BuzzMachine

Amy Gahran and Steve Safran are headed for a group hug as they try to stop the us-v-them time wasting of too many conferences. I agree (and Jill Miller Zimon is right, I am tired of making the point). At the conference I’m holding at CUNY on Oct. 10, I plan to have a gong and the first attempt to attack MSM or blogs gets gonged off. This conference is about action, taking next steps, not about sniping, which is where too many conferences do turn. Wish us luck.

I’m as much of a media wonk as anybody, but the Times outwonked me today devoting an entire story to the Wall Street Journal changing the name of a section from Pursuits to Weekend.

Who could possibly give a damn? And why would they?

What’s even more amusing is that this news comes from anonymous sources, as if this really is some delicate corporate secret.

The change would mean the newspaper will put out a Weekend Journal section on both Friday and Saturday and a Personal Journal section on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. According to one person close to the company, who like others asked not to be identified because the comments were not authorized by the paper, Dow Jones thought the previous names for the leisure sections were too confusing.

In the midst of the Murdoch story did everyone get just too accustomed to covering every burp out of Dow Jones? Is somebody waiting to use this as evidence that Murdoch is dumbing down the Journal (”Pursuits,” after all, sounds so much classier)?

I hope the Journal gets the scoop when the Times gets around to changing its cutesy shadowed “Eating In/Eating Out” logo. Now that’d be news.

Yesterday morning, I had breakfast with Katharina “Lyssa” Borchert, blogger and internet editor for the WAZ Mediengruppe, a large chain of regional papers in Germany and, boy, was I impressed. I vowed to stop talking about people who “get it” and don’t but she is the queen of getting it. She’s about to come out with a major rebuilding of her company’s online services and strategies and I can’t wait to see it. I’ll write more about it at that time. But we hit kismet on so many fronts: the value of collaborative community journalism, the distributed architecture of news, the value of reporting vs. commodity news, the future of newsrooms and how to get them there, the growth of video from papers — and unlike me, she’s not just talking about it, she’s doing it. I love seeing people who are making progress bringing newspapers into the future.

Then today Howard Weaver emailed me proudly a link to a blog post by one of his company’s editors, Kathleen McCoy, assistant managing editor for interactivity at the paper in Anchorage. Get a load of this post on her blog about building a high-school sports site:

Why am I doing it? Because I believe that community news organizations like the one I work for will soon (now, even) include a blend of us and them. Them is the people who live and work in the communities we report on. Us is, well, the fewer and fewer of us left in American print newsrooms. We need them to build connection in our pages, the glue of community. They need us to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire: government officials, school administrators, business people. We work for the readers. So if they can contribute some of the content that binds a community - names, faces, achievements, good work - then the newspaper’s reporters can focus on their role, getting at the hard and complicated truth, facts people need to know.

OK, I’m getting of my soapbox now.

I read an interesting post today at Mediashift about all the jobs shifting from print to online. I felt like I was the poster child for the structural adjustment newspapers are making. I went away for a year, read tons on the shifting world of journalism, took a multimedia fellowship at Berkeley to dip my toes in the water, and now I am back in the work world — making the adjustment. I haven’t written or edited a single story since I came back. Instead, I’ve been building Web pages, learning why they scream ERROR instead of nicely displaying what I built, and editing little videos for our Web site. Now, I want to consume Final Cut Pro and Soundslides and html and Dreamweaver tutorials in one fell swoop. I want all those skills, yesterday. Then line me up with some database management software. It’s a different world, not necessarily a bad one.

Very good posting for a position at the City University of London: for a doctoral student to work with Sky News and an army of citizen journalists. Now that’s bringing worlds together.

This project affords excellent opportunities to explore concepts around citizen journalism in the mainstream news media, using a case study approach and participant observation.

For the first year of their PhD the appointee will work closely with Sky News on an innovative project to recruit several hundred “citizen journalists” to report on the next UK general election campaign. The project aims to allow contributors to do more than simply give their opinion; instead they will be expected to write stories, take pictures and possibly record video.

The appointee’s role would be to work closely with Sky News to recruit suitable contributors, mentor them and guide them in creating the right sort of content, and manage their contributions. The appointee will be responsible for ensuring that there is a broad mix of contributors in terms of party affiliation, background and expertise. The successful candidate will also be involved in the development of the website to best support the project and ensure that the material is used to its best advantage. The role requires editorial initiative, a nose for news, an understanding of what makes compelling online content and familiarity with the social networking community.

(Full disclosure: I’ve been consulting with SkyNews.)

Trebor Scholz is teaching a course entitled ‘Web 2.0: What went wrong?’ I’m not sure what went wrong. But the reading list is interesting (disclosure: I’m honored to be on it).

I’ve been thinking about Mark Glaser’s lengthy column on job opportunities in journalism. On behalf of my journalism students, I’m delighted.

But what’s appalling is that newspapers are not retraining their staffs in the new skills of new media.

There are lots of cynical excuses for that: The papers want to lay off expensive people and hire cheap kids. Or the old dogs won’t — or some would say can’t — learn new skills.

Well, why not try? I have been arguing — to little result … so far — that news organizations of all sorts should train every person in the newsroom in the skills of new media: how to make video, audio, and blogs. That wouldn’t take long, just a day or two. It’s that easy. That’s why everybody out here is doing it.

There are many benefits. Staffers might get an interest in new and social media and transfer over to the internet side, saving their careers in many cases. They might simply get an understanding of the new structure of media and get an appreciation for all the new opportunities the internet provides for gathering and sharing news and that can improve their journalism. They could start producing their journalism across all media, however it’s best to tell the story and however it’s best for the public to get it. And this influx of new thinking might help the organization advance and improve.

Instead, I see newspapers waiting until the budget ax falls and then they just lay off people or pay a fortune in buyouts. That’s too late to retrain. And it is a waste of resources, intelligence, experience, and precious time.

Let’s say that a year before they got rid of a quarter of their editorial staff, the managers at the San Francisco Chronicle saw it coming but took that the time to train the entire staff in new media. They could have identified those staffers who embraced new and social media and technology (allowing them to at least keep the forward-thinking ones and scare off the old dogs). They could have started to rethink their product and service — as a staff. They could have improved their reporting and distribution of the stories they printed. They could have gotten the public excited, too, about their new ways and maybe gotten some more audience and more advertising online and avoided at least a few of those still-inevitable layoffs.

Instead, newspapers are too often playing victim, waiting for the worst to happen or taking too-small steps away from the cliff. It’s a disservice to their staffs, their readers, their shareholders.

And I won’t put that onus entirely on management. Staffs should be demanding to be trained. Photographers should be ganging up on their bosses to learn video; ditto reporters. Hell, even ad sales people should be dying to learn video so they have something new to sell.

This is on my mind also — full disclosure — because I have been trying to put together the continuing education (professional development, call it what you will) program at CUNY. If you have any ideas how we should go about this — how to convince journalists that they should learn new ways now, before it’s too late — let me know.

Peter Preston in the Observer (in London) tears into American papers for being boring and for not redesigning — and, more important, rethinking — themselves, as British papers did, successfully, when they change paper size.

The Guardian, Times and Indy have all engaged brain in the process.

That hasn’t been the obvious American way, though. Shave away and coin a quick buck. It may make sense to company accountants, but it is also, I think, one big reason why internet gloom can’t be wholly blamed for continued decline. Some smaller papers are making too little effort on net coverage (as that Harvard report reveals). Most of the bigger papers, though, have gone digital with a bang. But is anybody thinking about the newsprint version that remains - and still brings in the vast bulk of the profit today?

Apparently not. The dispiriting thing to a travelling, sampling reader in the US (like me) this summer is how stultified the American press has become. Of course there are fine traditions and many fine journalists on display, but the Daily Average Advertiser is a bit pompous and elderly, because its readers are ageing: ready only for the kind of reform nobody is supposed to notice; still turning to page 97; still huddled in monopoly anxiety and corporate inertia.

Why are potentially splendid papers - such as the San Francisco Chronicle - in wonderful towns like San Francisco, so awful? Because nobody seems to try to think or innovate any longer? Because ideas come as thin as the new page size.

Scoble’s already-infamous video shtick says that social-graph-based search (Mahalo, Techmeme, Facebook) will kill Google. And here’s a German newspaper publisher, Christian DuMont Schütte, who says

On my 50th birthday in the spring, I came up with the thesis: In 10 years, Google is dead. . . . We see the first signs already: The eBay euphoria is over. The lifecycle of internet ideas, in terms of content and technology, is completely different from conventional companies in the old economy. . . . (On the internet), the market can be conquered with new ideas again and again.

They both make the mistake of thinking — hoping, perhaps — that Google is too big or too old or too successful to change. I wouldn’t bet on that.

Scoble says it can’t change its algorithms because there’d be an outcry from those who depend on it. But watching companies that do depend on SEO, I can say that those algorithms change constantly. They just made a big architectural change adding in dynamic and multimedia information to search results. I would not assume that Google’s Jell-O is cold yet. Not by a long shot.

There’s another good question here: Can Google layer the social map onto the content map? More on that later.

: By the way, I agree with Dave.

My Guardian column this week argues that what Jimmy Justice does, videotaping errant traffic cops, is vigilante journalism, but journalism nonetheless. (nonregistration version here) Snippet:

So here’s the question: is what Jimmy Justice does journalism? Consider: he is performing the watchdog function of journalism, holding government and its agents to account. He is recording facts; his video camera - oscillating between the no-parking signs and the cops’ licence plates and badges - does not lie. He is asking tough questions. Then he shares what he learns. . . .

But Jimmy’s not slick, he’s sloppily dressed, he has a grating accent and manner, and his camera wobbles. In short, he’s unprofessional.

Aren’t journalists supposed to be professional? Not necessarily. Not anymore. That is precisely what the professional class - in many trades - fears from the internet: it enables the amateurs. And that’s not always pretty. Institutional journalism considers its ability to package - to make things look neat and complete - a key value. But that expectation was really just a necessity of the tools of production: you have one chance to print this story, so make it good. In truth, a news story is a process to which many can now contribute. Life is messy. So is reporting on it. . . .

But I still say that if we care about a watched government and an informed society, then the response to Jimmy shouldn’t be to scold him but perhaps to teach him. Indeed, a commenter on my blog suggested a gadget for Jimmy that would help him hold his camera steadier. Perhaps journalistic organisations should arm a thousand Jimmys with cameras and microphones. Perhaps they should assign the public to report alongside the professionals, to gather more news than could ever be gathered before. Maybe, just maybe, this is an element of a new means - and one new business model - of news: armies of Jimmy Journalists.

MORE: Or they could be Johan Journalists. Martin Stabe says that the German tabloid Bild has used more than 400,000 photos sent readers via their mobile phones and that politicians aren’t happy about it. That must mean they’re doing something right. (Full story auf Deutsch here.) Here’s a key to it: The paper pays €500 if the picture gets in the national edition, €100 in a regional edition. Still cheaper than having 2,500 photographers on staff all over the country.

Catching up on email, blogging and life….

Kara Swisher is pleased to be a part of an Amanda Congdon report and so am I. Amanda’s smitted with the catch-question WWGD.

I read the story in yesterday’s Times — in print — about South Park’s creators making a sweet deal to share revenue and ownership in a larger empire. I was appalled at how long the print story took to get to the damned point. Have they forgotten the idea of a lead? Why am I reading this story? I get the writer’s great insights and prose? No. To get news.

That kind of Vaseline writing won’t work online. Look at NYTimes.com and on the business page they have to get right to the point or no one will click. Online it says:

‘South Park’ Creators Win Ad Sharing in Deal
Comedy Central and the creators of the popular show, “South Park,” have agreed to create a hub to spread the program and related material across the Internet, mobile platforms and video games.

In the paper, here’s how long it takes to get to the point:

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 26 — In March, the season premiere of “South Park” began by barging into typically risqué territory, with a squirm-inducing bit about the taboo of using a certain racial epithet.

To Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators and executive producers of “South Park,” Comedy Central’s most lucrative franchise, the clip ought to have been blazing its authorized way around the Internet, its flouting of social norms picking up ad revenue with every set of eyeballs. Instead, the clip was easy to find, but it wasn’t making any money for its rightful owners.

“If I’m overseas and have to get an episode right away,” Mr. Stone lamented, “you literally have to go to an illegal download site.”

Because of the slow entry into the digital realm of Viacom, Comedy Central’s parent, and an almost crippling deal point in Mr. Stone’s and Mr. Parker’s contract, the lewd, rude, crudely animated and mordantly funny series — one that began with a viral video before the term even existed — has barely had a presence as an avalanche of user-generated entertainment hit the Web. Meanwhile, sites like YouTube met the demand for free “South Park” clips without paying for the privilege.

Now, however, Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker and their bosses at Comedy Central, a unit of Viacom’s MTV Networks, are attempting to leapfrog to the vanguard of Hollywood’s transition into Web. In a joint venture that involves millions in up-front cash and a 50-50 split of ad revenues, the network and the two creative partners have agreed to create a hub to spread “South Park”-related material across the Net, mobile platforms, and video games.

I was ready to scream on the subway. Get to the point. Bring back the inverted pyramid. Stop burying the lead.

Daylife.com (where, full disclosure, I am a partner) gathers and analyzes the world’s news and that allows it to learn some fascinating things about the media’s coverage of the presidential race. Their latest looks at the quotes that were picked up most often by press. In short, these are the sound bites that resonated in the press this week, the spin that sticks. For each candidate:

Barack Obama: “All of our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq”
Hillary Rodham Clinton: “I do not think that a president should give away the bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader unless you know what you are going to get out of that”
Christopher Dodd: “You’re not going to have time in January of ‘09 to get ready for this job”
John Edwards: “Elizabeth is a strong woman who speaks her mind and I applaud her for that”
Mitt Romney: “We must not weaken our policy on Cuba until the Castro regime is dismantled, all political prisoners are freed and Cuba transitions to free and fair elections”
Sam Brownback: “It’s much more akin to the conversation that happens around the dining-room table in Nashua (N.H.) or at the state fair in Iowa rather than on a stage with a dozen candidates all trying to squeeze in their consultant-crafted sound bites”
Joe Biden: “This war must end, but there’s much more at stake as to how it ends”
John McCain: “We’re starting to succeed, and I think we’re seeing some shift in public opinion”
Bill Richardson: “I believe that if you leave any residual forces, then none of the peace that we are trying to bring can happen”
Mike Gravel: “I’m going to vote for myself”
Rudy Giuliani: “I took a city that had just about the highest illegality rates in the country and took it down to one of the lowest.”
Dennis Kucinich: “George, I’ve been standing here for the last 45 minutes, praying to God you were going to call on me”
Tom Tancredo: “I am encouraging the families of the victims to pursue the option of a lawsuit in light of this culpability”

While we’re at it, Ken Ellis, Daylife’s chief scientist, also looked at the most common quotes across all news sourcdes and topics since midnight Sunday. The context isn’t always apparent — which is actually what makes it more fun - so follow the links to each newsmaker’s Daylife page:

George W. Bush: “Clearly, the Iraqi government’s got to do more”
Billy Martin: “Mr. Vick has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to those charges and to accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made”
Ruth Westheimer: “Bravo that the New England Journal of Medicine is publishing something like that. It’s about time”
John Charles: “People with cancer are surviving longer, elderly people are living longer”
Michael V. Hayden: “I thought the release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the front lines of a global conflict”
Marlon Byrd: “This is something freaky. You won’t see anything like this again for a long, long time. I am glad I was on this end of it”
Rob Moore: “It’s likely these miners may not be found”
Ozzie Smith: “It truly is an honor to stand with the very best defensive players”
Portia Simpson Miller: “Do not wait for the last minute to make the decision to move from where you are”
Bob Murray: “Had I known that this evil mountain, this alive mountain, would do what it did, I would never have sent the miners in here”

(Crossposted at Daylife)