of newsrooms everywhere. It will be considered the moment in history when newspaper organizations realized and began to capitalize on the true potential of the internet. The engines have been purring at the starting line for some time as several smaller papers have already adopted similar strategies, but the Times just waved the green flag and sent them roaring down the track. Powered by the rapid spread of broadband, newspapers the world over will all be racing for the golden cup of multimedia convergence.

One of the reasons that newspapers and TV broadcasters are losing their audience is because there are too many other forms of media attracting their attention. By combining these media, news organizations will retain and attract more customers. A sole piece may just scratch the surface of a story, but packaged with multimedia compliments, the audience will dive deeper, consuming a thorough and educational news experience. Senior VP of digital media at NYT Martin Nisenholtz sees the eventual inclusion of 30 to 40 daily multimedia reports on his paper's website: "(NYT multimedia is) still baby steps, but it's a hell of a lot more robust than even two years ago. Our multimedia now is embedded into the rhythm of the way we produce the Web site, and all of that is done in collaboration with the newsroom."

For the moment, the Grey Lady has said that it will not oblige its staff to adapt to the net, that it expects some resistance. But the fact is, the multimedia race has begun and you'll be disqualified pretty quickly if you don't step on the gas. Ultimately, multimedia internet capabilities will change everything for everybody in the news cycle...