This month’s topic from Andrew Pergam is the future of online video. This is no easy topic to tackle. While I greatly believe in multimedia storytelling and that video will very much be a part of the web, it isn’t a topic I zen out on regularly.

But there are a few things I think we can expect more of. They might not feel very “journalism-y” but let’s talk about the medium, not the content.

1. Easy, fun creation: I love Xtranormal and other story-boarding technology. One of the most popular is, funny enough, a Japanese company which takes news of the week and animates it. As this technology gets easier I expect to see the LOL cats version of story boarding.

2. Hangouts/Skype and group video will mean the death of the talk show. When the Internet and television collide, which will inevitably happen, the talking head show as we know it will be displaced. A site like BloggingHeads.tv will be viewed as way ahead of its time.

3. The Speakularity. Matt Thompson coined this phrase. Interestingly enough his post came out just as a friend (and former reporter) was co-founding SpeakerText. One day videos will be searchable the way the rest of the web is. Think about the amount of information that could be unearthed. We will be able to link to quotes within a video.

These are just three things which I expect to see more of in the future.

From the launch of Spot.Us, I’ve always said the following:

• Anyone can tackle the crowdfunded journalism model. In fact, NPR could do it tomorrow and blow me out of the water. It’s just about being transparent and giving up control over how donation money gets spent.
• This model would have more success at the national or international level.
• This model would have more success if a known brand took the lead. (Again, I always tend to cite NPR.)

There has been much opining about the New York Times pay wall that went up this week. I was quoted in a Neiman Lab post on the topic; I wrote about it for the Reynolds Journalism Institute, where I’m currently a fellow; and I was a guest on WNPR, an NPR station in Connecticut, to discuss the topic with other news professionals.

Here’s one thing that I previously haven’t said publicly: Whether or not they know it, and without identifying it as such, the New York Times has taken a big step towards the NPR model. And that puts them just a stone’s throw away from the Spot.Us model. In some respects, I actually think they are closer and more likely to pull it off than NPR.

Subscription Plan Isn’t About Access

Let’s start by calling a “duck” what it is. The “pay wall” is not a “wall.” It’s incredibly porous. A savvy reader can find a dozen ways around it, from finding a Tweet of the story you’re interested in to removing part of the Times’ URL. In other words, the subscription plan is not about access. People that think the fee is about access are the same folks who think they have to pay AOL for Internet access in order to keep their AOL email address. Savvy readers will know it isn’t about “access” but rather something else. For starters, it benefits the print subscribers, who pay less for digital access than all-digital subscribers. Fair enough.

But I am willing to bet a LOT of people will pay for a “subscription” not for access and not because it comes with their print subscription, but for something else.

Donation Driven Journalism

If there is one thing that Press+ has taught us (aside from the fact that really rich folks can hype up a technology product and sell it off for millions of dollars) it’s that, yes, people will pay for news even if access to is never truly restricted. That’s a limited audience/market, but it exists. Interestingly enough, the price point doesn’t matter as much as one would think. That audience will pay $5 if you ask, and they’ll pay $15 if you set that as the benchmark.

National Public Radio has known about this small market for a LONG time. I could have told you this within 10 minutes of launching Spot.Us. But at least today we can see it as more of a given for the conversation. There is an audience that will pay for content. It’s small, and not a replacement for advertising, but it’s there.

The NYTimes.com subscription plans are not enough to sustain the entire organization, but it is a new revenue stream that didn’t exist before. You can call it a “pay wall” or a “metered wall” but, again, I think we should call a duck a duck. This is a donation system, plain and simple. News organizations don’t want to refer to “metered walls” as “donations,” and I understand why. I’m happy to stroke their hair as they cry into their ink-stained hands. We can call it whatever they want, but it’s a donation because there is no HARD reason for anyone to pay it other than because they want to or are too uninformed about how to get around it.

A Modest Proposal

Assuming the New York Times doesn’t want its future tied to the technical ignorance of the masses the way AOL currently does with its dial-up customers, the next question is: What can the Times give to its new donors? As Dave Winer and Steve Outing have both said:

“Wouldn’t it have been wise to, at this juncture, offer something to sweeten the deal. Something truly exciting and new that you get when you pay the money. Something that makes your palms sweat and your heart beat faster?” (Dave Winer)

Tote bags? Bumper stickers? Membership to a wine of the month club (with wine reviews from the Times sent along with every bottle)?

These incentives are necessary because the Times needs to find other ways to keep a paying customer on board. Where one month somebody might pay, the next they’ll slap their face and say, “Why am I doing this? It’s certainly not for access.”

These tote bag gifts mimic NPR fundraising. But let’s think even further. What could be an incentive that would increase transparency and participation in journalism and not cost the NYT organization infrastructure costs (ie: purchasing and shipping thousands of tote bags)?

Imagine if along with every $15 monthly “metered access” payment a NYTimes.com reader also got five NYT Points. After three months they’ve accumulated 15 NYT Points. Those points can then be used to vote on topics, areas of coverage, or redeemed for the tote bag mentioned above (an excellent plan B).

Again, NPR could do this tomorrow, except — believe it or not — NPR is a bureaucratic nightmare when it comes to how donations are handled. Remember, each NPR station is unique and the mothership NPR, aside from being caught in a culture war, is not allowed to fundraise from individuals the way independent stations are.

But the Times doesn’t have this hangup. Whether they admit it or not, they’ve begun fundraising efforts this week. So will the NYT find something to make it fun for donors? Or do they think that the false claim to “access” is enough?

Opportunity to Interact with the Times Community

I think there are a lot of smart folks at the Times and they’ll be watching how people react and pay/don’t pay for this subscription system. For those that do pay it one month the question is, will they continue to pay? For that, they need to be purchasing something. Call them “NYT Points,” call it “NYT Membership” — I don’t care. But I think a part of it should include giving those members a stake in how the funds from their subscription are spent.

In other words, there could be a new sense of transparency and participatory control in how a news organization spends its funds. With their new metered pay wall, the NYT is just one incy-wincy step away from cracking the code to crowd-funded journalism. Why do I want to pay my $15 this month? Because then I can vote on next month’s NYT coverage. This would be the NYT using a kind of Spot.Us model.

And if that day ever comes, you won’t find anyone happier than me.

In order to foster a strong round-table I wanted to spur conversation among this group BEFORE the event takes place. In an effort to do this – we re-started the Carnival of Journalism. Welcome to the party! The first few rounds are on me!

Below will be my humble contribution as an individual. Soon I’ll do a wrap-up post that links to all the other participants who joined us in discussing this topic and wow WHAT A GROUP! I’m excited to see what happens as the “COJ” moves forward. I’m a big believer in social media, Twitter, Facebook and all our fast moving conversation. My hope is that the COJ might give us space to reflect on larger issues. So wait for the wrap-up post which will appear here and at Carnival of Journalism soon. Then, feel free to digitally meet your fellows carnival goers, mingle, drink, be merry, debate (at a high level of discourse) then go fourth and journalize.

This month’s topic and my humble contribution: The changing role of Universities for the information needs of a community: One of the Knight Commission‘s recommendations is to “Increase the role of higher education…..as hubs of journalistic activity.” Another is to “integrate digital and media literacy as critical elements for education at all levels through collaboration among federal, state, and local education officials.”

My post here will be greatly surpassed by the aggregation of everyone’s thoughts. But since this is my blog – here we go!

Universities have a unique advantage in this “changing media environment.” They are sheltered from economic realities. True – they do have a bottom line, but it is not governed by the same forces. Journalism programs don’t need to focus on the ad-spending rates of print vs. digital because it impacts whether or not a professor will have a job. They focus on it to the extent that it impacts their students lives once they leave the hive. With that advantage comes great responsibility. Yes, just like Spiderman.

In addition to this unique advantage – Universities have a distinct disadvantage. The reporting is done from within a university. When I went to Columbia’s J-school I worked on a project NYC24. It’s a great way to learn skills but the finished content felt as though it was placed behind a glass case – it was museum work. Aside from my parents and other class mates who stared at it – the impact was minimal. Being voted the EIC of this site was like being the hallway monitor (Our EIC went on to be do PR for Karl Rove – not a joke). Combine this with trying to get a call back when you say you’re a journalism student and you’ll understand what I mean by saying – it’s implication and attraction to the rest of the world is null and void. I like programs like News21.org, but I fear it’s more of the same. Now instead of just one j-school website behind a glass wall, we have several j-schools.

Taking those two things into consideration – I would make two specific recommendations for the changing role of Universities in regards to the information needs of a community.

ONE RECOMMENDATION: There are a few University projects that have shed the “museum” feel. In the Bay Mission Local is a bright shinning example. In Los Angeles check out Neon Tommy. I credit it almost completely to Lydia Chavez and Marc Cooper respectively. But since cloning them isn’t a strategy, I’d guess the following elements also helped.

(a. Neither are seen as ‘necessarily’ associated with the university. Rather – the sites have a unique flavor and they ‘happen’ to be associated with a university. Again, this is a tough nut to crack and I think requires individual professors like Marc and Lydia to be given the space and resources to produce independent sounding/standing projects.

(b. Partnering with other news organizations. This is a touchy subject because for some it sounds like student labor to prop up failing organizations – flooding the market with cheap labor so professional journalists can’t get hired. See UC Berkeley’s collaboration with The Bay Citizen. Watch carefully Patch and other universities.

Bottom line: I see almost NO reason why there should be a “student” newspaper at the graduate level. Or why any “student” work should remain such. It’s the real world. If journalists want to complain about pajama bloggers – why not add journalism students to the mix

On a broader level I want to talk about universities outside of j-schools.

RECOMMENDATION TWO: Universities play an important role in their communities beyond just being diploma mills that collect tuition. UC Berkeley is, historically, a great example. (See “Berkeley in the 60′s). In relation to this journalism students should be working with students from history, communication and other departments to train them. Yes, you heard me. Journalism students should be teachers. Journalism is no longer the art of story-telling. It can also be the art of story-enabling. If there was one change I’d want to see in curriculum across the board it would be to envision a class whereby journalism students find ways to get the broader student body involved in media projects. This, I believe, is the biggest change that needs to happen.

Or flip this on its head: History, communication, sociology, etc – all these departments should include journalism into their curriculum. Journalism doesn’t need to be done by big J-Journalism students. At the undergraduate level why isn’t every history major tasked with creating a blog and covering one local issue or partnering with journalism students? After all what is history but really really slow journalism

In short – the first recommendation implies concrete implications from student work. Call it an “Ameri-corp” if you will, although I hate that analogy (hoping Conor from Localocracy picks up this topic as I’ve heard him champion it before).
My second recommendation: We’re too involved in our own journalism programs. Knight (or some other entity with a ton of money) should find a way to lobby/change curriculum in other departments to include elements of journalism. EVERY student should leave college with some experience of reporting and writing.

And for extra credit!

Check out what Jarvis is doing at CUNY. There needs to be more of this. The goal here is not to cover a region, but to innovate. And not just in an academic setting. For some students his class even turned into real funds to start a project. Obviously we can’t do offer that at every journalism program – but we can create space to be creative.

Journalism is an interesting thing to teach in the first place. We call it a craft and yet I have a “Masters in Science” of journalism. It’s everyday history and yet it’s a blue-color practical job. The academics of it and the application of it are two distinct things.
For the sake of how Universities can get involved in the information needs of communities – they have been and always will be hubs. In the 60′s that mean giving a space for picketing. That lead to the shooting at Kent State, a tragedy for sure, but also a national moment. A space for the country to face itself in the mirror. Universities need to provide the same digital space today.

This post will be a little on the academic side – but it’s something that has been formulating in my head for some time and was recently inspired to spit out. In fact, I can point to the post when this started bubbling in the dome above my shoulders. “Editors and Publishes in a Battle Against Inertia” – which I wrote in January.

I avoid the “old media vs. new media” debate. But I do have some constructive criticism for both sides   – And here’s that criticism for old media….

For many this is nothing earth-shattering. What I’d like to add to this, however, is the simple idea that newspapers have been the canary in the coal mine. While newspapers are hitting the free fall, the rest of the world is only just catching up with us. Since journalism is the exchange of information it makes sense that this industry would start to feel the shift first and perhaps hardest. But information has been a vital part of any industry – and therefore none are safe.

Put this concept (industrial age institutions in an information age) in context and we can start to see what is happening in industries around the country. The auto-industry, education, medical, and even the government (from the federal down to the city level) – all need to be restructured for the information age.

I went to an IScott meeting (Interdepartmental Staff Committee of Traffic and Transportation) in San Francisco last week. This is a meeting twice a month between different department heads to discuss street closures, traffic, etc. It includes the police department, transportation, dept. of recreation, city council, etc.

Afterwards I wondered how these department heads kept in touch between meetings. Google Docs? I doubt it.

Could efficiency be increased if they all had blogs and understood RSS? Most likely. If they wanted to be private – perhaps a simple Yahoo or Google group? Or a wiki. The tools are out there.

From the small city government to the pentagon, our country needs to be organized for the information age. Newspapers need to make that re-invention as well and I believe they are aware of it. We aren’t sure what a news organization looks like in the information age. It might even be the case that there is no news ‘organization’ but rather – news platforms. We are still waiting to find out.

One could say that Google is the first great company to make this shift. In that sense they are positioned to be the Ford of the information age.

The good news in all this: The sky is not falling, but the ground IS shifting. Those that don’t get a good footing could fall through the cracks, just as many did when the industrial age came around.

(Hat tip to Chris Pirillo and the Twickie tool he made which allowed me to easily do this.)

Digidave: Quote/question of the night: Child labor is to the industrial revolution as X is to the information revolution… Send your snark this way.

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 08:56:10 +0000 2009

soozanj: As indian call centers are to the information revolution. (no snark intended)

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 10:45:01 +0000 2009

SamuelJay: “Child labor is to the industrial revolution, as copyright suits are to the information revolution.”

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 10:59:08 +0000 2009

SamuelJay: also: “Child labor is to the industrial revolution, as rich publishers are to the information revolution.”

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 11:05:59 +0000 2009

fobes: Not snark; but wondering what dreams capture us? Ind. Rev gave us? Info/internet rev, like a siren, lures w/ ? open source&collab?

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 13:38:37 +0000 2009

joeybaker: child labor is to the Indust. Rev. as convergence (co. death)is to the Info age

about 9 days ago

Thu Feb 26 14:33:44 +0000 2009

mattmireles: Are you saying that child labor increased or decreased because of the industrial revolution? My guess is that it went down…

about 4 minutes ago

Sun Mar 08 02:54:45 +0000 2009

cabara: Child labor is to the industrial revolution as word people are to the information revolution. (Bloggers should be paid!)

about 3 minutes ago

Sun Mar 08 02:56:27 +0000 2009

joeterrell: Child labor is to the industrial revolution as pornography is to the information revolution… (is that the answer?)

about 2 minutes ago

Sun Mar 08 02:57:33 +0000 2009

billdinTO: As intern labour is to the info rev / as contract/casual labour is to the info rev.

about a minute ago

Sun Mar 08 02:57:47 +0000 2009

amabaie: cubicle dwellers (“cubicle rats”?, “cubicle moles”?)

33 seconds ago

Sun Mar 08 02:59:02 +0000 2009 

That idea, to create a high speed bullet train system through major metropolitan cities has received over 800 votes on Change.org, propelling it into the next round of voting (original votes wiped away). The top ten ideas from this next round will be presented to the Obama administration. I wouldn't presume anything after that, but just that the president of the United State's cabinet would be briefed on ideas proposed by the citizenry is reason enough to celebrate.

Considering the opportunity – I decided to give my idea a third cent and a second thought.

I'm sensitive towards public transportation. Having grown up in Los Angeles and lived in New York I've seen the good and the bad. Now living in San Francisco I welcome the day when a high-speed bullet train might connect me and my fellow Los Angelinos in under three hours, for less money, less emissions and more comfort.

But why stop there? Why not connect Seattle and Portland? Then stretch from Portland to San Francisco, down to Los Angeles and San Diego.

I envision a future where one could get from Seattle to San Diego or Las Vegas in 8 hours by train. The same should go for the East Coast: Fro Miami to New York – we should should cut down on air travel and invest in a railway infrastructure.

Like my idea? Go vote for it. With enough votes we can pass on the idea to the Obama administration. Check out the other ideas too. I don't claim mine is the best – it was just how I decided to participate. Lucky for you – voting only takes… two seconds.

My fascination is because Daniel, at least to me, represents another digital generation. Now, I’m far from being old (26, thank you very much), but I can remember a time before the Internet. When I was 15 (1996) the idea of starting your own company online would have been crazy. The idea of even starting your own web page would have put you into the upper .00001 percent of the teen population. There was no WordPress, Blogger, Moveable-Type, etc.

To my mother (not to constantly pick on her) I’m an online magician, I can just make things happen. Daniel isn’t a “magician” to me – I understand how he built the website, etc. But that’s because I’m a digitally literate and active person. I’ve adapted with the times since 1996. To my mother, not only is Daniel a magician, he is younger and therefore even more amazing.

Daniel represents something. I’m not exactly sure what it is. I don’t want to gawk at him, because not only is he young, but as you can see in the video below very articulate and astute. I wouldn’t mind watching him surf the web for a day. I’d probably learn a thing or two. That’s why, at the end of this video I had to ask him about his reading habits.

Want to learn about how young people get their news? Watch, listen and observe.

One last note: I realize innovation on the web requires time without making any money and that adults don’t necessarily have that luxury, but certainly watching Daniel do his thing takes away PLENTY of other excuses. Young Journalists: It’s time to get entrepreneurial.

I write:

Before the Internet (and I am old enough to remember) when my father
came home from work he sat right down in front of the T.V. and we knew
not to bother him for at least an hour and a half. Understandably so -
he needed to unwind. This unwinding period was followed by dinner and
then more television watching, because there was nothing else to do.
Thank god for “The Simpsons,” a show we could all watch together.

The routine today is a bit different. After dinner he doesn’t return
to the television – he goes straight to the computer. Some of his
activities on the computer are passive, but some are active. He has
changed his daily pattern and has removed some passive media
consumption time and replaced it with active media participation.

It was in reading a follow up post from Rahmin Sarabi that I thought this topic might be worth exploring more. I doubt that Rahmin and I are the only two that have noticed this shift.

Obviously it’s difficult for me to know my father’s daily routines now. I haven’t lived at home since high school. Furthermore, my father is getting ready to retire – so he isn’t burning the midnight oil anymore. Still – there is something to this.

I can remember growing up when the “clicker” (remote control) was the awe inspiring powerful tool to the outside world. Whoever owned the clicker dictated what the family would watch (hence the Simpsons comment.). But – even if my father earned the right to the remote (and he often did) I could watch 60-Minutes quietly because it only required passive participation. Or – I would find my way to the small television in the kitchen and watch Nickelodeon or whatever it is that I used to watch.

I wonder how that family dynamic changes when the center piece is a mouse and not a remote? Because computers beg for active media participation is it easier for families to bond around it, or harder? Perhaps it’s more of a sociological issue than a journalism one, but I think the consequences for that future family dynamic could have far reaching implications.

I’m also curious about what will happen when my father does retire. The first thought that comes to my mind is that he should start a blog. This is an option that wasn’t available to my grandfather – and while I never lived with him either, I’m sure he did a lot of TV watching. Oddly enough – my grandfather would have been a fantastic blogger about gardening, something he was only able to dedicate himself to in retirement.

END THOUGHT.

Then I go through a slide show like this and think: Journalism will survive – but it won’t be done by "journalists."

| View | Upload your own

Facebook held me captive for a few months, but if I get one more poke, quiz, or invite from old high school hookups long since forgotten, I think I’ll throw-up. And let’s face it – so far that has been the great product of Facebook (and unfortunately the first they are opening up to embede in other websties). Not only is Facebook going the way of MySpace, it’s invading my privacy at the same time. Kudos.

I expect Facebook to "jump the shark soon" by becoming more open – but if that is the case, my money is on Google, Yahoo (even if it’s owned by Yahoosoft), and a dozen other web companies over Facebook.

I should begin this post with a disclaimer: I try to stay on the cutting edge of technology – but I was a "Johnny Come Lately" to Facebook. As a result of being a late-adopter, I have never been a die-hard fan. But I think most people joined Facebook sometime in the last year (like me), so I’m not late THAT late to the game. In fact, I think I will just be an early adopter to claiming Facebook’s general lack of necessity. I do expect others will follow. I’m not predicting the downfall of Facebook, I’m just saying their estimated value of several billion dollars (not exactly 240 billion) is way off.

My History Con Facebook

Facebook launched the year after I graduated college – so for a long time, without a working .edu email address, I was banished into old people-ville. Meanwhile, I started THIS blog, through which I can add any widgets I want, have complete control over my identity, have made all kinds of e-friends…and I sell the ads (very few).

By time I was in graduate school, Facebook didn’t appeal to me. I thought of it as an undergrad-fad. It was being used by other students to network, but Columbia’s J-school isn’t that big – I could just walk up to people and say hi (I still believe the best networking is done face-to-face). A part of me was also a little bitter that I was "too old" to join the initial Facebook launch.

Then I joined: And I thought a whole new world had opened up to me.

My fist dive into Facebook was great. But I think this is because I
was comparing it to MySpace which was slow, fugly, and lacked
functionality. Facebook DESTROY’S MySpace on all these levels. On
Facebook I could install applications, such as my Twitter feed. I could
import my blog posts (I actually have a few friends who only read my
blog via Facebook) and I can tag my friends in photos (the best
application ever, truly brilliant).

But that functionality only wows me for so long?

So why is Facebook no longer rad?

First: There are the two recent PR scandals that, while most people
will or have forgotten, still hang in my mind. I’m talking about Beacon and Scoblegate.

More than that: I still can’t seem to separate my professional and
personal life on Facebook. I get friend requests from the following
types of people: Old high school, college or forgotten friends. Old
campers who I used to be in a position of authority to, work
colleagues, business contacts I want to stay in good steed with, etc.
etc. I love them all – but I want to keep them all separate.

I get pokes, zombies bites and other random acts of crap from all of
them. Do I really have to feel guilty because I don’t have time to do
movie friend comparisons with a former employer?

But social networking doesn’t need to happen on Facebook. I’m sick
of the idea that social networking sites have a monopoly on that. I
must have logins for dozens if not scores of dozens of communities
around the web. That’s all my data – and it should have one single RSS
feed. Facebook doesn’t own my digital identity and the majority of my
actions on the web aren’t caught on Facebook. If you really want to be
my "friend" online – you are following this blog.

And even this blog does a piss-poor job of capturing everything I do. I can’t wait until FriendFeed and other options like it launch. It will be one RSS feed for ALL my blogs, tweets, diggs, etc, etc.

And that’s because being open wins and Facebook is, so far, slow to open up to the exchange of information.

I expect an attempt to move in this direction – and it will either
be drastic and swift – and save Facebook from its current trap of
having a monopoly only on stupid viral applications – or it will have
meaning and I will humbly retract this post. Until then: Facebook is
not that rad.

So I’ve begun re-thinking this blog – and you are more than welcome to help.
First, the new design. Less clutter. If you have feedback, let’s hear it.

The rest of this post: More links and quick hits.

1. An interview with a citizen journalist about her experience covering a murder trial for a year.
Wether or not you think she did a good job covering the trial, reading the interview you realize that she, as a Canadian citizen, was engaged in the trial process in a way that was beneficial to herself. I think we forget that citizen journalism isn’t just about creating content – it’s about connecting citizens to the news process.

"I walked away knowing that defusing the power that I thought my past
had over me, shame, regret, embarrassment etc. is actually my greatest
asset for me when I speak from experience and I can use that to fight
for change and to get my voice listened to for the safety and welfare
of others."

2. A way journalists can use Twitter or other mirco-blogging platforms to improve their interviews or other reporting acts. I’m under the impression that the editor of Wired is gung-ho about this method and is going to start evangelizing Wired writers to adopt it. If they are able to get the newsroom doing that – it could be a new method of covering technology.

2. I received an email from Newsvine (which deserves its own post). In it they mentioned future goals: "Newsvine Assignment Desk."
  hmmmm…. An Assignment Desk. If they make it less clunky than Assignment Zero’s Assignment Desk, they may be onto something.