« March 24, 2004 | Main
| March 26, 2004 »

March 25, 2004

The Center for Citizens' Media

: It's time for me to talk about an initiative I'm trying to start (with NYU, if I'm lucky) to create a Center for Citizens' Media to enable the growth -- and quality -- of this new medium. I'm inspired to tell you about it now because of the Howard Rheingold quotes below.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

I have a much longer spiel -- ready to send to any foundation! -- on the mission of the center but in a nutshell, I believe that we can serve four constituencies:Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

> Citizen journalists can benefit from education in some of the tricks of the trade (e.g., how to avoid libel, how to file freedom of information requests, how to write a killer lede). I'm not saying that bloggers need to be like big-media journalists but I am saying that media must to embrace this new wave of journalists.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

> Journalism students can, for the first time in history, think and act like entrepreneurs (see Gawker, Gizmodo, Engadget). They can use weblogs to create a body of work that will get them hired. They must learn how to interact with their publics in new ways. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

> Big media needs to learn how to interact with and serve and, most importantly, listen to the citizens formerly known as their audience.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

> News sources -- in politics, government, business -- need to learn how to relate to citizens who can now, finally, speak to them. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

I have much more to say on the topic but I'm motivated to give you a preview because I just read quotes from Howard (Smart Mobs) Rheingold, who gave a wonderful interview to Business Week on the Internet and politics... and journalism:

Rheinhold: I think there's a Darwinian process when you have a large number of people doing it. If 10 million people are publishing their own opinions instead of sitting slack-jawed in front of the tube, that's got to be healthier for the public sphere. The mass media have disempowered people from the process and made them feel disempowered. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

Business Week: What could make blogging more useful to the masses?Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

Rheingold: What's lacking is grounding in good journalism. It's a learned skill that requires some tutelage by people who understand it. I wish that the people in the news business, instead of fearing the bloggers, would help educate them.

I'll be teaching a course at NYU -- the first to bridge the department of journalism and ITP, with Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky -- this summer and fall as a first step toward creating this center and serving the needs Howard identifies.
Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (301)

Best day ever
: VH1's Best Week Ever blog has lots of good, newsy, fun posts today. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (1)

Oh, Noam
: Chomsky has a blog.
What's amazing is not its cant -- nothing amazing there -- but how badly it is written.

I spoke at a demo of about 20,000 people in Vancouver, very enthusiastic and engaged, and as far as I could tell, inspired to go on. Also to audiences of several thousands, which seemed the same. The pre-war demonstrations were without historical precedent, and surely important. The anniversary demos were also without precedent, and again surely will have an impact.

Without precedent? Did you put yourself to sleep through the '60s? Or getaloada this doozie:

There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

This blog should come with aspirin. [via Anil, who calls it "red meat for warbloggers"... if only there were meat there]
Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (12)

Copy cop
: Reuters is going to use FAST search to find unauthorized uses of its content and violation of its copyright on the Internet and in print. That's a clever use of the technology. But the first time Reuters goes after a blogger for snipping too long a quote -- how long is too long? -- there'll be a storm. The FAST press release here. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (6)

Dirty old man
: Just like the good old Clinton days: In the rally at which Dean endorsed Kerry, there were lots of pretty intern-aged enthusiasts behind the podium. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (19)

Bloggercon: The business of blogs

: I'm delighted that Dave Winer has asked me to handle a session at Bloggercon (I had a ball playing Oprah -- complete with bad words -- at the last BCon).Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

The topic: Making blogs a business.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

Please start the discussion here and now. In Dave's wise view of these sessions, there are no panels -- hell, in this area, there are no experts (yet) -- and so everybody is on the panel, everybody is an expert, it's all your show. Shape it now. Ask questions. Push the discussion. Let's get to Cambridge ready to rock 'n' roll.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

Let's make clear from the very start: Many people don't want their blogs to be a business. Dandy.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

But for those who do, I want to see everyone in the room answer two questions (or you tell me what the questions are) in a giant white-board business brainstorming session. My starting list:Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

1. What is the business potential of blogs? What is their value? Can they sell products? Can they sell subscriptions (to themselves or to other media)? Can they provide consumer opinion and buzz? What about sponsorship and underwriting? How many tip jars can the world support? What about blogging for The Man? Is Google enough to support this medium? Let's sell blogs to ourselves and find all the ways they can be supported financially.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

2. What's required to make that happen -- from a business and a technical perspective? Do we need reliable ways to count traffic, demographics, behavior, authority, and so on? Do we need technology for standard ad calls and reporting? Do we need our own PR to sell the value of blogs to marketers? Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

And we should also ask: What are the booby traps? How should bloggers handle conflict of interest? Do we need to guard against our readers being ripped off by bad advertisers? Do bloggers need to worry about being ripped off? Does it ruin this personal medium to become a business medium? Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

That's just a start. So keep the discussion going now -- here and on the Bloggercon site.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

Hope to see you and hear you in Cambridge!Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: Here's the run-up to Jay Rosen's session on journalism at Bloggercon (I'll be there).
: And here's the start of the power law discussion (based on Clay Shirky's writing), to be led by Nick Denton. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: Henry Copeland of Blogads is properly reminding us all that weblogs already make money -- thanks to Blogads (plus Google AdSense). Sorry. I assumed that. No need to sell the sold. Blogads is growing like mad. But I'm also talking about how to get the most out of that -- for example, how do we get more blogs involved and convince more advertisers to use them -- and how to imagine new value and new revenue; let's dream!Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (25)

WTF
: Damn. I have tried to move every mountain to go to David Isenberg's WTF but those damned mountains won't budge. The agenda looks great. If you're around NY, go! And blog!Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (0)

Koranized for your protection
: Fleet Street Blogger sends us to an absurd story in the Guardian about the Guardian:
A newsagent cut pictures out of the Guardians he sold this week because it offended him. The picture was of a sword over the Koran.
As FleetStreet points out, what's even more disturbing is that the customers who bought that paper and the paper itself didn't complain but instead tripped over themselves to be PC about it:

In a letter published in the paper yesterday, a human rights lawyer, John Rowe QC, described buying his Guardian "in this most tolerant of cities" and finding that it had a front page hole.
He said yesterday: "I bought my Guardian, went to Starbuck's, got my tall latte, settled down, opened the paper - and found I could see Deansgate through it.
"I raced back to the shop and asked 'What have you done here?' and was told 'I have done it to all of them'."
In his letter, Mr Rowe said: "We parted amicably and I quite enjoyed being tolerant."

Well, yes, that's where the media world is going: Why not go to a newsstand that matches your sensibilities: We take out all stories Republican [or Democrats] wouldn't like as an addes service for our customers.
Arrrrgh. [Thanks, Nick]Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (4)

Jeesh
: I happen to have today's Rumsfeld briefing on and the questions are particularly dumb today.
One guy asks how many terrorists are there who want to attack the U.S. Well, how the hell could he know? Hold still, Osama, it's time for the annual American-hating terrorist census.
And then another reporter gets all PC asking whether it was in poor taste for the President to joke about trying to find WMDs at last night's radio and TV correspondents' dinner -- and Rumsfeld wasn't even at the dinner and didn't tell the joke or laugh at it. Oy. Spare me a world in which the secretary of defense has to pass a daily PC cuddly test.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (3)

The apology
: Something's not resting well with Richard Clarke's apology for September 11. He said before the commission and families of victims yesterday:

i also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

This assumes that government absolutely could have stopped the attack -- and failed. Oh, I wish we could be guaranteed that government absolutely could stop these things but I've seen no proof or assurance of that.
He's practically treating government the way a fundamentalist treats God: an omnipotent being who could and would intervene and fix this if he wanted to. So he's turning government into a bad god -- is that thus a devil? -- who could have stopped these attacks but didn't; it failed.
It may seem like he's quite the mensch by including himself in this apology: "I failed." But he's throwing himself on his rhetorical sword so he can accuse the government -- the administration -- of failing and thus, by its sins of omission and negligence, of practically being complicit in the deaths. I find that offensive; As I said yesterday, it plays into the politicization of 9/11; it makes this about us vs. us instead of us vs. them.
When I first heard Clarke's apology and the start of his testimony, I thought there might be something to listen to here. I haven't said much about Clarke because I haven't yet decided what I think of what he's saying. But I have to say that as his apology sat on the stomach like a bad burrito and came up this morning like a burp, I came to think that his apology was disingenous, melodramatic, and ultimately divisive. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

:UPDATES
: David Schuler has more to say on the apology, including this: "There is so much room for the assignment of blame that the very act of attempting to assign blame is frivolous."
: Rex Hammock is mad:

Okay, Mr. Clarke. The government that failed those families has now dedicated billions of dollars and hundreds of lives of its courageous military to stamp out those who threaten our shores. In all theaters of battle, young American soldiers and sailors have printed the the words, "We shall never forget" on weapons, vehicles and military aircraft in honor of those who died on 9/11.
Mr. Clarke, what similar level of resitution have you displayed for your failure other than an attempt to cash in on that tragedy with your book promotion? And now, on the graves of those victims, you grandstand an apology to promote its marketing efforts.
So therefore, Mr. Clarke, I suggest you do this: Announce today that ALL PROCEEDS of the book (not just a portion of the profits, but ALL PROCEEDS) will go to one of the funds that have been set up for the families of the victims...or another specific charity that will help give meaning to your disingenous apology.

: EVENING UPDATE: Scott Rosenberg responds to the apology:

But just reading those words in newspaper reports made me think that the words of the former head of counterterrorism will go down as one of those defining moments in American public life, like the Army-McCarthy hearings' "Have you no decency, sir, at long last" or the Watergate hearings' "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
Because Clarke's words exposed a deep emotional vacuum in the Bush administration's handling of 9/11. Bush and his team won widespread acclaim for their bullhorn-toting, Bible-waving, smart-bomb-dropping reaction to the terror attacks. And each of those responses had its place, accomplished something in the long process of coming to terms with the death and destruction of that day. But the Bush approach, with its macho swagger punctuated by interludes of lower-lip-biting moments of silence for our collective loss, has never fully satisfied the national psyche.

Oh, fercrhissake, this is not about feelings! This is about life and death! This is about finding bad guys and killing them before they kill us. Enough with apologies and emotions and psyches. This is war. Let's go win it. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (118)

Condemn what?
: Will the U.N. also condemn the Palestinians sending a 14-year-old boy to Israel as a suicide bomber?Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (54)

The Daily Bob
: Heh.
There's now a Save Bob Edwards site. [via Wonkette]Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (5)

The Daily Stern

: THE BOSS: Viacom chief and long-time Howard booster Mel Karmazin defends Stern to the Wall Street Journal:

"You know, I think he has been a target," Karmazin continued. "If you think about what happened, it was that Janet Jackson happened. I get subpoenaed. They now talk about radio as well as that. Another company canceled Howard's show for no reason other than that they were going to Washington to testify and just didn't seem to have the courage to stand up for programming that they aired. And we absolutely stand up for what Howard is doing."

Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: SATELLITE ECONOMICS: The LA Times comes a bit late to the Stern-impact-on-satellite story and finds an XM exec negotiating in public, poormouthing about how they can't afford Stern:

Hugh Panero, XM Satellite's chief executive, pooh-poohed the possibility, saying he doubted whether XM or Sirius could afford the reported $20 million Stern pulls down a year through his contract with Viacom Inc.'s Infinity Broadcasting.
They might be able to come up with that kind of dough soon, though: XM's and Sirius' stocks are trading near 52-week highs as the number of subscribers and satellite-capable radios keeps increasing.

Don't believe the XM guy; he has an audience of one -- Stern's agent -- in mind.
Let's look at the numbers:
I saw a number recently that said that Stern brings in $100 million in radio.
If he went to satellite, let's say he took a quarter of his 8-million-plus listeners with him.
So let's say that 2 million new subscribers come in -- doubling the current total satellite radio customer base -- and that they each pay $10 per month (more for Sirius). That would be $240 million per year. And they would have produced that growth without marketing and subscriber-acquisition costs; Stern will have done that for them.
So even if you cut that in half and it's still more than Stern reportedly produces now.
And it builds the industry. The impact on the stock would be monumental.
And that means that the satellite company could pay Stern in great measure in stock and options.
Oh, they can afford him... if they can build radios fast enough (which, Stern says, is an issue).
The numbers surprised me. His impact could be huge.
Meanwhile, see the AdAge story I quoted yesterday: Broadcast radio will get safer and older and smaller. Satellite will then grow even bigger. And the stock will rise more.
I'm not selling my Sirius stock yet.
MediaDrop's Tom (and my colleague Peter Hauck) wonder about whether Stern could also offer his show to both satellite companies. That could work, though then neither would have an exclusive edge and neither would give him equity. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: MORE ON THE BANDWAGON: Sun-Times columnist and movie critic Richard Roeper comes out for Stern and against the FCC.Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: FAME: Choire Sicha is doing radio interview on Stern. OK, I'm jealous. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

[Confidential to producers: I'm available for opinions and sound bites.]Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: ATTORNEY TO THE STARS: HowardStern.com is linking to Ernie Miller's great pieces on the FCC's insane decisions. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: THE RIGHT TO READ: I had an email conversation with Ernie asking about the rights of the audience in all this and what standing we have in the cases that are sure to follow:
> Do we have a right to listen (which Ernie said is called the "right to read" in legal discussion): That is, can we argue that our First Amendment rights have been violated if the FCC successfully stifles political speech (no matter how it gets there)?
> Do we have a right to a spokesman? If a person speaks for us and he is silenced, does that violate our rights and give us standing?
> Do we have a right to be free of the fear that the government will fine us if we say something that, under its vague regulation, is deemed indecent or profane while we are, say, being interviewed by a radio reporter or yelling something at a broadcast concert or sporting event or calling into a talk-radio show?
It's doubtful that we could file suit against the FCC but we can file friend-of-the-court briefs once suits are filed. And as Ernie said, free speech is a matter of distribution: There's a sender and a receiver and when the rights of one are affected, so are the rights of the other. Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

: PREVIOUS DAILY STERN POSTS: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
Cracks for Fraps 2.7.1

LINK | Comments (13)