Howard Owens

Sean Blanda has pulled together a collection of articles and blog posts on newspaper.com design.

He's right, it is a topic of too limited coverage, so his collection of links is useful.

One of the more innovative newspaper web sites is the SpokesmanReview.com. Ken Sands has been online publisher there for two years (according to his LinkedIn profile, but it seems he's been with the paper longer).

Sands is moving on.

I got a LinkedIn notification today that he's starting a new job in August. He'll be executive editor at Congressional Quarterly.

Congratulations, Ken.

UPDATE: Romenesko has more.

If you're a good reporter, you've never had time enough to report and write all the stories you wanted. You never had time to cultivate all the sources you should. You constantly worried about not getting enough time to go in-depth on the biggest stories, and at most papers, you've fretted about the lack of news hole for your Pulitzer-worthy material.

The complaints certainly pre-date the web.

When I was a reporter at The Daily Californian we used to laugh at the San Diego Union and Evening Tribune reporters who complained about being overworked when they had to produce a whooping two by-lined stories per week, while we cranked out two or three a day, plus briefs, plus rotated obits and police and fire logs, and wrote for special sections and weekly features.

Our newsroom could have transitioned to the web easily because you couldn't produce that much copy without learning to write and report efficiently and quickly.

And we still won our fair share of awards.

In today's news rooms, you've got all the same complaints of twenty and thirty years ago about too many stories and not enough time, but you also have increased competition for your time and attention from the online edition. Editor and Publisher has a long piece on how news rooms are dealing with the changes in coverage.

There's no doubt that journalists have more work to do and need to work more efficiently. And I'm sure there are more stories that don't get done, or don't get the knee-deep treatment they might have gotten in the past. But you know what, what else are we going to do?

There's two aspects to an increased focus on the web. First, we may be fighting for our very survival; and, second, the web represents our single best opportunity to grow readership and grow revenue. If we want to get through this transition time, we better produce stellar web sites.

And that's going to take all of us working together. It's not going to be easy. But for those of us we care about protecting quality journalism, I don't think we have any other choice. This isn't the time to raise the white flag.

If you care, I think you will put far more effort into figuring out how to win in a turbulent media environment and far less time resisting the changes. But then, I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy anyway.

My optimism is spurred by the continuing double-digit growth of online revenue.

We'll get there. It will be fine.

Danny explains the new feature here. Cool, uh?

Ryan Sholin introduces me to the word "freemium."

It means, it seems, giving stuff away for free and then taking on up sells.

His example is his recent decision to upgrade his Flickr account.

Up sells are easy in classifieds, as Ryan notes, but not so easy in content.

But I'd take the lesson of Flickr and Feedburner and WordPress and apply them not to content, but to services. What services can newspaper companies create that have free uses but paid upgrades can be bolted on?

Or, how can the relationship a newspaper.com has with members of its community be leveraged to entice the most loyal users to buy services from the paper? What would those services be? What jobs-to-be-done can we help our readers solve?

Free content isn't just about generating page views to boost advertising revenue. It's also about building relationships with the people who are attracted to that content.

After signing my name exactly 80 times this morning and handing over a hefty (for us) check, I was given the keys to our new house today.

It's cool, of course. It was built in 1959, has 3,100 square feet, which includes a basement with a fireplace and wet bar (this will be my room, meaning all of my music stuff, as well as (eventually) a poker table) will go here). The lot is .61 acres with more than a dozen mature trees and not much else in landscaping, so it's kind of a blank canvas. First order of business is planting some rose bushes so I can learn how to grow them in New York.

We're very happy in Western New York. We have barely missed California. There's lots to do and see here.

Compare and contrast: When we moved to Bakersfield, it was a month before the first neighbor introduced himself, and no other neighbor ever did. Within six hours after closing escrow, the three closest neighbors had all walked over to say, "hello."

I'll have a video of the house available later. If you have any interest in seeing it, send an e-mail to howard owens (oneword) (at) gmail (dot) com.

From Rob Curley, I learn that Facebook has an API.

That's pretty cool.

The Washington Post, of course, has a new Facebook API app, and since it came from Curley an his team, it is of course well thought out and executed. Except ... I'm not sure I want to map my politics against my friends. My politics, these days, are my own.
But then, I'm long past young and hip.  Maybe the Facebook crowd will go for it.

I do have a Facebook account, finely.

Remember the paid vs. free debate? My blog wasn't the only place at the time I was writing about it.

There was also a very lively discussion going on in the Digital Media Federation's e-mail discussion list.

The NAA has made the entire thread available to members (You need an NAA member ID to access). It's well worth the time to read if you missed the original debate. Several people made excellent points. (Via Beth Lawton).

(In case the disclosure is needed, I'm on the DMF's board.)

UPDATE: Do you need more proof that pay for content won't work.  CNN is giving up on its SECOND try at the model.

I still can't believe that there are people who argue in favor of paid content. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Broadband makes a big difference in how people use the internet. In other words, they use it more.

Video didn't really start to take off until broadband started getting serious in-home penetration.

To me, the net doesn't even feel like the same environment as it did in pre-broadband days.

Clearly, advertising still lags way behind audience habits.

When you do the math, broadband users spend 48% of their spare time online in a typical weekday. "Currently, the proportion of advertising resources devoted to the Internet (about seven percent according to ZenithOptimedia) is nominal relative to the value it generates," says Josh Crandall, managing director of Media-Screen.

We should expect advertising revenue for all media to increase, both in actual dollars and the amount spent per ad. Online advertising is going to get more expensive.

That's good news for newspaper web sites.

But there are still a ton of disruptive threats out there, so it's not all good news.  Lot's of startups will come a long that will erode newspaper.com oppertunity, especially for media companies that are not already aggressive online.
Meanwhile, online TV news is gaining on us.

Why is that a concern? Because in some markets (all?), there will be a limited revenue pie for the near- to mid-term in local online advertising. It remains to be seen how well users will traverse across multiple local news site sources. Newspaper sites should be striving to be the local dominate news source online.

We should assume we are still early in the digital revolution and online audiences will continue to grow, and consumption habits will change, especially as broadband rolls into more homes and the infrastructure improves (and it will). In five years, broadband technology could be very different. More so for mobile.

I've said it many times, many ways, including in this blog: Every journalist should blog.

I've said it for completely selfish reasons. I want print journalists to GET the web. I want them to understand how the web is different. I want to cure them of their tone deafness to the conversation going on around them.

If you blog in the way blogging is meant to be done, you'll realize these benefits.

The more journalists who get the web, the better our chance, as an industry, at survival.

So, my reasons, you see, are really selfish, because I want to survive.

Scott Karp makes a very good case for another reason you should blog: To save your own skin. He also offers some good tips on getting started.

UPDATE: In comments, Angela Grant points us to an opposing view.

While journalists have lots to gain from blogging, there’s also the fact that a lot of them suck without an editor bringing out the best.

Well, yes. But blogging is a very sink-or-swim ocean. Either you make it or you get drowned with the rest of the guppies, and journalists need to learn that lesson, too. In a distributed media world, you can't afford to hide behind your editor.

I'm sure I've never been as popular of a blogger as I might because A) I'm not a very good copy editor and I make too many mistakes I don't catch; B) I'm sure I've put up a few too many lame posts that could have been improved or trashed by an editor. That said, I've learned far more about the new media world because of blogging. These are lessons available in no a book nor taught by any teacher. Whatever embarrassment I may have caused myself has been a relatively small price to pay for all I've gained.

Much to the dismay of some people, I'm regularly pushing the value of low end video for newspapers.

While I'm a firm believer in the strategy, it's not my idea originally. That credit should go to Jack Lail at Knoxnews.com. His site's Random This feature gave me the idea (the feature won a Digital Edgie this year).

Knoxnews.com continues to find success with low end cameras. In his blog, Jack tells the tale of the site's popular video interview with a Knoxville-based porn star who got pulled over for speeding and wound up giving a state trooper an "oral favor."

The sound quality is a little scratchy, but not at all irritating. Picturewise, you'd be hard pressed to do better with a high end camera. Certainly, the picture is good enough.

This video is pretty good evidence is what matters most is the content, the news value or interest value of the video itself, not the price of the camera.

In an article on newspaper.com redesigns, WashingtonPost.com editor Jim Brady says an important consideration his site's redesign was how to play video.

"Video is going to continue to become a bigger and bigger deal," Brady says, "and so we're trying to generate more video to put up. Some is shooting our own stuff or using stuff from partners. We've done some in jobs and real estate, as well as feature stuff around local music."

Every newspaper web site should do this: Start a blog about local blogs.

In Bakersfield, we started Bakosphere. After I left, it died (though, I see by a note, it's been resurrected here ... inexplicably, it still doesn't reside under the wonderful bakosphere.com domain).

If newspaper sites don't start such blogs, the local TV stations will, as Cory Bergman is proving in Seattle.

Cory's doing a great job with this blog.

Nick Carr takes on the notion that digital has liberated music fans from the enslavement of the LP record.

Writing about a passage in a new book by Dave Weinberger in which Weinberger trumpets the virtues of the unbundled song, Carr responds:

Weinberger does do a good job, though, of condensing into a few sentences what might be called the liberation mythology of the internet. This mythology is founded on a sweeping historical revisionism that conjures up an imaginary predigital world - a world of profound physical and economic constraints - from which the web is now liberating us. We were enslaved, and now we are saved.

Carr offers up some meaty history on how LP records were developed and concludes that the LP was an autistic boon and a great advancement for consumers of music.

I love LPs. I own several hundred of them. LPs have great cover art and great audio quality. On an artistic level, as Carr notes, an LP is a better canvas for a great long playing composition than even a compact disc. The whole package -- think Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon -- becomes the artistic expression. CDs, with their small jewel cases and lack of the tactile joy that goes with cardboard, ink, paper and vinyl can't match the LP.

But there is something to be said for the notion that some times, even in the hey day of LPs, you just wanted the one song. Rock and roll is a very expressive and expansive art form. It allows for every thing from Tommy to "Sugar, Sugar." The three-minute pop song has a value all its own, and some bands didn't make very good LPs, but they recorded great songs. Their LPs (Elvis Presley comes to mind) were moments of bliss punctuated with fillers of boredom.

One of the main ideas behind my now neglected MP3Caravan.com project was to celebrate the three minute song.

I found a lot of great songs in that project -- a lot more than I've found wading through "albums" of music on iTunes or eMusic. I think there is an explosion of great song writing going on now, thanks to the liberating values of the digital age.

That doesn't make today's formats better. They're just different. I love songs. I love LPs. No contradiction there.

This is crazy.

My wife just bought a dinette table from Sears.com.

By happenstance, she found the same table for sale on the Montgomery Wards online store. It was $20 cheaper.

Billie called Sears.com to see if they would price match.

No, because MW doesn't have a physical store in our neck of the woods (not in your neighborhood either, since they're strictly at catalog business now).

The table in question is not available in a Sears store -- it's only available online.  Yet, Sears won't price match with another online retailer.

Isn't that crazy?

This post from Matt Waite titled "Stop waiting for them to save you" is interesting on a couple of levels. It's built around the notion that newspapers have never really invested in training as much as they should, but that doesn't relieve individuals of taking responsibility for their own training.

Here’s the sad truth, as I see it: how flush was your training budget when times were good? Most places, not very. So how flush do you think it’s going to be now, when circulation is going down, down down, and ad revenue is going elsewhere? Here’s a hint: You probably don’t have a training budget anymore.

So, to quote Shawshank Redemption, get busy living, or get busy dying.

What drives me nuts is that I’m almost completely self taught, so I get especially agitated by people who wait around to be saved.

These two quotes juxtapose my own unique position. On one side, it's part of my job to make sure people get adequate training. On the other side, pretty much everything I know about the web (whether dealing with business issues or development technology) I taught myself.

It is frustrating to watch people sit around and wait for somebody to teach them.

Of course, I don't think that lets me off the hook when it comes to ensuring our own staff is adequately trained. If we're going to ask people to do all of these new things, and we expect them to do it well, we have an obligation to ensure they are trained.

Even so, I think its important for all journalists to take responsibility for their own careers and learn all they can about online content production.

Matt asks this rhetorical question:.

Why should I do something that costs me time and maybe even money to benefit my employer when I don’t get paid for it?

Matthew's response to me tracks a little more to the negative side: self-investment is a hedge against layoffs or the complete collapse of newspapers. From my own experience, I think there are more positive reasons to invest in yourself: It's a chance to advance your career.

I spent six years with Scripps. During that time Scripps did buy me some useful books, but I took no classes and went to no seminars. Everything I learned, I taught myself. What I taught myself enabled me to do cool things and things that helped my company make money. That got me noticed. That got me promoted. One thing led to another and I'm no longer with Scripps, but I have a hell of a great job working for a great company living in a great community.

None of that would have been possible if I hadn't invested in myself.

And nothing about where I am is planned. I just believed that if I invested in myself, good things would happen. And they did.

In the short term, Scipps benefited greatly by the things I taught myself. In the long run, I benefited more.

But back to the yen/yang of this issue.

There's only so much you can learn about web stuff in a classroom. You can't really learn how to shoot and edit video well or how to create Flash animations or even how to build a simple HTML page without investing a lot of your own elbow grease.

So, my question is, is it worth it for a company to invest time and money to train people who aren't willing to train themselves?

I mean, the people who invest in themselves are the ones most likely to master the skills necessary to do great work.

To paraphrase Rob Curley, it's mindset that matters most.

UPDATE: Catching up on my blog reading and came across this post by Danny Sanchez on a related topic: Don't read, do.

SPJ President Christine Tatum has been getting a little taste of what it's like to be covered by the media, not be the one getting the quotes and writing the story. The results haven't always been pretty.

One of the most interesting and invaluable aspects of serving as SPJ's president is to experience what it's like to be written about by other journalists.

Boy, have I seen some shoddy reporting and unfair stories that not only have appalled me but have made me even more determined to ensure my work is accurate, honest and fair.

I've been in a couple of positions where I've either been directly involved in something that was covered by the media, or closely enough involved to know the truth. The results have rarely been pretty.

I've walked away from my encounters with other reporters shaking my head thinking, "Man, I wonder if all reporters are this inaccurate or this unfair. No wonder so many people hate the media."

And like Christine, it redoubled my own commitment to fairness and accuracy.

I'm concerned that too many reporters are more interested in getting a good story, getting a good clip, or getting on the front page than they are about getting it right.

Ms. Tatum offers up a list of tips and reminders for reporters on how be fair and accurate. It's worth a read.

I'm an omnivore, according to this Pew test/survey. (Via Beth Lawton)

Sitting on my desktop, waiting to be read, is Kathy Schwartz's report on Smart Strategies for newspaper web sites.

In the meantime, Beth Lawton provide 10 key takeaways.

I like hearing about newspapers experimenting with user-generated content when the experiment involves mixing the am content with the pro content and/or putting it into the daily print edition.

The News and Observer is giving it a try now.

Howard Weaver rightly observes:

I have few illusions about this. As a guy who's edited thousands of letters to the editor over the past 40 years, I know that the quality of both prose and accuracy will vary hugely, that reliability will be uneven at best, that many of the contributions will be self-serving and some may be unfair or simply wrong.

So what? We'll learn to handle that, adding value by applying editing skills that a typical community news site won't have. We'll learn directly from readers what matters to them, helping us broaden horizons and be more genuinely responsive. It will breach some of the walls we thought were protecting "journalism" from the Visigoths, but really were just separating us from the audience.

I know there are a lot of people in the newspaper business who hope that someday there will be an electronic device that saves the day -- that somehow we can replace paper and all its associated inconveniences and inefficiencies with a device that is a closed enough system that news remains a push experience rather than a pull -- in other words, skip the uncomfortable truth that old publishing models don't work on the web.

But as I've said before, any digital device is likely to be as fraught with as many challenges to publishers as the web browser.

Steve Yelvington points out many of the problems with the latest tablet reader experiment.

I'm just saying, don't expect technology to save your outmoded model. Instead, figure out how to succeed in the new world.

If I still haven't convinced you that paid content is a dumb idea, go read Vin Crosbie.

In the midst of a debate about free vs. paid for online content, here's an interesting column to read: Look Mom, No Ads!

Scripps came up with the idea of the ad-free paper while in semi-retirement in California. He reasoned that a paper without advertising could give a "more honest account" of the news, the author says, and that if he could figure out a successful business model, it would be imitated by other publishers.

"He thought this was the greatest experiment that could be carried out in the history of journalism," Stoltzfus adds.

One of my main themes in this debate has been: Readers have always paid for distribution, not content. But here was an attempt to get readers to pay for the whole shebang.

At a penny a pop.

And 22,000 papers, at most, we sold on any given day.

No word on whether the paper ever made any money, but given its short lifespan, it's doubtful, but bless E.W. Scripps for trying.

This century-ago experiment, I don't think, shed any light on whether readers will pay for general circulation news. This penny paper never caught on, but was because of the short staffing, the lack of promotion, or the poor circulation area. It's probably all three, and more, but it's hard to judge from this distance (and without reading the book).

When I first started reading Louis Hochman's column, I thought, "Oh, gee, here we go again: more whining from the cranky old journalist brigade." He starts:

Well, it seems like the future of journalism-as-we-know-it may be safe after all. At least, that's what I glean from our absurdly unscientific reader poll this week.

We asked readers what they think of blogs, as alternatives to traditional media. ...

Not a promising beginning.

I'm glad I read to the end.

But if the rise of the blogs has taught those of us in the traditional media anything, it's that there's a value in everyday discourse we've long ignored. The long-standing practice of grabbing a man on the street for a quick soundbite provides for some nice window-dressing on a story, but most conventional news outlets have always depended on the muckety-mucks, talking heads and power brokers for meaningful dialogue. The enthusiasm with which the user-generated media has exploded reminds us just how much conversation has been going on beyond our earshot, and how anxious those typically ignored have been to have their say.

Some people say the media as we know it is bound to die off. I say it's bound to evolve. We'll see a point where new media eclipses old, for just a small while - and it becomes clearer than ever just what the traditionalists had to offer. It's on the pendulum's backswing, when we learn to incorporate the best of tomorrow's journalism with the best of yesterday's, that things will get truly interesting. I, for one, can't wait for it to happen.

Obviously, Mr. Hochman gets it. I think he summed up well a few of the valuable contributions blogs and other UGC offers to media and journalism. He's gotten more than the surface value, but the nuance, too.

Here is what I think is some good work from our staff in Salem, Mass. It's smart, resourceful thinking about how to use freely available Internet resources to help you get the story.

In this case, when a local teen died, the staff found tribute postings on MySpace.com, but wanted material they felt comfortable using, so they set up their own MySpace page.

Here's the resulting story.

Gazette Editor Lisa Guerriero wrote a note for us explaining her staff's process and considerations on this story, and with her permission to post, here is part of her note:

When an 18-year-old Salem High School student died in a car crash, we turned to myspace.com, like many editors have, for insight into his life and the reactions of his friends and classmates. Although he had a myspace page of his own, we looked for the page that many younger people create when someone passes away. It's an "in memory of...." page, where they post pictures, descriptions etc. about the deceased. They can also publish comments about him, viewable to everyone.

We didn't want to just take comments from the page, we thought it was better to create our own myspace page and ask the kids to contribute via interview.

Although the public can view a myspace page whether or not they are a myspace member, you have to belong to the network in order to post a public comment, send private messages to members, or access pictures and certain other info.

So we created a "Salem Gazette" myspace identity, using a photo of the front page as our image. We posted a public bulletin on the "in memory of" page. We also sent private messages to some of the deceased's top friends. Basically we just said that we were writing a story but we wanted it to be a story that captured the victim's life, personality, etc.

Within hours we had a ton of responses and were able to set up interviews with many of the teenagers. When we received a reply on myspace, we told them how to reach us by phone. We even published a rap song one kid had written about the victim.

Every time someone sent us a message, myspace notified me via email.

It was a great experience for us. But you have to be really careful with this because although the sites are semi-public, there are ethical issues with using info that the people really didn't intent to be public. Especially where many myspace users are teenagers.

I think this is a great example of participating with the community to get the story, and not seeing your publication (including your web site) as some walled garden that people can only get in through proper channels.

Also, this example illustrates the aspect of journalists thinking through the ethical issues associated with using these new tools.

I've written a few times about the importance of community management (more here and here). Online communities thrive with guidelines and guidance. They become rant farms when left unchecked. Newspapers have often failed at online community because they've failed to properly staff and run their communities.

Via Mac Slocum, here's a piece by Cory Doctorow on "troll whisperers." Great stuff.

We need to develop more talent in the industry for managing online community.

Steve Safran provides a bevy of quotes from Martin Nisenholtz , who was the keynote at Streaming Media East. When it comes to video, the NYTimes is providing strong leadership for newspapers to follow.

Here's some highlights:

“We have a long way to go, but as far as we’re concerned now is the time to make the investment and experiment to see where we can go.”

“Once reluctant print reporters are now carrying cameras into the field.”

“What does it take to get a print reporter to do this? After about a half a day of training, the print reporters do get the basic skills they need.”

“With more reporters shooting, our expertise improves at a faster pace."

“The approach we take is eclectic. It ranges from criticism to reporting from the field.”

“To reach a broader audience, the Times must distribute its video outside of NYTimes.com. We believe we need to go outside the walls to make this work.”

Which ad formats are going to hold? “So far we only know what hasn’t worked. Pre-rolls are fast becoming a universally accepted bad behavior-response.”

“Think ahead: just when we were starting to think about the “sit forward” experience of web video, along comes Apple TV.”

I think that last comment is particularly important. I talk a lot about content that engages users on a personal level. That's very important for personal digital devices such as laptops and iPods. It's a different experience with a TV set, which is often a shared information and entertainment experience. Even if you're alone in a room with your TV, it's more of a "sit down and relax" experience. That means, I think, quality standards on both a technical level and a content level need to be much higher.

Newspapers have a narrow window of opportunity to learn how to do IP-delivered video in a way that creates a growth opportunity. The Times is taking the right path. Eventually, the barrier to entry will be much higher. Those newspapers that are starting simple now and growing internal video literacy, and growing it broadly, will be at an advantage in years to come.

Lately, it seems like every day Romenesko has a link to a cranky old traditional journalist complaining about how newspapers are giving away their content online.

Here's the latest.

My question for Jim Romenesko: How come we never see the counter arguments highlighted in your blog?

No offense, Jim, but there have been bloggers writing articulate counter points. The traditional journalists aren't getting the message. Given the fact that so many of them read Romenesko, maybe they should hear some alternative viewpoints on this topic.

The idea of charging for content online is pernicious. It's the one online strategy guaranteed to kill quality journalism. The truth needs to be heard by the cranky old journalists.

Previous posts:

• Stop the insanity: Paid content is not the answer
• Revisiting the free vs. paid debate
• One more time: people won't pay for online content

UPDATE: Romenesko is funny.  He links to this with nothing more than "Request Granted. Here's your link."  Great.  I hope enough of the cranky old journalists are sufficiently curious enough to click on it.

I'm now a fan of the New York Daily News.

It's been eight or nine years since I've been a regular reader of a print newspaper. I get all the news I need online.

But, there's something about the Daily News I find addictive. I tend to arrange my schedule so that I can buy a copy every day. Since it isn't on any local news stand before I go to work in the morning, I find myself eating my lunch almost daily at the Wegman's deli, where I can buy the Daily News and get a wrap.

When I'm out of state, I feel frustrated because I can't get the News.

For me, the Daily News isn't about keeping up on what's going on in NYC (the paper calls itself "New York's Hometown Newspaper"). It's about the experience of the entire tabloid product. That's an experience online can't duplicate. In other words, if I can't get my Daily News in print, I'm not going to the web site.

Since the actual content of the paper is of little interest, I can see my fascination with the Daily News waning eventually, but for now, I'm getting a great kick out of the paper.

The greatness of the newspaper begins with its writing, which is without pretense and full of action. Check this lede:

Two days after he allegedly tried to kidnap a feisty 11-year-old who wriggled out of his grasp, a Brooklyn teen was back on the street yesterday.

Here's how I imagine a typical, run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen daily newspaper would cover the same story: "A Borough Park man who allegedly tried to kidnap an 11-year-old girl over the weekend was released from Rikers Island yesterday after posting $25,000 bail."

Which story would you rather read?

Here's a game you can try at home: pick any Daily News story and rewrite the lede into proper daily newspaper journalese. Now pick a story out of your local daily and rewrite it into a piece worthy of the Daily News.

Which story would you rather read?

There's a reason the Daily News is one of the few general circulation newspapers in the US that is actually growing circulation (along with chief rival the New York Post, which I find distasteful, though it is growing faster).

As I said, the Daily News is more than just the writing. It's an experience. It's story selection, placement, layout and format ... and I'm even enjoying the gossip columns. I've learned more about Paris Hilton in the past two or three weeks than I had ever known before. I find I care because the Daily News cares. Or, at least, I want to soak in the entire Daily News experience as the editors say I should experience it.

My interest in the Daily News was piqued when I got a video iPod and discovered Tabloid Wars on iTunes. Right after that, I met a guy in an airport bar who described the Daily News as "a blog on paper."

I think there is something about the Daily News that holds a lesson or two for the rest of journalism.

If Tabloid Wars is to believed, the journalists at the Daily News care a great deal about truth and accuracy. They may use words like "fiend" and "feisty," but they work hard to get the facts right. The Daily News demonstrates to me that you can be good journalists and write vividly.
I imagine some traditionalists think I have completely lost my marbles, but I think our readers are telling us in scores that so-called objective journalism holds little interest.

If we expect people to continue reading newspapers, we need to learn how to create newspapers that are lively and engaging. The same old boring recitation of just the facts isn't going to cut it in an era where the local rag no longer is the only source of news.

Romenekso reports on comments by outgoing Cleveland editor Doug Clifton this way:

Doug Clifton, who is retiring today as Plain Dealer editor, says he hears at least once a day someone saying: "I don't need the newspaper; I get my news from the Internet." He reminds readers that the Internet doesn't produce the content, it merely distributes it. "Newspapers will survive if readers pay them for their web content or if advertisers flock to newspaper websites in sufficient numbers to offset the revenue lost to the ink-on-paper enterprise. One or both of those options is likely to happen. If they don't, newspapers - and the journalism they produce - could die."

Yes, the Internet doesn't produce news. But neither does newspaper. Or delivery trucks. Or paperboys. They all distribute it.

The choice isn't between breaking with tradition and start charging for news (because it's always been free to readers) and getting more advertising (and more for advertising). The only real choice is advertising. And the only way advertising is going to pay the bills is to get more online readers. And that isn't going to happen if we start charging for content.

Please, let's stop talking about how to bilk our readers and concentrate on building web sites they'll want to make a habit. My question for Mr. Clifton is what contribution has he made to that end?

(NOTE: In context, Mr. Clifton makes a impassioned and worthy plea to readers to see the value of great journalism. Rather than platitudes taken from journalistic hymn book, he offers real examples of why professional journalism is important. That said, its our responsibility to make journalism pay, not the readers. If we believe in journalism, we will find a way to succeed within the realities of the market. If not, we will perish. We can't count on our readers to save us. We must save ourselves. Every journalist has a responsibility to contribute to the task.)