The future of news
: The Editors Weblog is blogging a worldwide confab of newspaper editors in Turkey (to which I wish I’d managed to finagle an invite). A report on the future of news by Andrew Nachison and Dale Peskin of the American Press Institute, who propose three new models for news:
The first is called the “know-trust network” — a personal community where informal networks are exchanging news, information and conversation. “They are becoming the principle means of learning and discovery,” said Mr. Peskin and they could eclipse traditional media.
The second is referred to a digital everything. “All news and information will need to be virtual, digital and mobile,” he said.
And the third proposition is the power of an individual person. “The individual — not large institutions, will exert unprecedented power,” he said.
Not sure what it all means. I’ll wait for the PowerPoint.
: Meanwhile, Australian media man Brandan Hopkins responded to Warren Buffett’s pessimistic outlook on the newspaper biz:
“Buffett said, ‘the economics of newspapers in the United States are very close to certain to deteriorate over the next 10 to 20 years.’ This would be due to increased competition for advertising dollars from other media. Now, you ignore Warren Buffett at your peril. But I think it is relevant that he singled out United States newspapers, which in general have not kept pace with the product developments being seen elsewhere in the world. US
newspaper houses must innovate to survive.”
: And Dean Wright, editor of MSNBC.com and Jean-Louis Cebri
Spirit of America
: Please go and read Dan Gillmor’s wonderful column on Spirit of America. I’m going to have much more to say about this tomorrow…..
: Two once-anonymous bloggers have taken off their masks.
Patterico — the guy who got the LA Times to cover stories they should be covering — let Mark Glaser print his real name in the story about bloggers’ influence on big media. He’s Patrick Frey. There, that didn’t hurt, did it?
Armed Liberal just revealed himself to be Marc Danziger, who just signed onto be COO of Spirit of America (more on that shortly). Danziger said that as we discussed the need for transparency in this endeavor (and, see below, in media and business and government) it was time to come out.
A few weeks ago, I speculated that Atrios, now unemployed, would take off his mask and he left a comment saying he just might. And he should.
I know we’ve had this debate on anonymity many times over. But I say again that in this new medium that values and demands transparency, openness, and honesty from government, politics, journalism, business, and the academe, it’s hypocritical to hide behind a chicken’s mask of anonymity.
And in this medium whose greatest liability is the conversational terrorism of comment trolls, it’s dangerous to give them cover by demanding cover yourself.
I have much more respect for writers who are willing to put their monikers where their mouths are. I have no respect whatsoever for trolls who snipe and run into their rat holes of anonymity.
The excuses for not revealing your identify are — let’s be honest — rare. If you have the courage of your convictions, then follow the examples of Danziger and Frey. Reveal yourselves.
I can stop anytime, really
: Fred Wilson reacts to the NY Times story on blogging as an addiction:
The basic gist of the article is that blogging is an addiction and the people who do it are nuts. At least that’s what I took from the piece.
It’s not surprising that the New York Times would take this tack on blogging. I remember when the Internet was new on the scene back in the mid-90s and the New York Times was constantly talking about all the sex fiends trying to pick up kids on the Internet. The idea that there are new forms of media that they don’t understand is inherently terrifying to the people who run the large newspapers. And so their coverage of new forms of media are inherently biased negatively.
And Scoble, the most addicted blogger I know, also responds:
My response? I’m addicted. But let’s compare addictions:
Blogging vs. Illegal Drugs. Drugs are illegal, so you can get thrown in jail. So far blogging has remained legal in the US (if you’re blogging in countries like Iran or China, though, watch out). Drugs make you feel good. Blogging makes me feel good. Drugs eventually reduce your brain size. Blogs make your brain bigger. Drugs make you feel crappy the next day. Blogging doesn’t have a hangover, unless you count all the comments and email that a good blog generates. Drugs cost lots of money and you have to visit substandard neighborhoods to get them. Blogs are free (or almost so).
I found the right answer to my wife as she launched an intervention. I explained that just because the laptop was on my lap, that didn’t mean I was blogging. This is how I read the paper. It’s the same as her sitting on the couch reading a magazine.
Joi’s love letter
: The AP writes a most admiring feature on Joi Ito.