Today ends the Federal Trade Commission’s two-day, (mis)appropriately titled, “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” summit. More appropriate: How Will Journalism Evolve in the Internet Age? Don’t like that? Send in your suggestions.

David Carr’s beautiful eulogy for the old media system and acknowledgment of the new, sums up journalism’s turning point quite gracefully. But from what I’ve been following with the summit yesterday (twitter hashtag: #ftcnews), the old guard was still doing a lot of kvetching.

In tandem with speaking at the summit, Arianna Huffington had a great, no-holds barred, post yesterday on why the old media (read: old white guys) need to get over themselves, let go of the past and start assimilating the possibilities that the future offers. But I think we can take Arianna’s post a couple steps further.

Let’s go in, shall we?

The Current News Ecology+What’s Next
Arianna lays out the reasoning and strategy behind aggregation. While it’s nothing new, it’s a succinct (and fun) description.

…We love it when someone links to one of our posts, or excerpts a small amount and links back to us.

Most sites understand the value of this and the way the link economy operates. It’s why HuffPost gets hundreds of requests from news outlets asking us to feature their material and link back to their site. They understand that the web is not a zero-sum game and that consumers love the freedom to be able to follow where their interests — and the offshoots of a story — take them.

“That’s why I could only roll my eyes when the Wall Street Journal’s Robert Thomson wagged his finger at Google, and complained that it “encourages promiscuity” among news consumers.

Heaven forbid! Let’s be honest, while promiscuity is not good in relationships, it’s great for those looking for news and information. Trying to deny news consumers as wide a range of options and viewpoints as possible seems shortsighted — and ultimately self-defeating.”

Let’s get a little naughtier. We don’t want users just hopping into our bed once. We understand that they might even jump from bed to bed, but we always want them coming back to us again and again for more. And what’s going to bring them back? A little creativity, being a full-fledged partner in the bedroom and the big O! as in “Oh! I really need/like/hate/want to share that reporting/opinion” or “Oh! I want to be/am part of the creative media making process” or “Oh! this is inspiring me to take action.”

So how do we deliver all of that and more? Robust aggregation is the first step. But that’s only solving the issue of bringing together the latest in daily reporting/news. What about what happened a week ago and how that might effect a month from now? How do we work for and with users to stitch this information together that over time will become not just a list of links, but an overarching story that contains links, additional synthesis, data, visuals, reporting and analysis. Media producers need to creatively develop formats and platforms that pull together all the daily bits of news into a long-term narrative for their users that is consistently updating, synthesizing and making sense of news and information over the long-term. This could take many shapes: timelines, wikis, linking, videos, maps or a mashup of all.

For example, it’s been widely acknowledged that Talking Points Memo was the leading journalism organization that broke and pushed the US Attorney scandal story a few years ago. But when you go to their site and search, “Gonzales” (as in former Bush appointee attorney general Alberto Gonzales) all you get is a list of disconnected links to past reporting.

What if news organizations compiled visual timelines of their reporting (as well as aggregating others) that displayed the entire narrative of one issue in one fell swoop? (TPM actually has a basic text timeline of the attorney scandal, but you have to go diffing for it.) Or a wiki that stitched together those critical reporting moments, breaking news and analysis in an easy to read and consistently updatable format? This strategy could also be opportunities to bring users into the mix. Designated members could join in on the fun in putting together the top timeline moments or participate in developing the narrative/information in the wiki and be annointed to make sure it is consistently updated. Or develop an interactive and evolving visualization(s) based on data compiled through the length of the reporting. Any of these formats individually or combined together are appropriate for both short-term news events (i.e. Copenhagen) or long-term issues (the climate crisis).

For example, take a look at the New York Times “skimmer” just launched today as an early prototype. In fact, this is probably just coincidence, bc it is such an important news story yesterday/today, but check out how the top 6 articles relate to each other around Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Now imagine a tool that included a bundle of different Afghanistan-related content organized/threaded together over the last 12 months (or 12 years) that could be searched, reorganized, tagged, constantly updated, synthesized and more.

What does this do for a media producer? Let’s play it out a bit. First, the media producer is solving “filter failure.”, a big issue that both users and media organizations are consistently facing. Second, think about the SEO opportunities which is always good for advertising. Add in the opportunities to develop a deep and committed group of members which enhances to the journalism value chain (Slideshow of The Big Thaw: See Slide 23). And maybe this is the kind of added/needed information that outlets can charge for lead to new opportunities for new revenue generation.

In other words, it could give the media maker and users the big O!

On Business Models/Revenue Generation
As I’ve mentioned before, looking towards the future, we’re not going to find one overall tactic that will change business models forever. Arianna takes a couple paragraphs to knock down the idea of pay walls or micro-payments (different than micro-fundraising) and then notes some of the other experimental options on the table.

Meanwhile, Stephen Brill’s Journalism Online reportedly has 16 different payment schemes that it plans to offer its member publishers. Nieman Lab recently listed six payment models that Brill has trademarked, and that news publishers can employ.

These include: High activity Pay Points (a metered model); Selected Content Pay Points (a partial paywall); Time-based Pay Points (charging for new content only); Enhanced Service Pay Points (charging for special features); Market Access Pay Points (charges based on a users location); and Preview Activity Pay Points (allowing previewing of paid content).

Sure, free news content is not a perfect system but it’s a lot like what Churchill said about democracy: it “is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” That’s the reality. Free content is not without problems. But it’s here to stay, and publishers need to come to terms with that and figure out how to make it work for them.

I like to use the metaphor that revenue models are like cooking a stew.. Everyone has similar stock to start from, but will have to test and experiment with a combination of different of ingredients to create just the right flavor for their users. Or in other words, media producers will have a swath of similar and basic options to start with, but build/test out a combination of different revenue generating options that build on an organization’s strengths, capabilities, and added-values. Of course, organizations aren’t going to know what the perfect recipe is off the bat. It’s going to take some time to experiment and find just right the mix of ingredients.

In addition, when “traditional media” folks talk about business models or revenue generation, they talk about it as if it is completely separate from what’s being done in terms of journalism models, experimentation and community engagement.

In fact, how journalism organizations integrate new models of reporting and storytelling, involve and build its community in the process, respond to what users want/need, and the resulting business models are all the heart of the future evolution and survival of journalism. The Media Consortium’s recent study The Big Thaw: Charting a New Course For Journalism lays out four important questions for media producers to ask themselves:

• How is the playing field changing?
• What new capabilities needed to succeed?
• What needs can be met, problems solved or desires fulfilled?
• How to structure organizations to “capture value”?

The last two questions are key to developing the correct mix (or stew) of revenue generation opportunities.

The Future Is Network-Powered
And last but not least, Arianna starts touching on the heart of our current media environment.

News is no longer something we passively take in. We now engage with news, react to news and share news. It’s become something around which we gather, connect and converse. We all are part of the evolution of a story now — expanding it with comments and links to relevant information, adding facts and differing points of view.

In short, the news has become social. And it will become even more community-powered: stories will be collaboratively produced by editors and the community. And conversations, opinion, and reader reactions will be seamlessly integrated into the news experience.

Instead of “community-powered,” Jessica and I have dubbed this new environment “network-powered.” Media producers need to think about how to strategically harness and engage in both informal and formal networks to increase their audience, enhance their relevance and build their impact. (Once again, this connects to a compatible mix of revenue generation opportunities). This is going to require media producers to have new mindsets and capabilities. The user/audience member isn’t always going to come to directly to the outlet. How do you reach the user/audience member? How do you engage them to spread and use the content through their networks of peers, colleagues, etc.?

For Beyond the Echo Chamber, Jessica and I developed a list of “four networks layers” that media organizations must engage. More to come soon on those, but here’s the list and as an added bonus, short descriptions.

• Networked Users: Media makers must learn to work with users who are connected to multiple networks and can create, distribute, amplify, and serve as ambassadors for the media producer’s content.
• Self-Organized Networks: Users can work together to form ad hoc networks around unifying elements such as shared issues and/or breaking news. Media makers can tap into these networks to spread relevant content, follow breaking trends, and cover collective action
• Institutional Networks: Media makers can also harness more durable networks of users–hosted or organized by institutions–to share content, offer crowdsourcing opportunities, and develop fundraising relationshiops.
• Networks of Institutions: Media makers and outlets cna form collaborative networks to jointly report on complex issues, and structure new models for innovation and collaboration.