Saving journalism (and killing the press)

I’m in Philly at the Annenberg School of Communication for the Norg unconference: A remarkable, perhaps historic, gathering of newspaper people and bloggers starting a conversation about saving news. Will Bunch, a columnist on the Daily News and blogger wrote a post four or five months ago about newspapers reaching their nadir. Karl Martino, a blogger who started PhillyFuture, a gaggle of local bloggers, responded and together with colleages — Wendy Warren, an editor at the Daily News; Susie Madrak of Suburban Guerilla and with hosting from Annenberg — they put together this day.

I say this is the day that the war ends. This isn’t journalism against bloggers anymore. It never was, really. This is journalists and bloggers together in favor of news.

Will Bunch says that in the time since he wrote his post, newspapers are finally showing visible change: newspapers trying not to think of themselves as newspapers but as news organizations (hence “norg”). He says that “newspaper people had staked their identity on being newspaper people.” The conversations at papers on what to do about shrinkage were all about print circulation. “People as recently as a year ago were living in a dreamworld about how to salvage” what they do. He says that in the first 20 years of his career, it’s amazing how little changed. “It was a very static world for the last 50 years…. It was hard for us to imagine a world where newspapers weren’t the dominant news source…

Karl Martino comes up with the wiser metaphor for media’s world change. We always say that TV didn’t kill radio; ergo, newspapers must be safe. Karl, instead, sees this as LPs moving to CDs to MP3s. One m medium — paper — may, indeed, go away. “The music remains. The music doesn’t go away.”

The goal of the day up on the screen: “All we have to do is create the future of local news in Philadelphia. We are the right people to make this happen. The ideas we develop are the essential ideas.”

This is an unconference — no speakers, the agenda in the hands of everyone — because, Warren says, “Whoever’s in the conversation is the right person to have in the conversation.”

And so it begins, with introductions:

Dan Rubin, the newspapers’ daily blogger here (and a good reporter and nice guy) says that he goes out in the morning to pick up his papers and when he returns home his kids already know the news from one.

Fred Mann, who started and runs for the papers (we started working together, lo, 12 years ago when I was at Advance) says he just returned from San Jose, where he saw his Knight Ridder colleagues. If this were a vlog, you’d see eyes roll and hear a sigh.

The folks from Phillyblog — which is really a forum — say that they have 6,000 members who report the news. If there has been a shooting, they say, you’ll learn about it immediately from “the people who heard the bullets.”

Duncan Black, aka Atrios (sans laptop), says he’s here because he loves local news and we need to find the way and the economic model to tell the story of the city better.

I’m not giving you the intros to nearly all the people; I don’t type that fast. But it’s a wonderful assemblage of people who are here because they care about news.

Carl Lavin, deputy ME of the Inquirer, says that he works with more than 100 journalists covering the suburbs but that there are hundreds of thousands of people in those suburbs who know more and the question is how to collaborate. He says that newspapers have been talking about being cross-platform for years but — and I’m paraphrasing — that they didn’t get it or mean it. But Bunch’s coining of “norg” has made a change, he said. Lavin also brings up the other question that always comes up: how to make money to support this.

Madrak, a journalist-turned-blogger, says that newspaper people make a mistake when they think that bloggers hate newspapers. They don’t. Bloggers love newspapes; they just get disappointed when they aren’t everthing they can be. (I corrected this quote later with Madrak’s guidance.)

Two students talk about wanting to do this for a living but they are concerned about whether they will be able to. I’d say it’s not clear whether they can get a job. It’s also not clear whether they can make a living. But I do believe they can be paid.

Jen Musser-Metz, who works at (and with whom I used to work way back at the beginnings of says that she works to bring the Inquirer newsroom into this century.

Someone who works with the local Indymedia (can’t see his nametag) says his concern is how to fund investigative journalism. The business question comes up from all sides.

Amy Webb of Dragonfire says that she left newspapers because she couldn’t stand editors. That, I recall, is why Nick Denton and I said in an IM long ago, in my blog infancy, said we liked blogs: “no editors.”

: The question at an unconference is: what’s the agenda? The group contributes agenda proposals, going up on a wiki to be edited. A blob of those, all unfairly summarized:

Webb says that online should be run by the technologists more than the editors. Rubin asks what would happen in Philly if a left-wing power bought one paper and a right-wing power the other (note to myself: I need to post about why I think that could be a good thing; see London). I say that the starting point is to define what local news can and should be: what are we saving and what can we do now we couldn’t do before? It’s not about saving newspaper or — pardon me — saving newsrooms. It’s about growing news. Sandy Shea of the Daily News asks what democracy requires as an agenda item. Another question, Madrak says, is that newspapers can be skewed by serving the wrong public. The shareholder question comes up: Are shareholders the constituency of newspapers? Is that in competition with “our constitutional duty,” Madrak asks. This always comes up. But in this room, to my delight, people immediately say that the issue is how to make money. Duncan Black says that newspapers have squandered the opportunity to make money with audience online. The question comes up: what is the relationship of citizen journalism and professional journalism. This will be the meat of it and the discussion revs up here, too fast to Boswell. Diversity is raised as an issue; this room is mostly white. The digital divide is raised and a student says the web must be treated as a utility that goes out to all people (see Philly’s ubiquitous wi-fi project). Warren brings up the issue of bloggers not having the legal protection; see this. Fred Mann, online newspaper company exec, raises the question of whether newspaper companies should be public. I say that the issue isn’t stockholders; the issue is management. A guy from an upstart website that can’t afford investigative journalism speaks up; I say that perhaps one day his company can go public and raise the money to do that. It’s not the stock market — or the market pressure — that is the problem. It’s what you do about that, I believe. Next debate: Is a la carte news bad for us and for democracy? Should there be editors who says what we ought to know? Are editors the best to do that? Duncan Black says this is also a matter of style: We present news dully. Journalism, he says, is not just conventional print journalism; it is Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus and the New York Post (his examples). There is much discussion about the Domenech affair at and why the Post felt it needed to take him over, why other papers have not covered this story, and more. I raise this to the meta level: What are the ethics of news and journalism?

Wendy Warren starts a lightning round: What do we want a norg to be? Answers from the room: A filter…. credibility… interactivity… tangibility (i.e. print, free, to reach people not online)…. multiplatform…. media literacy (not just consumption but creation)…. it has a voice… it gives voice to the public…. relevant… compelling…. agenda-setting…. empowering…. face-to-face… distributed…. continuous…. 24-hour… smarter at promotion…. ethical… economically viable…. cover government… investigative…. diverse…. raise revenue… share revenue with the edge…. support journalism legally… adaptive…. innovative… risk-taking…. resiliant…. able to try and fail and try again….

A young intern at the Daily News gets the last point and she wonders why the heck reporters don’t have blogs to talk with people directly, to engage, to be transparent. Listen to the future talking.

: LATER: What would a meeting be without breakout sessions? So we broke out and talked in groups about the business and platforms; the content and culture; the responsibility, roughly stated. This will be difficult to summarize; I’ll add a link to the wiki when it’s up.

A few interesting ideas that have come up:

The idea of a “norg” as a coop. I think of that as a coop of news gatherers and sharers (e.g., the coop sells your ads and promotes you but you still own what you do: your reporting and content). Another notion is a coop of the public (which, of course, is a public company… which is where this started).

Another idea is that a “norg” can fulfill some of the functions of a wire service (e.g., covering the obvious stuff so everybody doesn’t have to cover it — as CityNews used to do in Chicago… and also aggregating coverage, as the Associate Press does).

I also think it’s important to get out of the idea that there is one company and one business model. There will be many entities, each with its own different business models and ownership.

I was surprised to hear some people, including the paid journalists, saying that they need to break out of the goal of winning Pulitzers. Win the public.

: Underlying this in this discussion in this city with these people is the tension about the sale of Philadelphia Newspapers. This week, bids are due. Who buys — or doesn’t — have a gigantic impact on the possibilities. If it is Gannett or Singleton, one PNI person said, they will do what those companies do. If others buy, the future is more open – for good or bad, I suppose.

: So what the hell is this thing? Well, it starts as a conversation. That conversation will continue in blog posts here and there and, we hope, everywhere and in a forum at It will start to crystalize in a wiki that expresses the goals, lessons, and possibilities of this. Then it becomes a message to the industry, broadly defined, perhaps with discussion at conferences and such. It could be a think tank that tries to reinvent news. It could be a laboratory in Philadelphia and its incumbent players or with new players or elsewhere. It could be a new future for news.

: LATER: Here’s Dan Rubin’s rendition. Here‘s Sedley Log’s. Here from The West End.
Here‘s Wendy Warren’s compilation of what went up on the white boards and our next steps on a blog; wiki to follow. Karl Martino wakes up and reports (on the day of his baby’s christening, by the way). Photos here: The Fab Four, and ow.

  • Pingback: Dave’s Wordpress Blog » Blog Archive » Scripting News for 3/25/2006()

  • Two disagreements,

    “… newspaper people make a mistake when they think that bloggers hate them. They don’t.”

    Personally, I hate them and I am hardly alone. Those that don’t hate newspaper people are ill informed.

    “Rubin asks what would happen in Philly if a left-wing power bought one paper and a right-wing power the other (note to myself: I need to post about why I think that could be a good thing; see London).”

    How can you really think that further dichotomizing our already polarized society would be beneficial?

    When issues come up, far too many people defend the side of their political identity rather than examine the merits of the case.

    When I email articles to my close-minded friends, I have to erase the author and origin of the piece just to get the articles read.

    The only dichotomy I believe in is that of fact and fiction.

  • Jim Dermitt

    What are the ethics of news and journalism?
    Make money.

  • Jim Dermitt

    The real good stuff sells. The junk gets discounted or liquidated.

  • CaptiousNut wrote:

    How can you really think that further dichotomizing our already polarized society would be beneficial?

    Because people should have access to both sets of ideas and ideals. Very few people I know vote party-line on everything. There’s a lot of people in the middle who agree with this idea from column A and that idea from column B… if you take away our ability to see both sides of the aisle, you limit access to good (and bad) ideas from either side. Dichotomy, I’d argue, forms when you limit two different groups of people to one “correct: point of view each. Compromise and understanding can only be reached by exposing them to each other.

    Jim Dermitt wrote:

    What are the ethics of news and journalism?
    Make money.

    Information, like food and water, should be free, but they’re not. Opportunity cost and all that. Ethics aren’t about making money, they’re about the decisions you make while you’re trying to make the money.

    Jeff Jarvis wrote:

    And so it begins, with introductions:

    Jeff, could you link out some of these names and sites? I can find my way to one or two but I’m too lazy/busy to google out all of them, and at the same time, being in the Philly ‘burbs, I’m very interested.

  • Jim Dermitt

    Information is free. Look at the public library genius! Sending gifts could be more expensive though.

    If you want to program your online shop so that it delivers your articles as gifts to a third person specified by the customer, you might want to negotiate with Amazon Inc for a license.

    Amazon’s application for a patent on its One-Click Shopping method ensured you were one click away from the future. Maybe we’ll need One-Click news next. One-Click it’s that quick.

  • Jim Dermitt

    I have a 4 button mouse. With One-Click news, all I’ll need to do is program one mouse button and click and bingo-news. Great coverage of unconference. Don’t break anything. I hope they have an open bar!

  • Jim Dermitt

    “Ethics aren’t about making money, they’re about the decisions you make while you’re trying to make the money.” Hmm, that’s why those deals I made at that pub went so bad. Don’t do business after four beers. Wrap things up during the third beer.

  • Information is free. Look at the public library genius!

    Last I checked my taxes were paying for the public library. It’s just accessible, it’s not free. I’m pretty sure the only way you’d get a free newspaper is if the goverment paid for it. And the news listed in that wouldn’t be suspect at all ;)

  • Ofer Nave

    Thanks for the morning dose of good news! These are terribly exciting developments.

  • Kirabug… I should have said that I was going too fast to get links. I’ll try to add some.

  • Lull in conversation. Links added.

  • adjust your clock!

  • Thank you so much for the notes from the unconference. It’s really good to know what other people are thinking and are concerned about.

    Did they say anything specific about the future of op-ed?

  • The op-ed?

    That doesn’t even have a present, never mind a future.

  • Pingback: Suburban Guerrilla » Norgsabord()

  • Pingback: the smedley log :: After the unconference()

  • Pingback: Kesher Talk()

  • Eileen

    In the littany of topics covered by Wendy Warren’s lightening round, I see you covered “agenda setting”.

    Did the topic of reporting FACTS ever come up? Did the idea of NOT setting left wing agendas ever come up?

    Did the topic of giving up our First Amendment Freedoms by bowing down to Islamocrazies come up vis a vis failing to publish the cartoon jihad? Did you discuss the burning of three embassies, the killing of hundreds in Nigeria, the signs calling for annihilation of Americans and Jews?

    Did the topic of failing to educate the public about the nature of our enemy and their purported *sharia* laws come up?

    Did the topic of FAiling to disseminate the real news of the day; i.e., stories such as the jihadi who plowed into 9 students at UNC, come up?

    I didn’t think so.

    Were any conservative news people or bloggers even in attendance?

    But I’ll bet you discussed how to earn a buck on blogs and how to save your skins in the newspaper biz, eh?

  • “It could be a new future for news.”

    There is not such a thing as new future. There is FUTURE.
    And this future has been among us since a recent past.
    Since the first web page appeared on the NET.
    It took and it will take more time to realize that the past, the one where news were on the paper is definitely gone.
    In a virtual society, who uses the virtual world more and more, everybody understands that the new way to communicate from brain to brain is not any more with written paper, but with sounds, images and virtual news.
    And as sad as it can look, also editors have to realize that it is just another way in which History repeats itself.
    When the printing machine was invented, nobody dreamed to sell a printed book at the same price as a hand made one.
    And that was exactly the purpose the printing machine was invented.
    To make books cheaper and culture more reachable and global.
    We have come a long way, and reached positive results (may be I am too optimistic) because nobody can deny that more people on this world are able to read and write and more knowledge SHOULD bring more ways to communicate and spread culture.
    The virtual newspaper won’t be at the same price as the printed one.
    That is why the virtual world was created.
    To get rid as much as possible of the paper, to spread culture globally, to increase communication among people.
    Fastest way of traveling, Radio, TV, Internet, all made this world a bit smaller and why shouldn’t news do the same?

    News belong to the present and to the future, news belong to China as well as USA or Middle East or Europe.
    There are no local news that are strictly local.
    The World is getting “more global” and news must follow, also in the speed they are spread.
    Yes, it is not the end of the news, but it is the beginning of the end of the paper.

  • Ross

    All these conferences and discussions are irrelevant. The reason nobody trusts the media is because they lie repeatedly, refuse to challenge the ongoing abrogation of the Constitution, and focus on the trivial and trite. Their inability to dig beneath the surface as an Israeli fifth-column takes over the foreign policy of this nation, and supine acceptance of what official sources tell them makes them essentially accomplices in the destruction of our society.

  • Time for the chill pill, Eileen.

  • Jim Dermitt

    There is not such a thing as new future. There is FUTURE.
    I remember ith old past. Maybe it’s a new age scam to make paper a
    luxury good or something. The new boss is the same as the old boss.

  • It isn’t a war, Jeff. It’s a revolution.

    We had 8-tracks, vinyl and CDs. Now we have MP3s. Most stockbrokers and travel agents are dinosaurs. Rocketboom now has 300K daily viewers and there are 1.2 million blog posts every day. The recent sale of Knight Ridder to McClatchyhe should worry the entire publishing industry, if they weren’t already concerned about the state of their declining business. It has been a horrible year for the newspaper business, in particular, but should that come as a surprise to anyone? Even Rupert Murdoch seems to know better these days.

    ~ Declining circulation (-3%)
    ~ Declining revenue (circ. revenue -7% at the Tribune)
    ~ Profit margins down 1.5%, to just below 20%
    ~ Classified ad revenue is drying up
    ~ Worsening mix of circulation to advertising revenue
    ~ Falling stock prices (-20% on Wall Street)
    ~ Mature industry
    ~ Job losses
    ~ No archival value of product
    ~ And you still get ink all over your hands when you read ’em

    The sad thing for many publishers and other dinosaurs, is that this story is only news to them.

    It is always nice to see ASC encouraging conversation and a good debate. I was a graduate fellow there, and the school has always been good about that. If you’re at UPenn, however, I think the best thinking on the issue is coming out of Wharton. See: Are Newspapers Yesterday’s News?

    Hope you’re well,

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The unconference()

  • Eileen,

    No, they continually skate around that problem. But that fits in with their modus operandi quite well.

    Remember these are the people who look at fundamentally flawed problems and only want to tinker with the current failing solutions.

    Somehow the layoffs will end, the audiences will come back, and their credibility will return if only they have the courage to …..

    …..eliminate the stock tables.

  • Whoo boy, isn’t this suddenly a bucket of optimism?

    Jeff, thanks for the links!

  • The idea of a “norg” as a coop. I think of that as a coop of news gatherers and sharers (e.g., the coop sells your ads and promotes you but you still own what you do: your reporting and content).

    This is a model that appears to be working pretty well for the fledgling webcomic industry – see Blank Label Comics for an example. I don’t know how well it’ll scale, but so far so good.

  • Pingback: » Newspaper’s Value is in the Channel()

  • Eileen

    ‘I see,’ Jeff. I guess, then, the answer to my questions would be “No.” And I guess the brethren don’t wish to hear any real suggestions for saving journalism.

    CaptiousNut is right on all counts. I have never read or heard about any media confab, conference or unconference in which an honest assessment of “fundamental” flaws and failings is made. Why ARE readers and viewers *really* tuning the MSM out? Far be it for me to state the obvious and use current examples to illustrate, I suppose.

    The *reality pill* so many will be forced to swallow as a result of this myopia And MO is sad indeed. As you said, Jeff, it’s not clear that those students will be able to even find jobs or earn a living in their chosen profession. And as long as the club continues to not only ignore its fundamental problems but also foster and encourage its editorialized, fictionalized, agenda driven and politicized ‘news’ reporting, I’m quite certain you’re right.

  • Eileen,
    This meeting was entire about LOCAL news. Last I checked, Islamofascist sharia law was not a big issue in the Philadelphia City Council.
    You might want to consider the context of your ranting ortherwise it will be seen as, well, ranting.

  • You cite Phillyblog, and suddenly I see rewrite men and women. Hey sweetheart, gimme rewrite. 6,000 reporters, a dozen rewrite desks going full blast. Heck of a concept for the future of newspapering, but be damn sure the 6,000 reporters get some training in what news is. I am discouraged at present by the so-called media blogosphere which is mainly populated by blogs conceived on a left-right agree-disagree model. There will be a huge media blog shake-out in a year or so, as people grow weary of the snipping and sniping, and the professional media blogs, on something like the phillyblog model, will emerge and thrive.

  • Eileen

    Pretty much anything I say here is apparently characterized by you as ‘ranting’, Jeff. This dates to our original debates regarding the legalities of the FCC. That’s because I’m not part of your choir. Quite frankly, I’m a little weary of your insulting admonishments as you otherwise preach about fostering a conversation.

    Last I read and heard, local news typically includes national and global news coverage as well. My local lefty paper and local networks are just as guilty of the failings I listed as is the NYT. The UNC incident, for example, is local news that the rest of us should be made aware of at both the local And national level. And if town councils AREN’T concerned with the very real threats and news regarding sharia then they should be. They are our primary responders in the WOT.

    I included numerous topics and failings which apply to journalism across the board. Your description of the conference certainly wasn’t restricted to local issues; to wit, your intro: “I’m in Philly at the Annenberg School of Communication for the Norg unconference: A remarkable, perhaps historic, gathering of newspaper people and bloggers starting a conversation about saving news.”

    Excuse the hell out of me for addressing precisely that topic.

  • Clearly many daydreamers think that focusing more on local events is going to sustain the jurassic papers. I disagree.

    If you look at the United States, people move much more now than ever – a trend that is unlikely to reverse or even slow. Personally I have lived in four cities in the last 5 years (and I am hellbent on leaving Boston now). The country has been moving toward a national culture and away from a parochial one. I know I couldn’t give a sh*t about local news here. I caught a minute of it the other day and the story they were on was about a Harvard kid mooning someone. Seriously.

    I suspect that the people interested in local events are the ones who have lived in an area their entire lives. Unfortunately for the daydreamers, this is a shrinking demographic as well. Even worse, I think these are the only people that buy papers now.

    Focusing on local events is not only a needless surrender on global and national ones, it is a pathetic clinging to existing customers. And it is far from a pro-growth strategy.

    Like I said before, just about all of their ideas amount to tinkering with a fundamentally flawed business model.

    The beauty of the blogosphere is not only that it’s killing the papers, but that it also provides a front row seat to view the carnage.

  • Eileen: The more you say, the more you rant. Tree, forest.

  • Eileen

    Well, JJ, I suppose legacy media at whatever level can elect to mischaracterize their detractors as ‘ranters’ and attempt to discredit them/shut them up… or they can continue to ignore our very real complaints and continue to go out of business… or they can include us in ‘the conversation’, face some unwelcome facts about how half their readers and viewers see Them (talk about forests and trees), and seriously work to correct them.

    As much as I object to MSM and its long list of problems, I also hate to see a lot of people losing their jobs or failing to find any work out of journalism school.

    Fortunately, it’s no skin off my teeth regardless of what the MSM decides to do. I no longer rely on them to get the news.

  • I like to see people losing jobs.

    It means capitalism is functioning.

    Look where people can’t lose their job: France, Congress, Supreme Court, American car companies (until recently), public school teachers (only 2 fired out of 80,000 in nyc over the last 2 yrs), etc.

    Technology disrupts careers every single day, why should journalists be exempt?

  • Pingback: This Time Before An Event at Podcast on the Floor()

  • newsaddict

    Am thinking of starting a blog geared to local people; I live in a small town in a mostly rural area, where the only decent (?) newspaper covers little, if any, news of national import. I would like to work out some ways of bringing the national/international news home so local people can see hwo these issues affect them, directly or indirectly. Maybe it wouldn’t be news so much as showing the connections.

    All that being said, I have neither the expertise nor the means to do this. It’s just an idea. I’d wager there are many communities like mine.

    Further, I still appreciate having the text on paper, in my hands, portable, and non-electric. We lose power frequently where I live. The unplugged population is still huge–how would you get to them? What if there’s a huge power blackout? How to woo those whose only contact with a computer may be a video game?

    Cart before horse, I realize…

  • DarkStar

    Perhaps all these discussions point to an ‘unknown better,’ but much of the hue reminds me of other topics where there’s too much emotion – not enough logic.

    Some religious issues, politics, Green Peace, and
    the National Rifle Association come to mind. The real problem is we can’t get past our own limitations and ignorance.

    Part of this challenge generally is akin to a singer
    finding their own voice.

    Being a journalist is far more complex than knowing how to use a keyboard, or being able to
    be a ‘so-called’ witness to events.

    This runs parallel to a concept ‘professional
    photographers’ understand and others don’t. Taking a photograph doesn’t equate to “being
    a photograper” in the strictest sense.

    I’m sure the Dalia Lama could provide eloquent insight using a similar metaphor regarding spirituality.

    Excellence in any field is perhaps rare. There
    are likely just as many mediocre “over-paid mechanic” physicians as there are average journalists – I’m sure. But, like excellence in the arts, an insightful journalist can make words burn or sooth at will.

    Perhaps the difference is doctors have somewhat of a curtain to hide behind, and by comparison
    journalism is somewhat naked. However, let us not be so naive as to believe any individual on a stage is an actor.

    Generally speaking, advertising follows
    excellence, as well as circulation. Journalistically wallowing in a political gutter and slanting coverage leads first to a loss of credibility, then failure. At least this is true for the audience of individuals with a moderate IQ.

    For example, do you really think Rush Limbaugh believes everything he says? Or, is it possible he just created a “character” to take material advantage of persons of a particular bent? How
    different are much of the events we all bear witness to from ‘McCarthyism’ of the 1950s.

    Flood waters recede. Soon also will this ‘Twilight
    Zone’ era of masquerade and mediocrity. Revolution in thought may be dancing around any corner. When that time comes there may be screaming in the cheap seats.

    — ADM

  • Hey there – Interesting discussions you are having here.
    I’m curious – would you consider a site like Visual Editors a norg?
    I started out two years agoa as a peer-to-peer educational community for student and professional journalists. But it has evolved to include most of your norg definitions.

    Just curious if can serve as a model for your studies.

    Whiteboard definitions:
    Continuous; 24/7 hour
    Risky. Composed of risk-takers. Stretching the limits of technology, content and money.
    Willing to embrace and seek failure.
    Willing to see the union as a partner.
    Interactive. Gives voice to the readers.
    Realizes that journalism is not always a story. It might be a database.
    Multiplatform, including a free print edition. Multimedia; offering different platorms for different audiences.
    Not a one-way street. Not print into multimedia—both ways
    Allows reporters to express what they think and feel.
    A watchdog of the eternal spin machine. Please, of state government.
    Committed to freedom of information.
    Financially viable And generous with the money it makes.
    Supports the acts of journalism.
    PERSONAL. Facilitates actual human interaction.
    Distributed widely – transit
    Devoted to Media literacy – not how to use the media, how to BE the media.
    Should empower its users to be citizens
    Has a voice. Have a personality.
    Enables the community to inform each other.
    May offer layers of journalism: Old-school, trained journalism; community journalism
    Uses a new metric for measuring success. Should enjoy first-amendment protection

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Press in peace()

  • Pingback: The Pencil Guy » Archive » Discoveries in my inbox: PerthNorg!()

  • Pingback: » Blogger-Journalists: A Subjective Slant Still = News Katy’s New Media Blog ‘07()

  • Pingback: newsroomnext » Will cellphone novels kill ‘the author’? If you believe blogs will kill ‘the journalist,’ then yes()

  • Pingback: Do a search for “saving journalism” « News Crucible()

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » A stake through the heart of the has-been Inquirer()

  • Pingback: Peoria Pundit » Media: Philly newspaper decides speed up its demise()

  • DIGNITY. That’s the only thing you should keep on yourself as a journalist. It doesn’t matter here ‘what will be the cost(money) of your scope’ but ‘how much effort you put from it’… Being involved in Press World is not a business or a job, but it is a duty as a today’s hero…

  • Pingback: Who’ll cover the state « BuzzMachine()

  • Pingback: The balance shifts « BuzzMachine()

  • that link you helpfully provided to my account of the day is dead.
    but this one lives, sort of: