I never fully understood what Pajamas Media wanted to be and I understand it even less now that they are holding a gala, four-and-a-half-hour intro in New York at the Rainbow Room on Nov. 16 with Judy Miller as their keynote. Judy Miller? Judy Miller!
Pajamas, as I understand it, wanted to be an ad network. I don’t see huge advertiser demand for a bunch of mostly conservative political bloggers. At one time, they wanted to be some sort of syndicate but I said nobody would buy content. It seems they now want to be some sort of blog central thing — antimatter to the Huffingtonpost’s matter, I suppose — but the difference is that most of her people don’t blog while most of these people already do blog so I don’t know why I need to see a collection of them. And they keep saying they’re going to change their name but they have their gala introduction still using the silly name they have. The invite to the gala intro I just got says:
On November 16th, 2005 Pajamas Media will launch a new publishing medium that brings together some of the top online influencers and personalities, under one banner, to help evolve and expand journalism. In essence, this new media company will create a network hub for bloggers around the world in what will be one of the world’s first online forums for citizen journalism and commentary.
I thought all that was what we call blogs.
I like lots of the guys involved. But I’m sorry, guys, I still don’t get it. And I especially don’t launching under Judy Miller’s name.
So I moderated — or tried to moderate — a panel at the Online News Association this weekend. Here’s a story about it at the ONA site:
Try as he might, Jeff Jarvis couldn’t quite keep what he called the “dinosaur-bashing†and the “blogger-bashing†from rearing their respectively ugly heads at Saturday afternoon’s “Journalism 2010: Who’s leading the way?†panel discussion.
Though the former mainstream journalist-turned-blogger had hoped the discussion would focus on what online journalism has to look forward to in five years, some in attendance – including panelist Robert Cauthorn, who is president of CityTools – couldn’t help but take a few swipes at the established media – the dinosaur.
Cauthorn wouldn’t get off the snark express regarding the NY Times (which went on to win lots o’ awards at the banquet that followed). Others snarked at his snarking. As threatened, I read Rafat Ali’s scold of the ONA’s first day for their lack of passion. Somebody got up and argued back at “the blogger” that they have lots of passion. I got Rafat up — if at first reluctantly — not to fight back — Crossfire is dead — but instead to give his suggestions for what the ONA should do next year. He was quite the mensch, and the crowd recognized that with applause. But the snark express rode on. The editor of Projo emotionally said that she, too, is a citizen even if she’s also a journalist. No argument…. so long as the contrary is also accepted: Citizens can be journalists, too. A guy from the Scotsman issued the old saw as if he’d just thought of it that second: Who would you want to perform brain surgery on you, a surgeon or a citizen? I said I knew who I sure as hell didn’t want to perform surgery on me: a medical reporter. The bloggers were tired of being bashed for so long they bashed back; the dinosaurs were tired of being bashed in turn, so they bashed.
You get the smelly drift. There were good moments as well but it’s sad to see this destructive nya-nyaing from both sides, as if there are sides. We’re all supposed to be headed in the same direction and if we don’t recognize that then others who don’t give a fuck will just take over while the professionals piss on each other.
: To my amazement, I got email from a thin-skinned Gawkerite (an oxymoron, I would have thought) because of the last link above. Let me be clear then: I’m saying that while the bashers bash each other, people who are smarter and have a more authentic voice and are more nimble and less encumbered by old rules and egos will come in and take audience and advertising because they don’t give a fuck about the old rules of the old world. So I come not to bury Gawker but to praise Gawker.
One of my favorite podcasts, Schlaflos in München (Sleepless in Munich), just turned 200 (episodes, that is) and so Annik Rubens turned her show over to her audience. It’s pretty amazing: On a day’s notice, all sorts of German podcast fans recorded MP3s and phone messages and they made up the show: the podcast of the crowd. It’s also amusing to note that all the contributors is male. Annik is the podcast queen.
: A listener of hers also found this podcasting cartoon (don’t worry: it’s in English).
It’s great news that Digg got venture funding: $2.8 million from Omidyar Network, Marc Andreessen, and Greylock partners. The wisdom-of-the-crowd news site is rivaling /. in buzz and traffic-spiking. They’ve redesigned smartly. And I’m a fan of their spin-off podcast, Diggnation (they’re soon to go to Japan to make a show). I told the Online News Association that they should have invited these guys to their confab to learn what the future of news is really about.
: And by the way, Digg cofounder Kevin Rose is a nice guy. I was supposed to meet up with him at Web 2.0 because I wanted to and because my son is a fan; he’s the one who turned me onto Digg (see Jake’s Diggs on his sidebar). My son couldn’t care less about any of the celebs I met during my career. He wanted me to meet Kevin and I blew it. So Kevin just sent Jake an autograph. Thanks, dude.
: While we’re digging, here’s one more relevant tidbit: The Diggnation guys said that as soon as iTunes started promoting vlogs, the video version of Diggnation immediately racked up more downloads than the audio version.
There is a ton of pent-up video demand out there online.
…they have me preach once a year at my Congregational church. Here’s this year’s effort. Nothing new to anyone who commits the sin of reading this blog. It’s very internetty — not a good theological effort — so I could make some specific points about our congregation. But I was glad to be able to quote a few blog friends (the latter from the VC monastary).
: I asked my sister for relevant scripture (handy having a Rev in the family) and she gave me Galatians 5:1-6, which is about not being enslaved to the law. The law under discussion happens to be one about circumcision. The associate pastor called rather confused: Uh… was I preaching about circumcision? No, I explained. She deftly desexed the verse.
Thomas Hawk wonders whether Flickr’s interestingness will allow Yahoo to leap ahead of Google in at least one arena of search: photos.
I wonder two things:
First, why just photos? Couldn’t interestingess become valuable in an overall search algorithim?
But second, in an interesting comment discussion under my post yesterday on interestingness, KirkH asks whether interestingness requires that the content judged be hosted on one site. That’s a good question, for interestingness appears to be about both vectors of interest and also about relationships and I’m not sure whether or how the data to feed that algorithim can be done across a distributed network.
I’m going to be on another panel Monday evening but this one’s worth joining for the company: Jay Rosen, John Podhoretz, Bryan Keefer of CJR Daily, with Adam Penenberg moderating. Open to all: 7 pm in Jurow Auditorium, NYU’s Main Building, Washington Square East and Waverly Place.
Most of you know me as a coach by nature so I hope this gives you some inside access to the Republican playbook.
The internet is changing the way we share information. My office has been talking a lot about some of the conversations going on in blogosphere. So I thought, hey, I should start one and give you unfiltered updates on Capitol Hill.
So the man two heartbeats away from the Presidency is blogging. (Oh, Mr. Speaker: How about some RSS?)
This afternoon, I’m moderating a “superpanel” on the future of news at the Online News Association. The folks up there: Susan DeFife, president and CEO, Backfence; Neil Budde, news director, Yahoo!; Robert S. Cauthorn, president, CityTools; Lockhart Steele, managing editor, Gawker Media. The agenda asks: “Will journalism be as relevant at the end of this decade as it was in 1910? If information is power, the answer must be yes. But will journalists be the innovators or the commodity?”
Well, of course, I’d argue that information isn’t the only power; relationships and trust are, and so we’d better figure out what our relationship to the public is again. And I’d argue that we shouldn’t be worrying about journalists but instead about journalism, since new tools open journalism up to anyone. But I’m only the moderator, so I won’t be arguing that (well, I’ll try not to), and I’ll choose to define “superpanel” as Dave Winer would: The whole room is the panel. Hell, the world is the panel.
So what do you think I should bring up before these machers of online news? When I asked this the last time, Hugh MacLeod gave me a line that I quote in every damned powerpoint I ever give (how newspapers should stop thinking of themselves as things but rather as places where people come together to do good things in their communities).
What do you want to ask or say to the machers of online news today about their tomorrow?
This is perhaps the most exciting time to be an online journalist, at the most exciting time in the media sphere. Yet, at ONA, where was the passion? Where was the excitement about working in the most innovative time in the history of media? In its place what I see is self-doubt, existential crisis, a siege mentality….
Above all, where’s the entrepreneurship? The Web 2.0 thing, while may have been over hyped, at least has something at the core of it: innovation, on the cheap, and available to all. These are people who believe, and believe me, that’s half the battle won. Why is that mentality not coming to journalism, and specifically online journalism? Why isn’t more startup culture being encouraged at media companies? Yes, they’ll start blogs on their site, but beyond that, what? Why aren’t journalists being encouraged to be entrepreneurs, and the other way around? When will we have our version of the young-out-of-school-entrepreneurs amongst us? Isn’t the passion of creation the most basic of drivers? Where is that?
Right. They took one of the single most innovative people in news, Adrian Holovaty, and had him explain RSS. That was my frustration the last time I attended, two years ago, when blogs were at best the subject of condescension. This time, they had a blogging 101 session. Aren’t they past that? I fear not.
What the ONA should be doing is inviting in all the barbarians at their gates inside to challenge them: all the bloggers and vloggers and programmers and 2.0 publishers. who are reinventing news. I don’t know why they’d bother coming but the online news machers should be begging them to.
At the Museum of Television & Radio Media Center event, the news executives lamented the lack of product development and innovation in their business. Rafat is seeing the proof of that. You’d think that ONA would be the showcase for the newest, the place where that cutting edge is honed, the place to come to have your brain exploded. It’s not.
I’m going to start today’s panel by reading excerpts from Rafat’s post. This is exactly the challenge the online news machers need.
I’m at the Online News Association and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzburger is giving the keynote. Before he starts, he suddenly turns around and pats an imaginary head and says, “Judy.” Silence in the room. “A very small joke,” he says. Later, he briefly addresses Judy Miller and starts saying by: “We fully support… supported… Judy.” Slip?
ORJ asks whether he thinks that “failing to fire Judy Miller” has hurt the credibility of The Times. Sulzberger reponds: “No, I don’t…. There is no question there has been an effect on the way that people are viewing us because of this Judy Miller situation… What is important here is that we have tried, we are certainly trying to own up to that. The story is not over….” In response to another question, he says that “while your reporter is in jail, there are constraints. Well, our reporter is no longer in jail and those constraints are off.” I’m not sure what that means. I think he’s talking about coverage, not personnel m atters.
I’m not blogging the speech; it’s a packaged speech and they usually put these up online.
One note on blogging. He says that though many blogs make great contributions, “We have to be aware of what we are getting…. Some take journalistic protocols seriously. Most wouldn’t have a clue…” Oof.
Asked whether he was concerned taking the columnists out of the conversation with TimesSelect, he said: “Information does not in fact yearn to be free. Opinion — quality opinion — does not yearn to be free.”
Asked whether Google is a friend or foe, he violates the gag rule on Google Zeitgeist and says that when Don Graham of the Washington Post took to a panel, he thanked Google for inviting old-media guys “like Arthur” and for doing this on the very day they announced they were going after classifieds.
: David Weinberger points to a service that lets you tag books. Well, of course: What happens when we don’t just tag pages but things — movies, destinations, books, gadgets… And what happens when you can get to that on the road (in the bookstore, you look for recommendations of books about…).
: I have been showing everyone who’ll listen Flickr’s “interestingness,” a secret-sauce algorithim that, I believe, uses vectors of interest and link and social patterns to find the photos Flickrers find interesting. And they are interesting.
What’s great about this is that it exposes not the wisdom of the crowd but the taste of the crowd.
