Since implementing a fraction of what you outlined, we can report that our google analytics report has improved dramatically. You said increase the conversation(s) beyond yourself and link to other conversations and we’re doing it! Instead of just providing posts from guest bloggers, we are now providing the very latest posts and now people are taking an interest. Actually, whole organizations are taking an interest — linking to our blog at http://www.nhcopenhouse.org now for the latest information on the bailout bill and more, for example. We are now an online community full of conversations (we could still use more people commenting of course… ) and linking to other conversations. We have a long way to go, but we’re on the right track now!! Thanks again!

Michele

They won’t make as much money out there. The revenue stream will be hammered. That is a fact. Absolutely incontrovertible. They still need to move online, because their customers are moving online. 9 out of 10 businesses are unsuccessful in making the transition.

No wonder they make up the lies Jeff is sighing about.

I especially like the “seal of approval”. Everything on the web has a seal of approval, just like everything in MSM. The only difference is whose seal it is.

For example, asking the question “Are there any ethics on the web?” does not imply the questioner is assuming “the web has no ethics,” just as I assume your response is not simply “the web has ethics.” (And the other common response, which I’ve heard Shirky give — that the web has the best and the worst — doesn’t cut it either.)

I get your point in the first part of the post and agree with you — it’s a disservice to you as a speaker when people don’t hear you because they can’t think past simple/closed-minded objections. My problem is with you dismissing the NYU panel for the same reasons. I don’t know anything about those speakers’ qualifications, but on the face of it the panel sounds worthwhile.

The internet is a high speed information filter that ferrets out incorrect information in a very efficient manner. Within a 24 hour news cycle, most rumours and innuedo are shot down by someone with a vested interest in getting the story right. That is far more efficient than the traditional media distribution channels which have historically been very poor at correcting erroneous information (i.e. front page incorrect story, back page retraction a week later). What really bugs them is that this filtering process is occuring at the end point of the news consumer which removes the need for the upstream gatekeeper. This makes them realize that their traditional role as news gatekeeper is ancient history. Hopefully, they will eventually overcome their fears and get with the new way of doing things.

In the light of day the next day, it seemed that level heads prevailed. People were definitely energized by your talk and referenced it extensively on Wednesday. “Googley” was repeated throughout the day, so if nothing else you’ve introduced that into the lexicon.

I don’t think it was a failure on your part. I think the key is that, indeed, these folks are crazy smart–but they also are hesitant to buy in. That’s why they’re in the nonprofit sector, and not flying seat-of-your-pants at a startup. They need to shift their thinking more towards the startup frame of mind, but almost by design that world moves slowly. They take the long view, after all.

By the way, it was too bad that you had to miss the ACLU presentation. They got it. Better than most journalists even.

Dan
http://myeyesglazeover.blogspot.com

There is also signs of progress. We’ve been working with 50 local newspapers. Rather than fighting blogs, they understand the need to harvest that energy. Rather than the paper as an end destination, they see the possibility that the paper is a hub for conversations.

However, during the period of change, arguments can be circular – as old ideas intermix with the new – often with conflicting ideas in the same breath. Patience, time – the basics are clear. Old dogs do change. So do boomers.

-Dash
http://adecon101.blogspot.com/

Answer: Is that a direct quote from the Advertising GOD himself, or another assumption you’ve made without asking?

It’s nearly impossible to verify much of what’s out there….oversight is a problem, no matter what people say. Do you believe everything you read, no, believe nothing, then ask yourself why bother reading at all, or read everything and make up your own mind – but again what’s the point – there is so much out there you could spend all your life reading and not living.

So what to do?

How about some benchmarks to start with – like foundations of a house, otherwise it’s all static and nothing means anything…

These could be existing outlets (old news hubs or online diaries / thought dumps) – but few of them are independent, PR gets in the way, as does paying the bills….

It’s cheap to say eyeballs through advertising are white bread – somebody needs to start the process and open their pocketbooks…

Why should news be free when the people gathering it put themselves at risk, when everything else has a fixed price?

Pay for quality or expect gibberish and implode

As a journalism professor, the approach I take with my intro-level students is to just try to get them to grasp from the beginning that journalism is a method (of verifying and transparently presenting information) and NOT a medium. A blog can be journalism; it can also be something else. (That something else is not inherently bad, it’s just different.)

Obviously, there are also many unique aspects of the blogging medium that can enhance, rather than detract, from their journalistic value, e.g. linking, conversation, etc. and we talk about that too. But my students start out reading Elements of Journalism by Kovach and Rosenstiel to understand what journalism IS – something that is not tied to a certain medium or organization and not limited only to certain people.

This seems, I hope, to be fairly effective. The next generation gets it. Lets just hope we can get them gainful employment doing important work.

…and this is just the start.

* If it seems a reasonable, sincere question, I’ll answer it directly.
* If it is of the more-of-the-same-ignorant-stuff, I’ll suggest that what they are stipulating is true in some cases, but not all or even most. And then try to move on.
* If they insist or others pile on, I’ll stop the discussion by saying, yes, well, how can we use your concerns to our advantage? For instance, if you think bloggers are just throwing out uninformed opinion, wouldn’t you challenge them in the comments area?

Most of the time, I suggest to them that the people they should care most about are the reasonable ones, the ones who are seeking information, trying out ideas, experimenting. Those are the ones they want as their readers and commenters. The inaccurate, the bloviators, the trolls, well, in the end, who cares? Reasonable people will identify them for what they are.

Of course, I’ve also been called naive.

As a business leader, I’d rather have unlimited, uncontrolled interaction around my offerings than limited-and-shrinking, but controlled, distribution of them.

As you and Google have been pointing out over the years the value is not in having rules or attempting to codify standards – it’s in building credibility through links. It’s gaining a reputation or authority, not because someone grants it to you or because you’ve graduated from an accredited institution, it’s because you’ve earned it by putting out your product and having others turn to you for information or whatever you’re providing beacuse you’re the best.

The web is a wilderness that “product producers” have to survive in due to quality of their output and recognition of same rather than their control of the means of distribution (as you constantly point out).

Don’t sigh Jeff. Tell ‘em the way it is!

answer: start reading your local newspaper.