Media nerds like me are counting down the days until the iPad becomes available, and a software designer friend of mine just asked me if I thought it would finally constitute a new publishing platform. Here’s what I dashed off:

I think it might do what the iPhone did in that it will rapidly demonstrate the possibility of a new kind of interaction for a wide range of users–i.e., a full-sized touchpad, which isn’t too common on laptops right now. Right after the iPhone came out, we saw a spate of Android phones and other smartphones with the touchpad interface. If the cheap knockoffs start rolling out like mad then I think it’ll really make a difference, especially if schools start adopting them for textbooks and interactive learning. There’s real money there, plus a captive market.

In the short term, it will definitely ratchet up the possibilities for app-driven news, like the one for “This American Life.” And I can see it doing amazing things, finally, for interactive books, especially photo books and graphic novels. But I don’t know if it’ll provide a business model for magazine and newspaper publishers, since people have gotten so used to getting their breaking news for free. They’ll really have to work to find the right price point and to identify the value-added content users will pay more for. News readers have gotten a lot of us so inured to headline skimming that the idea of delving deeply into a story is becoming more foreign. But infographics and maps are tailor-made for this kind of quick-zooming interface, so news that’s delivered that way will flourish. And if there are great interfaces for news skimming, those will rise to the top as well.

God knows I don’t need another gadget (especially another Apple gadget), but I’m definitely curious to get my hands on it. People are complaining that you can’t multitask, but that might actually be a plus if the goal is to get people to consume more immersive, interactive media instead of skating away to their email or whatever. I can also see it being the kind of thing that lies around in the kitchen on some fancy stand, and you read over your coffee, and then use later in the day to look up a recipe or whatever. As the price drops this will become more viable. Smart add-ons will also be in demand, like a rack that would allow you to mount it on the wall like a mini-flatscreen, or a waterproof case that’ll let you read in the bathtub. THAT’s what’d get me to purchase it!

Of course, this is all armchair speculation, based on no substantive consumer research. But it did get me wondering what the iPad might do for political media–especially the sometimes ideologically heated networked media of the kind we describe in the book. As Jonathan Zittrain points out, as with the iPhone, “If Apple is the gatekeeper to a device’s uses, the governments of the world need knock on the door of only one office in Cupertino, California–Apple’s headquarters–to demand changes to code or content. Users no longer own or control the apps they run–they merely rent them minute by minute.”

Something to watch.

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.

I’ve been following the tweets coming out of @FishbowlNY as they faithfully cover MPA Magazines 24/7 Conference Fifth Digital Conference ‘Navigating a New Reality.’.

I’m posting some screen shots of their tweets, because, well, I can’t retweet them all!

This sounds familiar. Sorta like what The Media Consortium is doing for its members?

I think there are some great journalism, collaborative, data-driven projects that progressive media should explore. I even posted an example as I’m following media coverage about the economy.

And last, but not least…

It’s all about collaboration folks! How do we raise money, impact, influence by working together? (Are there ways to make lemonade out of lemons?) There is going to be a lot of coordination forced out of this economic crisis, but i actually think this was the natural progression that we were heading towards anyways. There are so many media projects out there now: organizations and advocacy groups, individuals, institutions, that there’s got to be ways to a) break the white-noise barrier b) organize content and coordination across outlets for maximum impact c) find creative solutions to reach new revenue sources or find backend opportunities to save money.

Columbia Journalism Review wrote a piece on the new international news web site Global Post. I’m still deciding if I like the look and feel of the web site, but their journalism and business model infrastructure is fascinating. Here are some major highlights.

What is it?

…it was founded by veteran journalists Phil Balboni and Charlie Sennott; that it currently employs seventy freelance correspondents covering nearly fifty countries, seven of them dedicated to transnational, idea-based beats; that these correspondents are supported by fourteen U.S.-based staff members focused on editing and multimedia production; and that the outlet’s three-tiered financial structure relies on advertising, syndication (in print and online), and—this is the biggie—reader subscriptions.

Reader subscriptions you say? No. They must be joking. Haven’t we proven that audiences will NOT pay for content? Ah yes-but will they pay to be part of the editorial decision-making process?

The subscription service in question, Passport—whose $199 price tag, it’s worth noting, is an “introductory” rate for “charter members”—promises not merely access to “premium content” (podcast-y “conference calls” with correspondents, “newsmaker interviews,” a monthly digital newsletter and a weekly editor’s brief), but also access to the ears of GlobalPost’s editors. Passport members will have a say as to which stories correspondents are assigned: editors will choose their top story ideas, and paying readers will get to vote for their favorites. Those readers will be able, in other words, to take part in crowdsourcing that is editorial, rather than reportorial, in nature. GlobalPost’s is a model driven not only by the core premise that good journalism should be paid for, but also by the hope that the promise of investment on an editorial level will engender investment on a financial one as well.

The role of their journalists/correspondents:

Voice—though not bias—is encouraged, and not just in reporters’ blogs, but in their stories, as well. The point of hiring correspondents who live in the countries they’re covering is to avoid parachute journalism, to be sure, but it’s also to publish pieces of writing whose assertions are bolstered by their reporters’ daily experience. “Voice” suggests authenticity, but it requires authority to be truly effective. The logistical challenges faced by parachute correspondents—developing sources; learning which of those sources to trust; navigating, in every sense, new locales—won’t be as common for GlobalPost correspondents who, even when they’re not in their home cities, will be reporting from their home countries. Those correspondents, the thinking goes, will legitimize themselves and their stories—and the way they tell those stories—not just by being there, but by living there.

Oh my goodness. Give this journalist the interview!

For more, read here.

In the wake of Black Wednesday–where book publishers conducted massive firings and hiring freezes–both the New York Times and Salon.com have written a few persepectives on the demise of the traditional book industry.

Jason Boog of Salon.com is calling it “the end of days” for the book industry and questions if and how it will survive.

Thanks to conglomeration and corporate distribution models, some of publishing’s biggest houses were laid very low by the current stock market collapse. And scary holiday book sales figures compounded the industry’s woes, with recent news of a 20 percent drop in sales in October from last year’s book market. Even worse, Nielsen Book Scan reported a 6.6 percent drop in unit sales during early December. Not even the holiday season could bolster book sales.

Boog notes that many of the big booksellers refused to look at the market and new distribution models–failing to integrate the rise of online electronic media as well as resting on big selling books, rather than mid-level books that allow smaller publishing houses to be more nimble and creative. “As the corporate monoliths limp into 2009, a number of smaller, more independent houses could thrive during this recession. A few of those presses have structured themselves to avoid long-standing problems that got big publishing into this mess: high advances, long author lists and spiraling costs,” Boog writes.

In yesterday’s NY Times, David Streifeld details his own culpability in the industry’s fast fall–noting that the search for cheap books and the rise of online reselling cuts the author, the publisher and the book store out of the profits.

In other words, it’s all the fault of people like myself, who increasingly use the Internet both to buy books and later, after their value to us is gone, sell them. This is not about Amazon peddling new books at discounted prices, which has been a factor in the book business for a decade, but about the rise of a worldwide network of amateurs who sell books from their homes or, if they’re lazy like me, in partnership with an Internet dealer who does all the work for a chunk of the proceeds.

They get their books from friends, yard sales, recycling centers, their own shelves. castoffs (I just bought a book from a guy whose online handle was Clif Is Emptying His Closet). Some list them for as little as a penny, although most aim for at least a buck. This growing market is achieving an aggregate mass that is starting to prove problematic for publishers, new bookstores and secondhand bookstores.

Yes–the death knell is ringing for the traditional media industry. And it’s going to be bumpy and scary. It’s going to damage a lot of individuals who are losing their jobs in the interim. But for the broader future–this is an opportunity to really understand how to repackage, redistribute, and rethink the kind of long form information and storytelling that makes up books. I’m not an expert on the book industry, but I can imagine if it’s anything similar to the magazine industry–rethinking how to print and distribute to reach audiences beyond the traditional means is a must. They will need to think about how to be competitive with the Streifeld’s of the world or fulfill a need that these amateurs can’t (maybe offer exclusive audio/video commentary from the author or help organizing online and offline conversation groups about the book).

From Kindle to accessing a book on your IPhone there are innovative new ways to distribute long-form information to the world and to potentially reach new audiences. (Maybe release an electronic chapter a day!)

I’d love to hear from the small innovative presses that are thinking about what the industry might look like 5 to 10 years from now–and what they are doing to be on the cutting edge of that change.

All I know is that while this might be the end of days for the traditional book industry, it is not the end of days for books. I’m on a working vacation in the Outer Banks right now. And in between blogging, writing, planning and phone calls–I’m staring longingly at the huge stack of fiction and non-fiction books I lugged along on the plane with me (I can’t help adding 20 pounds to my luggage.) And I just can’t wait to curl up with each one, dive into the first sentence and emerge with a sigh on the last. And then open another book.

Obama's worst habit, "his Blackberry."

On this quiet Sunday afternoon (for once!) I managed to get through almost the entire dead tree version of the NY Times. In today’s paper and throughout the last week, I’ve read and watched many hypotheses, recommendations, and opinions of what Obama should do once he moves into the White House. Dozens of articles, tv commentators and everyday citizens have offered their own take on how Obama should go about handling the economy, health care, foreign policy, the environment, and much more. I will leave it to better people to offer the policy recommendations. But I want to offer my $.02 on how to deal with the “information bubble” presidents live in with a staffing recommendation.

On the front page of the NY Times, the article, “Lose the Blackberry? Yes He Can, Maybe” caught my eye because it tapped into an idea that’s been swirling in my mind for the last 24 hours. The article detailed that on the the day of his ascension to the presidency, Mr. Obama will have to surrender his blackberry AND his email. The reason?

In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful.

Before I get into my idea, I want to say a quick-”seriously”? I am no where near as important or on the same need-to-be-connected level as our soon-to-president, but you’d have to pry those communication tools out of my cold, dead hands before I let them go. (My husband calls me “Textor”–an affectionate/exasperated reference to childhood villain Skeletor.) For email alone: I test much of my articulation and argument development through this one-on-one communication. It has become an essential tool for organizing staff and next steps. It is part of my trifecta for inundating others with information/news that I want them to consume (in addition to Twitter and Facebook.) Blackberries, iPhones, etc., are key to the non-stop traveler to access news, events, alerts from around the world and the web at a moment’s notice. (BTW–Obama says checking his Blackberry is his worst habit.)

And of course, let’s not forget argument the derision directed at Sen. John McCain when his surrogate tried to defend his luddite boss with the desperate statement, “John McCain is aware of the Internet.” In this global, networked, 24-7 world–knowing about and actually using the Internet, is essential to running a business, much less a country.

But back to the point at hand. The NY Times article was another reminder of how cut off Presidents become to their past feeder system of information, news, personal recommendations, push back, etc… once they are in office. They no longer receive news and insights recommended by friends who know what interests them (or want to push them to look at something another way). They are filtered info by key staff (and who knows what the judgment is behind the filtering.) They also lose key local connections that they maintained as a senator or governor, where at least a minimum level of dialogue with their constituents is expected.

So-every president in modern times has had to deal with these problems. Why is this such a big deal for Obama? A couple key reasons:
1) Obama built his incredibly successful campaign on being able to hear and respond to a diversity of people across a broad swath of America. The sentiment of many is that Obama is “theirs.” While people might be patient with the idea that real change is going to come in time, they won’t be patient if they feel like they’ve lost his ear.

The community organizer in Obama knows how important it is to hear directly from the people. In community organizing, the first lesson you learn is that the people effected by the issue are most often, the experts on solutions to the problem–not the lobbyists, the think tank experts, the attorneys, or the politicians. (Hi–anyone remember predatory lending? Community organizations were calling that 8 years ago. I know, I was working on it.) He built his campaign on the tenents of organizing and his presidency should be built on the same sentiment.

2) Obama is surrounding himself with a lot of extremely smart and savvy staffers and advisers (whether you like the Clinton refugees or not–they do have some smarts.). I know there are a broad swath of staff responsible for communicating with and keeping the president up-to-date on key issues. They write memos and recommendations for the president, but I wonder how many are directly in touch with the communities and people they are making policy recommendations on behalf of. How many of them are tapping into the progressive media as a touchstone to the debates within the liberal to progressive movement? In fact, in this time of change and ideas, it is critical to be integrating in the research, news and punditry of the progressive (and ok-some conservative) media. (As of August–this was Obama’s daily news diet.)

So how do you-as President Obama-stay in touch with your incredibly complicated, important, creative, messy, diverse, passionate, potentially fickle and brilliant base?

Hire a few “Special Community Liaisons.”

My (working) job description for a Special Community Liaison:
1. Develop relationships with key local and national organizations who work on xxxx (xxxx=to be determined) issue(s)

2. Meet one-on-one with staff and members of those organizations on a regular basis to discern top concerns, news, trends, and policy recommendations from those communities and interest-based groups

3. Consume 10-15 media outlets, journalists and think tanks on a daily basis who write about xxx issue to discern top concerns, news, trends, and policy recommendations.

4. Create comprehensive reports on interviews, news, that detail out the current landscape of xxx issue for President and key staff (reports can be multi-media: combining audio, video, print text).

5. Write recommendations on how the Obama administration should or could publicly and privately respond on xxx issue(s).

6. Organize one to two in-person meetings/conferences a year with Obama administration and key community groups to help both sides articulate priorities.

7. Connect noted media outlets with Obama administration staffers. Connect media and journalists to key information.

8. Integrate and use TBD approved social networking and blog tools to open up conversations around xxx issue(s) with larger constituency of Americans.

This position could be the network node of communication b/w Obama and the country on specific issues that will impact millions of people and the health of our nation. The information won’t be instantaneous and he won’t be able to hold it in the palm of his hand. But in some ways it could be even better, because Obama would be hearing directly from the people and that’s something even a Blackberry can’t do.

The amazing Rebecca Traister has a great article about the politicizing of daytime TV during this election cycle.

The timing of this article was great, because just yesterday I was telling Jessica about the how the The View has been a hotbed of political debate and amazing interviews–including the now-infamous grilling of Sen. John McCain. Jess gave me a look of, “huh?” Today I’m like, “See, See!”

Jezebel also makes a key point about this phenomenon:

Obviously, a huge part of the appeal of The View is that the women on the panel are much more accessible to the viewing public than a wonky news anchor on CNN or even the more partisan MSNBC and Fox News. The one danger — and this is a criticism I’ve heard aimed at satirical shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show — is the possibility that a show like The View is a person’s only source of political news. However, I’d imagine that anyone who looks to Babs and the team for their sole political fix probably wouldn’t be reading anything about the election otherwise, so perhaps it’s better that they get information in a less than serious way than not at all.

Here are two different type of video news pieces to get your morning started off on an introspective foot. Now what I want you to think about is not just the news being conveyed, but how its being conveyed. The medium, the tone, the look, the breadth of information packed in a short time period…

MobLogic.tv is one of my favorite online news destinations. Each episode is less than 10 minutes (I can watch in one sitting), it’s fun, funky and snarky without trying too hard, it’s high quality video coupled with great news and analysis and the host Lindsay Campbell is smart, funny and easy to relate to (she’s cool like me!).
Funny and smart without saying a word…
Oh hell, let’s throw another one in so you can see her combo of personality and news reporting. I might have a girl news crush–but can you blame me?
Via, Jack and Jill, I found This Week in Blackness, a video site combining race reporting and analysis with a high dose of black (pun sorta intended) humor. There are some versions that are not safe for work, but check this one out.

And one more for the road… This video touches on the subject of the Obama Waffles reported on both by the American News Project and also reported on The Media Consortium’s own Adele Stan.

What do you think of these two different media products? Is there any progressive media doing anything remotely similar to this?

Over the last few days I was at the Park Center for Independent Media’s inaugural symposium. It was great to hang, talk, learn from and gossip with some of my favorite independent media producers and thinkers. Josh Marshall of the illustrious Talking Points Memo (which will be spotlighted in our upcoming book) was the featured speaker yesterday evening. I twittered my way through the speech and thought it would be fun to share. Start from the bottom up.

Twitter of Josh Marshall's speech...

(If you’re on twitter, check out tweets from @digidave and @AmandaRMichel on the speech as well.)