Going Solo: Panel – Solo in a Networked World

This panel is about the community aspect of going solo, how to fight isolation, and as a soloist you are going to be in a situation where you have to collaborate with other people, work in teams, so how are you going to manage this collaboration aspect of your work.

Moderator: Stephanie Booth
Stephanie Troeth
Linda Broughton
Laura Fitton

Going to conferences is an important part of being a freelance, as is having some sort of social watercooler space, e.g. Twitter. Need a balance between being alone and being with others.

Laura: Key thing is layered interactions, online, offline. What drew me into Twitter was someone who was Twittering something interesting, four days after engaging with Twitter saw a ‘tweet-up’, i.e. ad hoc meeting in a bar, and that drew her into a social events in a new city. So met people in real life, and got to know them, and their contacts, and layering that is important. If you live rurally, make a point to go to conferences to meet people.

Linda: Run a co-working space, which is run like a gym so there’s membership, but it’s designed to be entry level, so it’s affordable. Feedback from members about co-working when told that she was coming here, and the themes were that they loved co-working, because the life hey had before was a bit unhealthy, not getting out enough, and co-working was the best of both worlds People might come in one or two days, some people come in every day, so they use it how they need and want to use it. Asked them what they didn’t like, and mainly it was that the space wasn’t open 24-7, but that’s a good thing. We can’t open 24/7, but you can come in at 7am, and get thrown out at 9.30pm, so that’s not too bad.

For those who don’t know what co-working is, it is a physical space, so it has desks, water, coffee, quiet areas, meeting areas and meeting rooms, printing facilities, and 30″ plasma screens, Macs and software. You can come and go as you please. Also have a couple of start-ups there, there’s some blurring between freelance and entrepreneurs, as people start off as freelance, meet others, and maybe start up a new business. Tends towards being technology people, and people like it because they get to meet others. Also liked the very prestigious business address, for some clients it’s reassuring that you have a famous old building in Leeds on your business card.

StephT: Very difficult because I live it. But to add a bit of context to what’s been said before, the story of how I stumbled upon Twitter. Way back before Twitter was big, a friend from Melbourne pinged me to say “Use Twitter”, these were five guys I knew that I was following and it was just like the old days, being in one space. For other contexts, creating that atmosphere that you would have if you were in a physical space together.

Q: Linda, what were the steps that you went through to start it? How did you find the space? Did you get funding?
Linda: We had some European capital funding to set up the space. There’s a problem with not having enough start-up businesses, so we put in a bid for the refurbishment of the building. Have no revenue funding. Community was people working on the web, so when we started the project, went to the places where these people were, e.g. the Geek Up meetings, so met people, talked to them, and it mushroomed from there. Had a BarCamp in Leeds, and it was at the time launched, so it was networking and of course people now blogging about it, 700 photos on Flickr, and just using all those social media but a lot of physically going and talking to people.

Q: How do I get the best out of a co-working space?
Linda: People arrange to meet people there, go at least once a week, and it’s interesting. People worry that they won’t get as much done because they are chatting, but people generally do get as much done. Use the meeting space, but if you don’t need to use it, maybe you won’t benefit for co-working, because it’s not for everyone. Maybe our community’s more about sharing, but the architects couldn’t wait to leave.

StephT: Montreal opened a co-working space, which I joined. I found I would go there more if I organised my meetings there. This is something that I haven’t decided on, because I’m always on conference calls so wanted to test if it’s possible to do that whilst at a co-working space.

Stowe: One trick is that I put my 30″ monitor, and that makes work a lot easier, so if I’m going to do anything, I have to get up and go to the office. You have to do whatever you need to do to go to the office, because going to the office and leaving the office is very good for a working mindset. So I keep the chocolate at the office.

StephB: Does the social aspect help?
Stowe: The guys I work with in the building are architects, so when they are talking it just doesn’t register. When I worked in a space where people were talking about tech, I couldn’t help but listen.

Q: Where is Twitter going for business purposes.
Laura: That’s a huge intellectual and business research project for me at the moment. But almost Twitter alone took me from being a house-bound Mum to speaking at conferences. I have amazing mentors on Twitter, people who’ve shared with me. I’ve almost completely abandoned RSS because I see stuff on Twitter instead. I see a ton of apps that businesses are wasting money on, that I think tools like Twitter could break a lot of logjams in the enterprise. And there’s a marketing aspect too. There are a billion applications, but one of them is the ‘watercooler with a brain’.

StephT: There are lots of technologies, e.g IRC. You can create a space where several people can talk. With Twitter, I feel like I’m walking through a space when everyone is talking and if I hear something interesting I can have a conversation. But when you need to create a contained communications space you need a different tool, so if you want to be alone together, then chat is useful. A lot of chat tools are not secure, though, so things like IRC, which works very well on an unstable networks. That’s the tool I prefer and use most when I run teams. Teams of freelances, spread out in Canada and the US, and there are time-zone issue, and if you’re working on the project right now, hop into IRC so we know who’s working on it and we can deal with issues. Creates a nice atmosphere, and you get to know one another.

StephB: How do mailing lists compare?
StephT: I think we’re kind of immune to email these days. I find people behave differently in chat compared to email. Email can take a long time to reply, and IRC or any other chat room, can even do it on Skype but there tends to be a delay, you have a more instantaneous response, have a proper conversation and a richer contribution. Skype calls are useful too, have a daily call, so that the team gets to know each other. Sometimes it’s really simple of what they’re planning for the day, or it could be a brainstorm, and people help each other out. Campfire is a chatroom that ties into Basecamp.

Q: What specific things concerning freelances, what problems do you have in managing freelance teams.
StephT: First problem is that freelances work on more than one project. Do you tell project managers when you’re going to get stuff done, or do you tell them? Difficulty is the milestones, how to make them realistic, how much time should it take – there’s no quick solution. My team, which seams to work, is a development team, so it’s all managing tasks. When we decide to build the site, we decide functionalities, break it down to what each function should do. If a task takes longer than four hours we break it down. Every week we assign the task, and we update every day how people are doing. Easy to say ‘Is this going to take longer?” and then we know, every day, what is going to take longer. Know how much time basic functionality takes to do, then can work backwards and can put milestones in place, check with everyone that they’re on track. If someone’s ill and there’s a problem the client can decide what they want to do, whether to hire in extra people or wait.

Q: From perspective of developers, what are the main problems they have?
StephT: The most difficult thing is how much time they want to commit to a project and communicating that up front. It’s always approximate, because you can never be sure.

StephB: Interesting question, in what way are we challenging the people that we work with?
Laura: I often work with huge corporations, and the difficulty is not having the ebb and flow, and when are they in the middle of a crunch, or when would be a good time to brainstorm. When your’e not in the middle of their culture, there’s a lot you need to pull out of them to understand how their work lives go and how to work with that.

StephT: We run everything through Basecamp because it keeps track of everything that’s said. Do you think that having regular contact helps?

StephB: The clients I have are remote, so face to face is not an option.

Stowe: Larger the corporation, the more likely it is that they are using email from their Blackberry. They are unlikely to be using on Web 2.0 tools.

StephB: Linda, you work with start-ups?
Linda: The community is quite diverse, some start-ups, some freelances, some who aren’t sure what they are.

StephB: Freelances and start-ups have a lot in common, they are usually their own boss. Do you have anything to say about the challenges freelances face when they meet corporate clients?
Linda: Yes, one guy gives a presentation on ‘Top ten mistakes I made in my first week’, and it was all about how he felt that he’d been screwed over by his first five clients. Now we have more experienced freelancers, so there’s a lot of learning that goes on between people in the community. New people have new ideas, and I think you need to be a certain type of person to get something out of it, I think if you think you know everything it probably isn’t for you, but you’re committing to give something back to the community. We ask people to sign up to the principles of that community, and not just be a place to work.

Load of people have panic attacks about where the next client is coming from, where’s the work coming from, and so new freelances panic and take on too much work. Lots of painful lessons that people are learning. Added bonus of co-working space, though, is that people who need freelancers are ringing the space and asking for recommendations.

Linda: So a good source of referrals.

StephB: So a lot of what they are getting out of it is similar to Going Solo, in that people are learning stuff from their peers, and facilitating access.

Linda: Yes, people do pass work on to others, because they know them and trust them.

StephB: Comment about pricing plan and the way people pay. Most of my work happens at home, and I’m quite happy there and until recently I haven’t felt the need for a second space, but lately, especially in preparing Going Solo, I really needed a space that was work, and one that was not work. I wouldn’t mind having an office, but not five days a week. I have a use for one maybe three half-days a week. Not going to rent an office or desk in Lausanne for three half days, so a co-working community could provide the flexibility I need.

Linda: We’ve priced it so that if you have that need, it’s a fair price. Still get people, such as students, who want to use it for free and it’s important that it’s not a free space. We do need more members, and the community is only as good as the people who are in it, and the pricing policy is set to not be a barrier. Given that it’s aim is helping people who are starting out, we do have some great mentors and some successful entrepreneurs, and they give their time free. They will give one to one advice on ideas and plans, and one of the things they do is give advice on who might back a business, which helps us achieve our bigger goal to help more businesses start.

Laura: There are so many tactics and tools and things to throw at the wall, you need to figure out what works for you. Once met someone on a similar trajectory, and would swap a To Do list, and then check in each day – just a trick for accountability. Dying for a co-working space in Boston. When I’m working with someone who’s focused, I work better. Become embarrassed to procrastinate in front of other people.

StephT: Like in team work, have to work out how the team is going ot work, and it always stumbles to start with so have to be patient.

StephB: Have done similar thing on Skype, leaving it open, not really talking but just letting each other know what I was up to.

Dennis: Wondered whether you feel that the rise of social media tools has changed the environment in which you work? Does it make co-working more possible?
Linda: Yes, it goes together, it’s part of the open source community and it’s a cultural thing. That’s why some people hate it, because they’re not part of that culture.

Laura: Used to use Twitter to hold myself accountable when I wanted to do a yoga move each day. Didn’t want to overload to people, so invited people to ask her if she had done her meditation and gone for a walk.

StephB: Seesmic,com thread called ‘Fun with Goals’, which is about taking a task that you’ve been putting off for ages, and work on it for 15 minutes. Found a task and did it, and then posted a Seemic video, and it felt less lonely. Having an audience helps getting some stuff done. Also very bad with admin stuff, so set a date for Worldwide Administrivia day, so we all in our own places on the same day dealing with paperwork, filing, accounting, and shared it on Twitter and Seesmic. Just seven people, each in their corner alone, but connected in some way.

StephB: Flipside to the coin of online connection is offline connection.

Q: Work with people in the US so miss out on the face-to-face stuff, and miss out on offline discussions which are important for work. People talk about stuff without me when it’s part of the job. How do you make sure that no one gets left out?

StephT: That’s where the daily call really works. That time zone sensitivity is very hard, but daily check-ins, as a team, really work. Need to see that these are valuable, need a good chair to ensure meeting is efficient. Need to get people to understand that if they have an offline conversation they need to bring it back online to include those who are remote. Psychology of teams is that they either thing that you’re dispensable or shouldn’t have a responsibility, and that’s a separate problem. Weekly meetings, or every two days, but a regular difference.

Q: The 9 hour problem is a killer. So if I have a problem in the morning, they come into the office in the evening, and my day is over. I know I won’t get an answer before the next day, so if they don’t reply I have to wait another day.
StephT: Hard to train people to work internationally.

StephB: Many of you still have questions and probably for other topics that we saw at Going Solo so that we can keep the conversation going.

Going Solo: Martin Roell – Self-Organisation for Effectiveness: Tools and Methods to Get Things Done

How can we work in a way that we actually get the things done that we want to get done. It becomes especially puzzling when we choose our job – as freelances, we choose what we do. So we have a job we like, but still we doing it. Found the answer today – chap in the audience has T-shirt saying 98% chimp, and that’s it. We’re monkeys. There’s nothing wrong with it, but they’re not so useful. We have to be useful, if we don’t feel useful, we don’t feel happy, and nobody’s paying us.

We can self-organise and get things done. Talking about systems for organising ourselves. The system that matters is you, and your brain. We build systems to let this brain system operate better. When I talk about systems and self-organisation, it’s not about building a better system, it’s about using systems so that you can do what you do better.

To use your brain, you have to get all the stuff that is in there out, into a trusted system. We know a lot, but the problem is, when you focus on one task, and you have 50 or 500 other tasks in your head you will not be effective. So the basic principle of almost any system is to get the stuff that you’re thinking about out of your head so you can focus on things to get things done. If you use the GTD system you’ll know this.

How do you get stuff out of your head? Write it down. all your thinking about tasks, it’s your projects you are working on, want to work on, should be working on but are not. Everything. Collect it by writing it down, and collect it in an inbox – a physical inbox. Do this even if you use a computer. But make these things physical and collect them into a box into which everything goes.

In seminars, this usually takes people half an hour to get done. End up with something like 300 items, seems a lot, and it is a lot. The reason to do this is not to start worrying about having 300 items to do, the reason is to see the reality. Always think about lots and lots and lots of things, but we can only do one thing at a time. Collect everything, then convert it into an action. So you’ve collected a Moo card, what next? Convert it into an action. What are you going to do? Call them? File it? Figure out what the action is and then write that down. This is very boring. It’s writing list of To Dos. End up with lots of lists of things to do. But the point is to have a complete overview of what you have to do, want to do, etc. But the thing is that then you can focus on your task and ignore everything else.

Martin uses software called Things, but there are other tools.

Most people have 300 items, but realise about 50 of them are so stupid that they can throw them away because you are just not going to do it. Throw out as much as you can. If you doubt a task, throw it away. If it turns out to be important, it will come up again.

Then organise by context – where can you do this task, e.g. office, home, telephone, offline. Martin travels a lot, and hates working on a mobile phone on a train. So he filters so that he can do the tasks that are possible on a train. Context varies, in your office you can do most anything, but other tasks can only be done in a certain place. So filter list to what you can work on now.

How many things can you focus on? One. So focus on one thing, the one thing you want to do right now. You need to make a conscious decision on what you are going to do. How do you decide?

– by context, can you do what you need to do.
– by importance, makes sense to do the important things first, but we don’t, we do the nice things first.
– by energy, how do you feel? do you feel energised? no? this works in the other way, when you have bad days, there are a lot of tasks that are very boring, and these go well with bad moods or low energy days. one part in his to do list for mid-afternoon when he feels unfocused, usually stuff that’s away from the computer.
– by time available, seems obvious but we overlook that. we don’t use it to organise our lists, part of his list is ‘offline’, which is basically train time. use train times for focused tasks where he doesn’t want to be interrupted.

Decide consciously what you want to do. Do one thing, finish it, then move on. Don’t get caught up in other things. If you’re using a computer based To Do list, it’s useful to chose one item then close the system, work on that item, then open the system. Don’t switch between different tasks, or between organising tasks and doing them.

Don’t start the day by checking email, because that just creates more tasks. Instead, decide what to do next and do that. Email will always come.

Procrastination is interesting, because only humans do it. Why don’t we do these things that we want to do? To research into this, used Twitter, asked two days ago “Everyone: Pls send me the task from your todolist that you have been procrastinating longest! Will use it for my talk at Going Solo..”

Got a reply from me!: “Suw: @martinroell jsut the one? that’s hard… clear out my email inbox is probably the one thing that’s always on my list but never gets done”

More detail about it: “it says “reduce inbox to 0” as an overall project then “reduce inbox by 100″ as a action. and i never do it.”

Problem – to get rid of email, you create 50 things in your inbox. But a more fundamental reason why this doesn’t work – reduce inbox by 100 is not an action, it cannot be done. This is why some GTD systems work and some don’t – it’s what do you consider to be a task. No. 1 response was ‘tax declaration’.

Has to be “Look at first email in inbox and decide what to do with it.” The wording of the to do items is very important. Has to be what is the next action, not about something that will happen, it’s looking at the first email. That’s something you can do. A tax declaration is not something you can do, you can get the paperwork together, but a tax declaration is a project not an action item.

How are you working your to do list? Is it really an action? If you do this, it becomes clear that the the stuff you are procrastinating is the stuff that you aren’t clear on the first step of. If you don’t know what the first step is, you won’t do it.

Other thing is to work on a task for half an hour or one hour. This task may feel like it’s going to take three years, but do them for one hour, just begin, and begin again, and begin again, and at some point it will be done. You can’t do it all in one go.

There is no magic formula. But a lot of it is down to you, it’s discipline. There’s no person or method in the world that can help you get things done, it’ down to you. Discipline is a silly word, so really it’s more Strength and Balance, so strength to do the things you need to do. You won’t have a great day every day. There will be days when you don’t want to do it but you have to do it.

Areas to develop discipline, that you can use to see that you can do things no matter what condition you are in. You can do things every day no matter how much work you have, or what move you’re in.

– meditation, 5 mins in the morning every morning is enough.
– sleep, try getting up at the same time every morning, no matter what. you can go back to sleep, but try waking up at the same time.
– music
– cleaning your room

Distinguish between work and not-work. Might be a time in the day, but important to distinguish.

– build a system
– break down your projects into the first small step, make sure that step is doable
– begin the day by doing one important thing, before checking email or anything else. sometimes that will be enough for the entire day. start the day like that and you will set yourself up for success.
– distinguish work from not work. not just about being more effective in your work, but also about having a life, and to be able to switch off, stop worrying about work when you’re not working. Get this stuff out of your head, your mind will start trusting it that when you come back to the system everything will be there. Even if you’re not into doing more things, the same principles will help you create a better balance between work and private life.

Q: How do you do with IM? With 10 people IMing you all the time?
Martin: You have to have discipline. I switch it off completely if I want to focus.
Stowe: It has to become etiquette that it’s polite to ignore someone if you’re not able or want to respond.

Q: I find it hard to disconnect mentally.
Martin: There’s no hack, it’s just practice. Obviously meditation is an obvious thing, but also shorter work days, and just keep practice. There’s no way to switch off your mind, it doesn’t work that way. That’s why discipline thing is in there, as there’s no other way.

Q: One thing I find is that when I’m working on something and I have to read a link, and end up following a link trail, how do you break that?
Martin: No way to break it, but I use a tool for that, but noticing that you’re doing it is the first step, once you notice what you do, I’d then put the URL into the inbox and later create a task for it, and think about whether I want to go back later. So the moment I notice, I turn it into an inbox item, then it becomes an action. Interests change so fast that most things turn out to be not important the next day.

Technorati Tags:

Going Solo: Dennis Howlett – The Joys of Tax and Finance

If you live in the UK, you’ll have seen the ad, “Tax doesn’t have to be taxing”, yeah, right. We’ve all got to pay tax, so get on with it and get over it, but you don’t need to leave a tip. You don’t need to pay more than you’re legally bound to. Avoidance is legal, but use the rules; evasion is illegal and there are hefty fines, government grabs assets and there may be jail time. In France, if you fall foul of the tax guys there, they seize your assets and freeze your bank account and ask questions later.

Beware the exotic when it comes to tax avoidance – if it looks weird it’s probably dodgy.

Don’t be stupid. Don’t be a smart ass. You’ll get caught.

Offshoring. Different countries have different attitudes. Some don’t like tax, but some actively hate it. What that means is:

UK – into avoidance
Fr 27-30% of GDP in shadow economy
Germany – actively avoid and evade
UK – will avoid, sometimes dumb
Spain – Evasion is a national sport, 25% of economy is in cash. Dennis had to pay 33% of his house price in cash. Even the government takes property tax only in cash.
Italy – three sets of accounts – go figure! “One for me, one for the government, one for the tax man”

Spain has found it so difficult to collect income tax they tax property instead Location is important, where you conduct your business is important. If you have a British business, doesn’t matter where you live you’ll pay tax. Tiny Roland was one of a very small no. of person who could legitimately claim he didn’t live anywhere.
Where you are born matters, esp UK/US as if you’re American you’ll have to pay tax wherever you are.
Rules are not consistent around the world.

Mostly you’re taxed where you live, except if you’re a US citizen you are taxed regardless of where yul live and/or. If you were not born but live and work in the UK you can get tax free income.

Company – operating through a company may bring no benefit if the structure isn’t right. £150 to set up a company in the UK, in France is now €1, was €7500. You are using it to avoid tax plus. Special problems in the UK with Managed Service Companies.

Not just income tax, but also wealth tax and social security costs.

UK: is probably best, 48% top tax rate
France: 61%
Spain: expensive, but only if you pay it.

In some European countries it is not worth employing people as a person running a small business. This can mean it’s not worth being in business at all. France is very difficult for employing people, so in summer, there are bars and restaurants that shut whilst the owners go away because they can’t afford to employ people.

If you live somewhere because of the lifestyle it will be expensive. Usually social security costs – mandatory pensions etc – that cost the money.

Don’t move anywhere for tax reasons, live where you want to and deal with the tax. Get good local advice, and not the guys down the pub. Tax is complicated and the guy down the pub doesn’t know.

Accounting stuff:
Keep it simple. DIY or get help? There is no right answer. If you feel comfortable with it, fine, if not, get help because time is money and you don’t want to get it wrong. Most electronic accounting systems are based on a theory that’s 6000 years old, and weren’t invented with you in mind.

Alternatives, used or engaged with by Dennis at some point:
Blinksale – for invoicing
Freshbooks – does time, billing, etc.
FreeAgent – soup to nuts, does billing and taxes along the way

There are country-specific alternatives.

Spreadsheets – accountants love them but they are prone to error and difficult to maintain.

Need to save. Few people do. But save as much as the government will allow you, no less than 10%.

Think about how you manage money
– 40-50% for taxes
– claim everything you’re allowed
– keep account simple
– take advice
– save 10%
– enjoy the rest!

Q: Where do you find advice?
Dennis: Ask your network, someone will know someone who can do this. People only recommend people that they trust. Look for others who’ve done something similar, then getting advice.
Stowe: There are benefits to being in the US, you can write off a lot more, the tax is lower, but in general it’s lower.
Dennis: When you bring it all together, yes. But when you add health insurance it gets expensive, and that’s another form of tax.

Q: Tips for cross border billing, e.g. billing from Portugal and billing in the US, there’s the currency angle, but anything tax-wise?
Dennis: No tax issues, as in most places you’re taxed on what you earn not what currency it is in.

Q: Billing in Europe, if you’re in Switzerland, and I have to deal with a lot of Euros, and Swiss banks are very expensive for Euros, so we have an account in Germany because that’s cheaper, save thousands of Euros a year. Other thing about Switzerland, depends on which canton you’re dealing with. Have one canton the tax man is helpful, elsewhere they’ll shoot you first.
Dennis: Same in France.

Q: There are rules you don’t know about, so good to hire a professional accountant?
Dennis: Distinction, you can keep your own books and records so you can manage your cash. Small business people are quire poor at doing that. But always get help on specifics.

Moving from one place to another, need to learn a whole new system, so if you enjoy it and like it that’s fine, but otherwise need advice.

Q: Is my hairdresser a business expense?
Dennis: No. The rule is that if you could use it in another context, then it’s not a business expense. If you’re a musician or artist and you have clothes that are only used on stage, they are a business expense. It’s a pretty universal rule, but there are local nuances.

Technorati Tags:

Going Solo: Stephanie Booth; Laura Fitton – You Only Get What You Give

Stephanie Booth
It’s not enough to just know how to do my job, to do what I get paid for. To be successful you need business skills and these often, particularly if you became a freelance by passion, you might not have had a chance to learn them. Going Solo is a chance to fill this gap, and have a chance to learn from others’ experience. This is what we naturally do, when we have a problem we ask friends who are in the business who’ve done it before. That’s how the speakers were choses – they’re all freelancers.

Lots of freelances in the internet industry. Technology evolves very fast and for many things we do as freelances, there’s no real training or schooling in academia or professional schools. We’ve learnt on the job and maybe there are no positions in companies for what we’re doing because we’re too cutting edge or too in advance of what’s viable in a big company.

[Steph asks the audience what roughly attendees do. Many are consultants, developers, with a few journalists, designers in the mix too.]

Laura Fitton
Known because of Twittering, oddly, but investment of time is responsible for all incoming business, a lot of professional networks and mentoring, but people she’s met in the 9 months she’s been in Twitter blows her mind.

Why do you get hired when you get hired? Responses from audience: Reputation. Don’t know anyone else who can do it.

You as a unique individual, the company should want you as a person, not what you do as a commodity. Need to learn who you are, what you do uniquely. When people contact her is not because they want her to pitch, they want to already hire her.

Many companies/consultants just hide from web 20. Point of all these techs, approaches, etc. is to create gravity – the pre-existing condition that allows people to pick up the phone and say they want you. If you have good ideas and get them out there you can shortcut the old-school book method, instead blog, appear in podcasts, and draw people to you because of that.

Lots of talk about monetising social media, using ads. Don’t think that’s the point. The point is how it builds value and therefore business. All this hype and fuss about social media is nothing new.

Lives very heavily on Twitter. Gathers opinions from Twitter. Asked for one tip for people who want to use these tools. Themes were

– give it a try
– be useful, “Don’t annoy me or else I’ll tell my friends you suck”, and it is that casual.
– be helpful
– be friendly
– find the best audience, do research – plenty of freelances whose audiences are not on social media, although it’s still useful to be there because it increases your authority, they don’t need to find you through social media, if you can point them to your blog that’s useful. Can send anyone in the world to your blog.

HOw do ou know what you know? People tell you. Knowledge is socially mediated. Markets are likewise socially mediated – people trust their friends, referrals are very important.

What sort of social media presence do you have? What does your welcome mat say when people visit your blog? Not shortcuts, to this. There are the tips from Twitter, be helpful. You get what you give away. Ideas are a dime a dozen, what you are being hired for is not your ideas but your unique execution and your unique application of your ideas to a problem.

Giving time away – don’t do too much, if someone’s asking for free consulting you say “I”m really sorry, my commitment to my paying clients prevents me from doing that”. One example is that there are things like speaking opportunities, which Laura has a lot of. Was asked to speak for free, but said “I’m sorry, I can’t do it for free but I can do a quid pro quo” and got an hour and a half with the PR company in exchange. Picking brains lunches – it’s appropriate to draw the line.

What are the things that truly matter?
– Listen. Don’t worry too much about what you say, outbound communications. Listening is far more important. Any new community online that you’re looking to approach and be involved in, the most important thing to do is go in and listen before you engage.
– Be human. we’re so fixated on our professional appearance, can be so straight-laced, but it’s important to give a sense of your human voice on your blog. So show them you as a person with some well-rounded soul. YMMV, so know yourself. What are the unique ways that you work?
– When approaching your blog, be useful. Provide something that’s of value. You can change the point of view of your messaging: change the point of view to that of your audience.

Stowe said he sells “advisory capital”, but the user buys “a faster route to success”; a financial advisor sells “less stress and hassle”. How has the client condition changed after working with you? Useful both in direct and indirect communications. Focus on results you leave for your client.

– Be helpful. ComcastCares is on Twitter trying to reach out to people who have problems with Comcast. NOw, you can’t help everyone one-on-one, but answering questions helps more than just the asker.
– Get out and network.
– Be sincere. That will be picked up on. If you start trying to spam and brag and promote yourself, you need to build your value.

Most important thing is to give up control. The command and control age is over, that’s what the Cluetrain is about, and you need to learn to ride it. Let go, relax, engage in these conversations.

Questions
Stowe: Made the comment that this is ancient wiring, but the idea of surrendering control is new.
Laura: We had a public level of communications which was all very formal, and then we had the personal communications, so the stuff we already know about interacting personally are now being done on the public level. Old had two tiers, but the public/formal one is becoming public/informal. It’s very easy to go online and find someone. You don’t want to be on a commodity level, so to show how unique your ideas are you need to share those ideas very freely. Blogging for business, felt like it was a database of ideas to share.

Rochenda: How did you become known by Twitter?
Laura: I used to think that Twitter was dumb, and it’s fine to think that Twitter is dumb, had 250 people following in August, now it’s 3800. Bit of a tricky pony, people think I’m funny, but I’m also passionate. Engage very openly. People who find her through Twitter do hire her for her main area of consultancy in presentation advice. But having 3800 followers is not the point. It’s not about the numbers, it’s about engaging with the people who will sustain you. Surround with an incoming stream of information, have a peer community, it’s inspiration, support, ideas, challenge. That was the entry drug, and that alone is a great use of Twitter. You derive it and then you give it back. It’s what you give to the system that will pay you back. doesn’t have to be Twitter – what can I give? What about time suck? If you’re still printing brochures, paying for websites, then investing appropriately in social media, which isn’t free because it’s your time and your time is billable, that investment will pay off. But don’t spend time watching TV, reduced cold-call networking, cold-call meetings. A lot of that has been eliminated, so when does go to events, usually have pre-connected with the people there. Don’t just leave these relationships floating out in the online world but to pull them into the real world. Strongest relationships are those with people that I’ve met in person too. Build human connections is a multilayered process.

Q: I deal with bankers and they’re not even on Twitter. They don’t give a hoot about blogging or anything else. they are busy doing other things. I have a blog since 2000 which deals with information security and risk, but most of these people dont’ want to comment. Now I have a social media blog and you guys are really chatty. But the risk people dont’ want to come in, they call you, or they email. What your’e telling me is nice, but I think there’s a cultural thing you have to consider. I’m amazed by Americans, the way you Twitter, you make fun of yourselves, I could never have one of my guys do that, it’s not “what we do”.
Laura: I am very silly, I say words liek “suck”, but that’s my audience. And you have to put it in their language. What are the things that they hire you for?

Same chap: I have two kids on my Twitter feed, and they are banker’s kids, and the bankers found out about me through their kids. Because I deal with problems and those are compliance and security issues, they dont’ want it on emails, or on Google. Goes back to relationships, trust, confidence, and I appreciate your presentation, but depending on the country you’re in, and the business you’re in, you’re going to have to find a different way. Twitter is not going to work for me. But I think one gets, I get ideas from Twitter, it’s not my clients, they are not on Twitter, I have to find them through something else.
Laura: It’s not necessarily these tools where you’re pulling in clients, but because you have the blog, and that’s where they can find out about you.

Same chap: Yes, but he doesn’t use RSS, he wants it by email.
Laura: If he’s not on RSS then give it to him by email. Use the tools the way your clients to – use email, use Google, continually send articles to ex-clients if you have written something they might be interested in. You need to get to where the audience is, and give them what they want. Most presentations suck because they’re in the language of the presentation and not the language of the audience, so think about that across all your social media networks.

Dennis: Want to talk to our banking friend. What we’re really talking about here really is change. I ‘m building a community of chartered accountants, have 75k, and when people say “oh they don’t want to do it”, well maybe not today, but maybe tomorrow.

Laura: To talk a bit more about culture, there’s been a lot of talk about people having to clean up their Facebook so that they are attractive to employers. That’s ok to some extent, but if you’re doing it too much you have to ask if these are the people you really want to work with? People hire me because they like my style and they know I’ll work hard when they need me to.

Q: Is Twitter good for everyone? Say yoga teachers?
Laura: Twitter is good for one type of person: Humans. There are five yoga teachers I know of on Twitter, so go talk to them. Twitter is like a big pool of water, and within that pool you go and find the fish. Even if you’re highly specialised, you will find people talking about it.

Q: How do you introduce Twitter to people who are not early adopters?
Laura: Find something that’s of interest to them. Find people who do what they do, and then introduce them, and point out relevant questions from people. Package that together so they see utility in the stream. Also tell them the names of people on Twitter they might find interesting. But Twitter comes to people eventually, but again, take Twitter out of the mix – whatever tool it is, you have to find what’s useful and relevant. Trying to explain blogging to my father, who thinks blogs are useless. He’s a Redsox fan, so went to a baseball player’s blog. Before then, her dad could only rant about what the sports writer said, but now he can actually talk to the baseball player himself. Find something.

Q: Me – struggled last year with a lot of people wanting to “pick my brains” over coffee, and basically digging for free consulting.
Laura: Picking brains OK at a conference, thing but try not to get roped into the coffee chat, and it’s a way to network, but there are plenty of ways for someone to get to know me. Really can’t honour the lunch requests that come through Twitter, so using terms like ‘Out of respect to my paying clients’ or ‘Out of respect for my commitments, I’d be happy to help or answer questions by email’. Some interview questions are really bad because people clearly not read previous articles. People respect you when you respectfully and if they really push it, say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t realise you were looking for your consulting’, or point them to places to go. Respect yourself and know that you don’t scale. You feel bad turning people down, but you have put you’ve already given, doesn’t mean you have to keep giving just because you are asked. Have a friend who has a hard time saying no when asked for more advice. Be honest, be forthright, and you already know you’re being useful. Invest wisely, you have to be respectful of their time too.

Q: Have you found that through your social media, in trying to be human, that the human didn’t come across because of cultural issues. Have you found that people you’ve ended up working for where pushed away at first because they couldn’t relate to you?
Laura; That’s hard to answer because the people who were put off don’t come to me, so I can’t find out. I can’t think of an example where someone’s said “Oh, by the way, I really hated when you I first started reading you”.

One example is a talk that they gave in India at an architectural college. Talked to the professor for three hours before about what these women were about, what drives them. Found out that 60% of them were never going to practice, so didn’t just talk about architecture, talked about other things.

Another example, listen to your own mobile outgoing message, as that’s a very short presentation.

Screwing up is important. The human being who has made a mistake, and acknowledged it, their stock shoots right up. Be willing to make the mistake and be fully accountable for it.

Stowe: That’s very American.
Laura: So I made a mistake! A lot of these issues are past/future – so things change.

Rochenda: What I learnt in terms of trying to bridge that cultural divide, for me, I’m very emotional, and I realised that I get very emotional about terrorism, things of that nature, but if I get emotional, even if my message is good it doesn’t go over. So I try to pull my emotions down, it’s hard, but I don’t seem as excited. I try to calm myself down.

Q: What if you don’t speak English? What does Twitter look like?
Laura: Twitter’s not just in English. There are thousands of Japanese speakers on Twitter. The important thing is about understanding how these tools could be used, not to try to get your prospective clients on Twitter or blogs. If your prospective clients do not use Twitter or blogs, but do use email, then use email.

Steph Troeth: Comment about giving back. I spend about 10 hours a week to give back via volunteering. What I do when someone asks to pick my brains, the first thing I do is ask where are they going, what do they want to get out of it. Try to understand very early on where they are coming from, and where they want to go, then that helps understand what I and they can get out of it. Regarding Twitter, I keep my Twitter stream private, and that filters things, so if someone asks for help then I can spare ten minutes, then they will Twitter it and everyone will see.
Laura: If you invest ten minutes in helping people publicly online, that scales better, and is a more effective use of your time than going for a coffee. Regarding the meeting, shape the meeting, make it transparent that you are giving them an hour, so that there’s something clear there for them to appreciate. Work out what scales well for you.

Q: How would you build a community about Nato in the Balkans.
Find blogs for people writing about that, start a wiki to collate information, find people on Twitter, Jaiku etc. who are writing about it. Listening stage. Then start to blog, as prep for a quarterly newsletter. Lots of times people ask if CEOs should blog, usually say no, if they’re not already drawn to it then they maybe don’t have the DNA to be a blogger, so find someone who does and give them an hour a month with the CEO, but don’t force someone who doesn’t have the inclination to do it. The other big thing is to find a few case studies to show people. There’s a site called Qik,com, which lets you broadcast from your phone – friend was in Africa and came across Bob Geldof and used Qik to do a video with questions.

Technorati Tags:

Future of News: The Medium’s New Message

  • Markus Prior, assistant professor of politics and public affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Politics at Princeton University
  • JD Lasica, writer and consultant, co-founder and editorial director of Ourmedia.com, president of the social media group.
  • Ed Tenner, historian and author

Again, this is a rush transcript. I will correct as time allows.

Markus Prior will be talking about the changes in information technology and the implications for news and democracy. The audience for network news in the US has dropped in share from 75 to 38 in 2004, and the Nielsen ratings has fallen from 38 to 18 from 1980 to 2005. There was a decline beginning in the mid-80s to the present of about 50%. Pundits and academics look at this slide and draw two conclusions.

  1. Television news consumption is down.
  2. Americans are worse off. They are less engaged.

Both conclusions are wrong but oft repeated. They say that Americans are not interested in the news and cynical about news and the political process. There was this golden age and the ‘greatest generation’ and that is over.

However, political interest has not trended down. People are not necessarily more cynical. Trust has declined a little bit. These individual level explanations have relatively to do with this decline. In the first part of the decline, we lived in a very different world. The more convincing explanation of this decline have to do with changes in the environment.

At the beginning of this decline, the network news had a captive audience. There were fewer options in media than there are today. The big explanation in this decline is that there is so much else there. The surprise is how high the network news audience was. It was because it was the only show in town. They came home to relax. Turned on the TV, and news was all that was on.

Markus then looked at consumption level of television news. Sunday show watching and evening network news have declined a little bit, but cable news has increased in weekly hours per household in television viewing. Television news is still alive. It just looks different than in the past. It is hard to get a sense of what the news audience is. Print circulation is down but online news reading is up. We don’t quite know the trends that are relevant.

There is something that we do know. Fewer Americans are contributing to the total than in the past. For some, news consumption has gone up. How do what understand the difference that this would make in politics. Let’s forget about measuring news exposure and instead ask people what they like. In the low choice environment, preferences don’t matter, but today, preferences are very important. News junkies are more intelligent than those who prefer entertainment but only if they have access to new media. He explains that in this Washington Post article:

Greater access to media, ironically, has reduced the share of Americans who are politically informed. The most significant effect of more media choice is not the wider dissemination of political news but mounting inequality in political involvement. Some people follow news more closely than in the past, but many others avoid it altogether.

There is increasing inequality in political involvement. Americans are using the access to greater access to information in different ways. News consumption, political knowledge and turnout can vary even in the absence of preference change.

Is this good or bad? You could argue that most people are better off. But are they using these new opportunities that hurt their personal interest? The answer depends.

Let me conclude, the good news is that there is a chunk of people – maybe 15-20% you can call news junkies – can become more knowledgeable and use that information. To the extent that more and more people play a role in keeping elected officials to account, that is good. This might actually work. The pessimistic scenario is that the news junkies, those who do the monitoring may, in fact, not be very representative of the rest of the population. News junkies look demographically like the people who prefer entertainment. News junkies tend to be slightly older. There are no gender, racial or ethnic or income difference. There is one difference. News junkies tend to be more partisan.

I don’t know if we’re closer to optimistic or pessimistic view, but the easy answers are too easy.

JD Lasica

The thrust of my talk is how the news media need to re-invent themselves for the digital age. He used to work at the Sacramento Bee and then went to work for Microsoft. I can’t tell you the difference between working in newspapers and working in the tech industry could not be more extreme. There has been more change in the past five years in media than in the past 50 years. He showed his five-year-old, and he said that they relate to media in totally different ways. I wrote in my book Darknet, you have to look at the people who are coming of age now and you are looking at the future.

He uses his son as a lab rat as to how he relates to the media. It’s totally different in terms of game play and how he uses TiVo.

News is everywhere and on demand. Before people got their news from a few sources: Network news and newspapers. Now, the news media has become more fragmented. If you’re a web publisher, you don’t only have to worry about website but RSS, networked digital TV, traditional cable and electronic newspapers.

He played a video about alternative media sources that did a rapid fire example of all of the media that is happening online. And he said that we don’t see this on newspaper websites.

We are seeing a mass movement of niche media. Blogging, amateur video (YouTube is three years old, and 85m people are watching 4.3bn YouTube videos a month), citizen journalism. In video world, people are creating webisodes, screencasts, stop motion photography and mash-ups.

He suggested going out into the internet archive and Creative Commons licenced video to create videos. He suggested that people could do this in your community. He gave a list of media tools.

There is a new model of peer-produced news. He showed Live in Baghdad, but they are about to close because they don’t have funding. They capture first person stories. (I was just wondering if this isn’t a model of new digital free lancing.) You can now form these new ad-hoc collaborative groups to create video that is really amazing and compelling.

Where is all this heading?

  • Continued trivilisation of news by traditional media. I’ve been increasingly upset by trivialisation during this election cycle. I think there will continue to be a race to the bottom.
  • I am going to predict that half of all daily newspapers will disappear in 15 years. What’s going to take the place of this journalism?
  • We’re seeing increased fragmentation of media sphere.
  • I think social media will be a big part of how traditional media can play a part to re-engage with their audiences.
  • We’re going to see more opinion journalism, niche and hyper-local news
  • There is a more of a threat to legacy business models.
  • Journalism as a career path is more challenging.

On the flight over here, I was reading time magazine. Joe Klein said:

The media tend to look into the rear-view mirror and see the future.

We need to take media executives to Silicon Valley and immerse them in start-up culture. We need to create innovation labs and skunkworks. We need to collect that work and put it under public domain licence. We need to look at geo-tagging, map mash-ups. Your readers live in their communities. There are ways that people intersect in their communities. There are interesting ways to use those social graphs. Dare to fail. Everybody fails but all they do is start over again. They are more willing to experiment. News is a process and a service, not a finished product. We’re going to have to re-examine “professional journalism” precepts especially objectivity and exclusivity. Smaller and more nimble news operations will be necessary.

Note: JD Lasica has done an interview with Ed Felten, one of the hosts of the conference and also a security expert who has done a lot of work to reform electronic voting.

Ed Tenner

We just heard about rear view mirrors, and I’m afraid as an historian, that’s what I’m about. I’d like to look at the attempts in the 1990s of attempts to view future on the web.

In 1995, I spoke at a meeting for Annenberg Washington programme. The opening speech was given by Edwin Diamond, and he gave the internet boom to the space reporting he once did. The boom in space reporting was down to the ample advertising from the aerospace industry. The current boom in the 1990s was also driven by hope that there would of advertising revenue of reporting on it. The real question of newspapers and news magazines. How did they get it so wrong? They were very optimistic at the time. If you look at circulation and advertising in the late 90s, they seemed to be right. What happened to the profits?

I’m not a specialist in web advertising. I’d like to give a few reflections on what might have happened to that. In field I work, book publishing, the web hasn’t had an impact. There have been fewer innovations than people expected.

I view this as a revelation not a revolution. The crisis of middle class magazines preceded the crisis in newspapers.

One trend I see is the de-centralisation of authority. I see growing economic inequality, but there has been a softening in respect for many professions and including the profession of journalism. There once were personalities in the media who had respect and awe and were common bases of discussion. Today’s commentators have fan bases but not the kind of broad cultural authority that network news anchors once had. The legacy of the question authority bumper stickers in the 1960s. It even has happened in the medical profession. Doctors used to be the gold standard of respect, but now people are taking medicine into their own hands such as alternative medicine and homeopathy. He talked about the fall of Arthur Andersen. Many great authoritative institutions have weakened themselves.

Journalism was late the movement towards professionalism. Missouri School of Journalism was founded in 1908. Medill School founded in 1921. It’s not just the erosion of respect for authority but also people taking things into their own hands. Professional standards do sometimes give people the impetus to live up to those standards. We do lose something with that.

In the middle of the century, there was less of an effort to make a distinction between high and low culture. There was an irreverent mixture of things. Later in the century, people in the city made an effort to elevate high school (my words, not Mr Tenner’s). In the post-war affluence, there has been inversion in the cultural norms and even age. The young drive ad campaigns in an effort to reach young consumers.

What can we draw from these trends? A lot of changes are needed. But let’s look at comparative advantage. Newspaper and other print media have to focus on those services that they can do better than other information sources: On the audiences they can server and the advertisers to reach them. The other approach could be described as the outside-in. Sometimes the best ideas come from people outside of the traditional background.

One great hope for the press is that online revenue could rise to offset decline in print revenues. A hundred years ago, you could open up newspapers and magazines and find fears of excessive reading. Book and newspaper reading was corrupting society. It was distracting young people from productive careers. It was harming eyesight. But what goes go can also come up again.

Q: There was a question about political polarisation.

A: Markus Prior: News junkies are more partisan, but you are losing the moderating influence of those who don’t participate. However, I believe that the red/blue divide is overblown. The people who care less are tuning out.

News consuming is done by fewer Americans. Fewer Americans are consuming more news.

Q: One of the symptoms of our discussion is tied to delivery platform of TV. He gave the example of video being consumed on other platforms such as YouTube. But the news and information might be consumed on other platforms.

A: Difficult to answer that question. Basically, he had to narrow things down to find a relevant question to answer. (That is a brutal paraphrase.)

Q: Is this just re-purposing content on new platform? Is it really about blowing up your website?

A: Most of interesting experiments coming outside of traditional media world. Digg. TechCrunch.

Q: Impact of new media on candidates.

A: JD Lasica: Barack Obama has social networking ability on his site. If you remember his speech after the Rev Wright blow up on religious tolerance, the reporters who followed this speech asked where are the sound bites. Obama decided to treat the audience like grown-ups. More than three or four million people watched this on YouTube instead of having to rely on traditional filter of media. Postive development, and it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Ed Tenner: Aspect of campaign that has fascinated me, unintentional soundbite. People run these sound bites as a loop. I wonder if people will be focused on not giving opposition sound bites that can be used this way. Obama’s famous ‘bitter’ remark was leaked by blogger favourable to him in a meeting that was supposed to be off the record.

Q: They say that politics is theatre for ugly people. Writers strike in Hollywood so people wanted to be entertained.

A: Markus Prior: Most important fact why so many more young people care and why debates attracted more audiences is why so exciting, for the first time in primary election two candidates so evenly matched that this can go on for so long.

Q: How do writers get paid?

Panelists said that paid writing is not going away.

JD Lasica: Anyone in your 20s considering going into journalism, I say: We need you. You also have to realise that you won’t be at same news organisation for 20 years. You’ll have to be nimble. You might want to start a niche blog. I make some money with my blog, but I make more money in speaking and consulting.

Mark Davis from the San Diego Union-Tribune said that journalists need to learn how to do video in some form and be able to tell a story in some way.

Future of News: Data Mining, Visualization and Interactivity

I felt that it would be inconsiderate to the other panelists to live blog my own panel, but here is my presentation. And here are some links that I used in creating the presentation.

I’ll add some more after the panel is done including some links to Matt Hurst of Microsoft Live Labs and David Blei with the Department of Computer Science at Princeton.

Matt showed some excellent visualisations of the connections between bloggers as well as some very fascinating graphs showing the blog buzz about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the clear inflection point in January after his win in the Iowa caucuses. Fascinating stuff.
David showed some excellent examples of the automated analysis of of text such as a magazine’s archive, the Huffington Post and the political blogs Daily Kos and RedState. I think there is an opportunity here for news organisations to use these techniques to do some data-mining of their own archives, both for their readers and themselves.
It was a great panel, and we had a great discussion with the audience. Thanks to everyone involved.

Future of News: Attention, Distraction and Information Glut

It’s the second day of the Future of News conference in Princeton, and David Robinson kicked things off with a talk on Attention, Distraction and Information Glut. As of yesterday, this is a rush transcript. I’ll tidy it up as best as I can during the day.

He talked about what he thinks is important on the future of news: Attention. In 1971, the John Hopkins University Press published remarks by Herb Simon posed the problem:

What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.

I want to argue that the future of news requires structures that require something to cope with information glut.

The real product that newspapers sell is audiences. Alan Rushbridger, Editor of the Guardian, said that demand for advertising allowed press freedom from political organisations. The supply of audience attention has become finer grained. You can cherry pick people you want to reach. The forces that have made it easier to slice and dice the attention of audiences is part of the just in time demand supply chain. An increasing fraction of our economic activity has become people who want to sell to increasingly specific niche audiences. The high cost of attention getting has to compete with the Drudge blog, weather sites, etc.

The gravitas of newspapers isn’t the cheapest way to assemble an audience. It’s also not the least expensive way to build a trusted or high-brow brand to sell advertising. Competition for eyeballs is stiffer than ever. As Eric Alterman said, people increasingly live in ‘time poverty’. Sherry Turkel of MIT talked about e-mail bankruptcy.

Some products are designed that more information is always better. Think of it as more frequent, more rapid than e-mail. He pointed out the Twitter curve:

The Twitter curve from Creating Passionate Users

From Creating Passionate Users.

He also talked about the increase of attention-enhancing drugs and other drugs to enhance their cognitive performance. (Are we just addicted to e-mail? I wonder) David said that the pressure of academic life have led to increasing numbers of researchers to taking these drugs – possibly as one in five researchers he said.

What are the bright spots in this deluge? He pointed out a site called AideRSS. It can combine all of your feeds, although that might be more overwhelming than your e-mail inbox. This looks at items that people are paying the most attention to. It will take things like most commented on and bring them to the top of your list. It can make sure that you’re never entirely out of the loop, whatever loop you might be into. But some people want to venture in to the unfamiliar.

Or he pointed out what might be called ‘the thinking man’s Drudge Report’, a link blog called Arts & Letters Daily. It’s done by a professor in New Zealand from a ‘startlingly broad group of sources’. The idea of attention as an economic asset gives you an idea of business models for news. If you take the attention given to you and invest it wisely, then trusted guides become increasingly important.

Arts & Letters Daily began as a hobby, but operating funds came from Lingua Franca until that magazine went over. Then the writers paid for it for a while until it was bought by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Some might call it free-loading, they highlight content but don’t create it. But aggregators are misleadingly connotated. Sometimes aggregation is about pulling together threads that only a very few people are interested in. It might not make sense to build something from scratch, but you can see these custom tailored solutions emerge. Getting rid of the extraneous signals or noise is extremely valuable.

Another idea entirely is that technology might help us learn to tolerate disorder. He pointed to tags. It might seem chaotic, but by displaying tags, it creates an order by suggestion. (Del.icio.us shows common tags for each item added.) It is a folksonomy as opposed to a taxonomy.

David Weinberger has written an intriguing book called Everything is Miscellaneous. In the book, he says:

For example, the digital order ignores the paper order’s requirement that labels be smaller than the things they’re labeling. An online “catalog card” listing a book for sale can contain–or link to–as much information as the seller wants, including user ratings, the author’s biography, and the full text of reviews. You can even let users search for a book by typing in any phrase they remember from it–“What’s the title of that detective novel where someone was described as having a face like a fist?”–which is like using the entire contents of the book as a label. That makes no sense when all that information has to be stored as atoms in the physical world but perfect sense when it’s available as bits and bytes in the digital realm.

From Weblogsky.

You can see a talk by David Weinberger here on those issues.

Q: Are there good aggregators for children and young people?

A: There are a few, but a lot of what works on the web are idiosyncrasy, such as BoingBoing. The idiosyncratic taste that an individual brings to that is part of the selling point.

There was another question about reliance on algorithms, and there was a mention about the Google News algorithm. David Robinson mentioned a book by Neil Postman pondering what would have happened if Nazi propagandist Adolf Eichmann had been a computer programmer.

There was a question about digital collections and libraries. After talking about the role in libraries in digital society, he then finally came around to people who we wouldn’t consider journalists doing journalism. Is it necessary for those people now doing journalism to support the institutions of journalism? (That’s a really rough paraphrase of some complex thoughts.)

Future of News: Economics of News

  • Gordon Crovitz, recently retired publisher, Wall Street Journal
  • Mark Davis, vice president of strategy, San Diego Union-Tribune
  • Eric Alterman, distinguished professor of English, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, professor of journalism, CUNY Graduate School of Journalism

Caveat as before. This is a rush transcript.

Gordon Crovitz. When David told me that this panel was the economics of news, I wondered if this was a yes/no question. We’re 10 years into the digital revolution, and in a deadline driven business, we’re just asking this question.

He told a story. His young son threw sand into the waves for 20 minutes, hoping that that waves would change. They didn’t. Reminds him of news executives. Three things affecting news, not in good ways.

  • Technology changing news consumption.
  • Technology driving new business models but not address high fixed costs of old model such as paying journalists to create content.
  • Changes moving at rapid but unpredictable pace.

The newspaper had a business model that hadn’t changed for three generations. In Silicon Valley, the first law of technology is that we over-estimate change in the short term but under-estimate it in the long term. He pointed to web 1.0 and said that after the crash, many executives breathed a sigh a relief that they had dodged the change. They didn’t realise that the web continued to evolve and consumer behaviour continue to change even after the crash.

He talked about the laying of an undersea cable. It allowed Queen Victoria to send a message instaneously to President Buchanan of the United States. It caused riots in New York.

The Wall Street Journal’s mission wanted to get information of markets to people information about the markets with a level of professionalism.

Why are newspapers in trouble?

Twenty years ago, if you lived in Chicago and you wanted information, you could read Chicago Tribune or the Sun Times. They were great bundles of news. It was delivered to you once a day. Now, you can get better information.

If I were half my age, I wonder if I would read my newspaper on a daily basis. My local newspaper focuses on information from the day before, when we’ve all seen that news on the web or through our Blackberry. Newspaper editors are still stuck telling us news from the day before. We have seen 30-40% decline in readership, and the advertising revenue is even worse reading. There are now people paying to read the Wall Street Journal online than pay to read the paper version of the New York Times.

The advertising is the big problem. Targetable media like online has made non-targetable media like newspapers and magazines very uneconomic. That does not favour mass media like newspapers and magazines. That is married to the fact that technology drives consumer choice and consumer behaviour. Most news companies are totally unprepared to think of new forms of distribution when they have grown up in an analogue world. Circulation revenues do not cover much of the news costs.

I am optimistic that a business that has been so slow in adapting will find a way. We’re in about third or four inning (about half way through) marketers finding the most efficient ways to market. Online revenues are pennies or quarters on the dollar of what we got in print. We’re not at a low point in terms of print advertising, but we’re no where near a high point in online ad growth.

There will be a lot of experimentation. In the end, the business model starts with the high fixed costs of journalism that creates the content that creates the brand. News publishers one way or another will have to figure this out.

Mark Davis

Once a quarter at the San Diego Tribune, we have a meeting of managers. CEO says times are tough, but we’ll make it through. CFO says that times are really tough, you can’t buy anymore pencils.

Statistics of daily readership, in the last five days have you looked at a newspaper?) 1964, 81%, 2007, 48%.

Daily Circulation: 1964, 60m, 2006, 52m.

Population in 1964, 192m, now 400m. Advertising, 49bn, total advertising, down 13%.

Mice in the front door, elephants out the back. Or pennies on the dollar. Monthly uniques, 10 times our print circulation, but revenue one-tenth of print. Online advertising growth has slowed. We upselled advertising from print to online, but we never sold online only. We can sell to smaller advertisers but are losing market share as others such as Google sell to small guys. They don’t want to talk to sales rep. Google is all self-servce. Newspapers need to be self-serve.

In recessions in the past, newspaper advertising bounce back after three years, but it hasn’t since the 2001 slow down. We’re in a sectoral downturn not a cyclical downturn. I want to debunk a myth about margins. The question in 2008, isn’t whether our margins will be 20% but whether they will be positive or negative.

I want to be the glass is half full, five areas of strategic focus:

  1. Revenue – online ad networks such as Yahoo Newspaper consortium. The next generation will have geo-targeting and behavioural targeting.
  2. Organisation – newsrooms are re-organising, integration, bringing together online and offline newsrooms. Re-organised by market segments.
  3. Relevance – quite honestly most of this workshop is about relevance. When you start to look at local news organisations, local becomes really important. You have to begin – difficult for traditional newsrooms – you have to think about what the audience wants. You have to think about utility. Do they want to find a movie? Do they want to find out about local government?
  4. Community – We cannot create community but we can enable it. In San Diego, communities around Padres (baseball team), Chargers (American football team) and surfing.
  5. Distribution – Mobile. Not just WAP site. What do people want to do? TV, radio, RSS feeds. Devices we look at, mobile, computers and other devices. We don’t have to compete with TV.

Eric Alterman

He wrote about Bush administration’s war on the press. He wrote articles in The Nation. He couldn’t get them to pay notice because they were struggling with digital revolution. He saw that they had fat margins, and if they had this beneficence, they had a public responsibility. Even when they were pulling in these margins, their stocks were in free fall.

When Knight-Ridder put up for sale, McClatchy was the only bidder. They paid several billions dollars, and now McClatchy has lost 82% of its stock value.

Why with these incredible margins, why were these newspapers being punished. He wrote a New Yorker article to look at this. Advertising numbers are troubling, but trust numbers are even more troubling. He teaches young people, and they don’t read newspapers.

Average age of newspaper reader in US is 56 and growing. If it was a television programme, it would only have hemorrhoid commercials. These are not people that advertisers want to reach. This has many implications.

Newspapers are losing online because they are not the best vehicles to reach people. I care about the future of the news business because I care about the news upon which our democracy depends. It is hard to see in this world where the support for that kind of journalism. It’s hard to see an obvious market.

Until 35, my career didn’t make any sense. I went back and forth between academia and magazine journalism. I didn’t really fit. He got a doctorate in history. Then the internet was rising. He had this talent to reach a small number of people in a number of ways. He has two professorships. He writes a media column in The Nation. He writes a daily weblog for Media Matters. It was originally begun on MSNBC. He has written a bunch of books. He has about seven jobs, and he thinks he’s speaking to roughly about the same people in all seven jobs.

On some platforms, they pay. On some, they don’t. I have an idea of what is different about each platform. I have this little talent about giving my views on things I care about. I have this one little talent. When I started, there were just about three dozen, but now there are a few thousand.

Some break news, but most just give you an intelligent context to understand the world around you. There is a tiny audience for that relative to the cost of producing. Every one of these news producing or information producing entities is under siege and no one knows where the bottom is.

Molly Ivins said that the newspaper industry solution to the problems facing it is to commit suicide.

He pitched this article to the New Yorker, and he was focusing on the Huffington Post. Huff Post is up to 12m unique readers per month. It’s the eighth or ninth most read news site in the US. He found very little value added to content from mainstream publications like the New York Times, Washington Post and the Guardian. He went back to publications that he had criticised about their coverage in the lead up to the war in Iraq, and he found value there despite his criticism.

I found that there just isn’t the support for the kind of journalism. 1200 reporters at the New York Times. 800-900 reporters at the Washington Post. I would be surprised with advertising going the way it is even at 50%. If we don’t have that news, we will be more open to propaganda and manipulation. I think we’ll move to an elite model where people pay a lot for information like The Ecnomist, where the vast majority will be open to manipulation.

Enormously disturbing that not only is there not support this kind of journalism but he worries that this will erode democracy. (This is a very rough paraphrase of what he said.) He believes that all university students should be required to buy a subscription to a newspaper as part of their education.

Q: Writer for tech policy site. He wonders if news won’t be organised geographically but along other ways such as specialist coverage areas.

A: Gordon Corvitz. He believes that a lot of journalism will go this way. There will be specialised, high revenue areas of coverage. But I fear that this will lead to the world that Eric fears. Information will be very valuable to people but in increasingly specialised, narrow niches. That is not the most efficient system.

Mark Davis: To me what you are describing are communities, both geographical communities but also communities of interest. That is potentially where we will succeed.

Eric Alternman: I have problems with that. When you think of New York Times story on Pentagon flacks and domestic wire-tapping and Saudi dating rituals, there is no business model that will support those stories. You need living and tech section to support those stories. If you take this away, there won’t be something to pay for those long form stories.

The 19th Century model of political parties having newspapers, which is like what you have in Europe, then you have no shared community. It creates a consciousness of citizenship. We are these communities of interest much more than we are geographical communities. We’ll have more fissures of understanding.

Q: Events and engagement have captured a small audience. Is that a profit centre for newspapers?

A: Gordon Crovtiz: In person events has been a booming part of the audience. the more time we spend in front of computers, the more we need contact carbon-based life form to carbon-based life form. The question is how many different areas you can do this with.

Mark Davis: Communities, we are feeling our way through this.

Eric Alterman: In world I live in, friends who do celebrity cruises. The Nation sent me on the National Review cruise. I wrote a piece that I am very proud of called The Heart of Whiteness.

Q: A lot of discussion has been about the cost of production but there is very little about the costs of consuming news online. The cost of buying computer very higher.

A: Eric Alterman: That’s not a media problem but a societal problem. Digital divide is much more geographic problem. You can get a computer for $300, which is less than it costs to the subscribe to the New York Times. About 75% consider themselves online now.

Q: What do you do about coverage of the under-privileged?

A: Mark Davis: When you’re in a business that is fighting for its survival, you’re not in a charitable mode. When you raise the issue of a new product, you always raise the chance of selling to that market segment. It’s a societal problem not a business issue.

Q: Several small or medium sized market have come under control of charitable organisation. Likely to spread.

A: Gordon Crovitz: It does allow families to be uneconomic. That structure can protect those papers for a time. I would be happier if there was a business model behind it.

Q: David Robinson: To what extent are people dissatisfied with news.

A: Mark Davis: If the audience really values this, then read it. I’m going to make a statement. Who are we to decide what people will read? If it’s important to me, then it should be important to all of you.

I don’t think that people are disinterested in news. Kids are informed. They know what is going on in the world. He was talking about a world story with his daughter. She was on Digg. She started there. She bounced around and read the story.

Gordon Crovitz: For a time, there is demand from people for professional media. If you believe that people need and value professionally created content from people who produce this with integrity. Most companies just exiting denial phase of this challenge, then there is optimism that people will figure out a business model.

Eric Alterman: The only way to be optimistic is say something like maybe global warming will be all right. Young people are not buying newspapers. Sorenstein Centre published study looked at how deep young people’s knowledge is from all of these stories and it was bad. They are getting very little information from The Daily Show.

You also have this issue of trust. Three times more people believe that 9/11 was an inside job than believe that the media is telling the truth. You add all these trends together, and I don’t see where this magic bullet will come from. Foundations and universities will have to play a much bigger role.

Q: Ethan Zuckerman said that news suffers not from a supply problem but a deman problem.

Eric Alterman: People don’t know what really high quality news is can’t demand it because they don’t know what it is. I think that everyone would live a richer life if they spent a half hour a day with the Guardian and an hour with The Economist. How in the world could you imagine Americans doing that? The problem has evolved into a crisis.

Mark Davis: I don’t know any manager who talks about demand of a product without talking about the product. How do we get this information out in a way that people want to consume it?

Q: I want Gordon Crovitz to respond to metro newspapers need to re-invent themselves. You have two front page stories that are from the Associated Press on Congress voting for a pay increase for military base and Mexican drug wars.

A: As we look online, we look to becoming a news and information portal. We think about the audience and what they want. We have to get over this link to this competitor. If you can become this portal to serve your audience locally.

Eric Alterman: Linking to competitors, traditional way to run newspapers not way to run digital business.

Future of News: People formerly known as the audience

Dan Gillmor is going to whip through in 15 minutes what he normally takes an hour to do he says. It’s a whirlwind tour of media changes, which is why this is quite a few bullet points and links. Again, a rush transcript.

Media shift. He clicked from slides from cave paintings to a network graph.

The media has become democratised. Not in sense of voting but participation, production and access not just distribution. It is a read-write web. It turns the consumer into creator/collaborator. Collaboration where it really gets exciting. Dan clicked through other slides such as pictures of 7 July 2005 bombings in London, video of south Asian tsunami.

He touched on RSS. Tags. Wikis. Placeblogger. Communities.

Who is a journalist? I don’t care.
What is journalism? I care.

Think tank. NGOs. They have a point of view, but may also be like journalism. Corporate blogs are blurring journalism.

Basic principles of journalism:

  • thoroughnes
  • accuracy
  • fairness
  • independence
  • Add to this, transparency.

It’s an And NOT an Or world. It’s all rooted in changing from lecture to conversation, and we must learn to listen.

New York Times has blogs. Database journalism. He showed the Faces of the Fallen project at the Washington Post.

We’re not oracles but guides.

Hyperlinks are god’s gift to getting it right.

He pointed to the Tunisian Prison Map and the Pothole Map from Bakersfield.

Or what about the Tony Blair mash-up about when he would step down as British prime minister.

What will happen when it’s not just the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination but a world where people have high-def cameras and high speed data networks.

Principles for news consumers:

  • scepticism
  • judgement
  • research
  • techniques

Check out NewsTrust.

The Daily Us. We must move from mere popularity to reputation.

Advertising is being systematically de-coupled from journalism and he showed Craig’s List, eBay and Google.

The career ladder that Dan Gillmor got on as a journalist is gone. But it costs very little try things with digital tools. It’s only getting simpler and cheaper all the time. Highly targeted deep niche works, and he pointed out GigaOm. Not everything needs a business model such as Global Voices.

Things he’s thinking about hard. Where 2.0 and beyond. He showed mapping projects. GPS. Mobile.

There are enormous problems but this expanding, diversifying eco-system will change things in a good way, but the interim will be messy. With people formerly known as the audience involved, things will get better.

Steve Boriss, teacher, consultant and blogger

The audience isn’t going anywhere. I think we’re entering a golden age of news. He looked back at history. Back 500 years ago, news was spread by word of mouth. He said that it was like blogging but unplugged. The printing press brought a huge advance in knowledge, but it also gave government an unprecedented ability to control the news. The American Revolution set back the government control of news. Through the 19th Century, newspapers were a marketplace of ideas. But there were four advances that set the news business back, which are documented on his blog: The steam powered printing press, broadcasting, the AP and modern ‘scientific journalism’. His arguments all hinge on increased government control and fewer voices.

The internet undermines all of these ‘advances’ and return a multitude of voices. The internet has expanded the definition of news that has been left behind by the modern, professional definition of news. He said that audiences are going to news that have a direct impact on them such as metro, national and international news.

He doesn’t believe that audiences are switching from observers to participants. He believes that social media is over-sold. He is also sceptical of citizen journalism.

Media is Latin for in the middle. News sources have not been able to reach news audiences directly, but now they can. Journalists will have to prove their value as middle men.

Reihan Salam, sees himself as an audience member who has managed to get a gig in the media, as he puts it. People want deeper engagement with their audience, and he pointed to the lucrative business magazines are doing by having cruises with their writers. At university, he loved reader Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish. He used to send him tips, and Andrew said that he should apply for an internship at the New Republic. He suggested that they start blogs, and initially there was some resistance.

Eric Alterman will be viewed as important. He took the attitude of his audience and not his professional class. He did this from a high level of sophistication. At the Atlantic where he works now, they are all wringing their hands.

He used to read the newspaper daily. He then read it online, and now he doesn’t. Now, he has a collection of RSS feeds that he scours and gets what he wants. You’ll have to offer a deeper immersive experience.

You’ll see a richer media environment but it will be through patronage, not advertising.

From the Q&A, the panel was asked about whether success was based on the number of voices. Dan made a really good point about the vast amount of information available now and that we’re still working on models to highlight the best material.

Q: Governments will want to control that. How do we guard against that?

A: Steve Boriss said that this is one of his pet concerns but he feels alone. His hits go down whenever he goes down on this. He says that he is concerned about net neutrality and government involvement. I want to keep the government out of the internet.

Q: What about aggregators (Drudge, Huffington Post, etc)? They don’t have our overhead. They won’t have anything to point at unless we get paid for it today.

A: Dan Gillmor, I have to jump on that. The problems of the business model is a decoupling of advertising from journalism, not an issue of aggregators pointing at your stuff.

Q: How do we in 10 years pay the huge costs of in-depth, investigation journalism?

A: Dan Gillmor: We might lose that for a while, and I’m not happy about that. There are options for public funding. (Pro Publica has been mentioned.) There are a number of things that are filling a part in that. We haven’t even explored the crowd-sourcing model.

Steve Boriss said that newspapers can become aggregators themselves.

Future of News Princeton: Paul Starr

I’m at the Future of News workshop at Princeton University. I’ll be speaking about data visualisation tomorrow, but Princeton’s Paul Starr kicked things off. This is a bit of a ‘rush transcript’ as broadcast would say. I’ll go back and refine it over the day.

We are on treachourous ground. Many who have tried to anticipate the future of news, including leaders in the industry have failed. Hasn’t been for lack of effort. Back in 1970s, news industry invested millions of dollars into teletext or video text, electronic ways to supplement existing ways of delivering news. They failed to see the future coming. In 1992, news industry leaders failed to see the internet in the future of news. Network meant to them broadcast networks. They saw overall trends, but they said that the broadcast and print media faced no serious threats.

News media are in the midst of transformation greater than anyone in the history. Many in old media organisations are reeling from the impact. The future of news comes from instability of the present. The future of news is coming not from single change but serial changes. Consider earlier changes: Postal network, telegraph, radio in 20s and TV in 1940s. They all had a compressed period of development with with minor innovations following.

The succession of changes now are different; innovations are piled on top of innovations. Political and legal decisions could upset things as they have developed.

To consider the future of news, we can try to extrapolate trends that are underway. We can analyse changes in major social frameworks. We can brace ourselves for the unexpected.

He looked at trends and how they fit together shift in social frameworks. He looked at the peculiar features US news media. Central institution in news media: general interest newspapers. 1930s, broadcast networks radio and then TV. Both newspapers and broadcast benefitted from government largesse. They became hugely profitable. Leading national news media supported public interest. They used other revenue streams to cross subsidise news: Classified ads for newspapers and entertainment for TV.

It paid for international news gathering. High profits, high standards, high prestige. Up to early 20th, newspaper industry highly competitive. by middle 20th century, most cities had one major newspaper. Warren Buffet, newspaper business used to be an easy way to make huge returns. One great newspaper said, I owe my fortune to monopoly and nepotism.

Mr Starr quoted Buffet at length from a letter to Berkshire Hathaway investors:

For most of the 20th Century, newspapers were the primary source of information for the American public. Whether the subject was sports, finance, or politics, newspapers reigned supreme. Just as important, their ads were the easiest way to find job opportunities or to learn the price of groceries at your town’s supermarkets.

The great majority of families therefore felt the need for a paper every day, but understandably most didn’t wish to pay for two. Advertisers preferred the paper with the most circulation, and readers tended to want the paper with the most ads and news pages. This circularity led to a law of the newspaper jungle: Survival of the Fattest.

Thus, when two or more papers existed in a major city (which was almost universally the case a century ago), the one that pulled ahead usually emerged as the stand-alone winner. After competition disappeared, the paper’s pricing power in both advertising and circulation was unleashed. Typically, rates for both advertisers and readers would be raised annually – and the profits rolled in. For owners this was economic heaven. (Interestingly, though papers regularly – and often in a disapproving way – reported on the profitability of, say, the auto or steel industries, they never enlightened readers about their own Midas-like situation. Hmmm . . .)

As long ago as my 1991 letter to shareholders, I nonetheless asserted that this insulated world was changing, writing that “the media businesses . . . will prove considerably less marvelous than I, the industry, or lenders thought would be the case only a few years ago.” Some publishers took umbrage at both this remark and other warnings from me that followed. Newspaper properties, moreover, continued to sell as if they were indestructible slot machines. In fact, many intelligent newspaper executives who regularly chronicled and analyzed important worldwide events were either blind or indifferent to what was going on under their noses.

(The full 2006 letter from Buffett can be found on Berkshire’s site. It’s a PDF.)

Coming off of period of monopoly profits, there is no way that (newspapers and broadcast could duplicate those returns online. In the new environment, they are no longer protected from competition. On the internet, Craigslist and others are cutting into their ads and aggregators cutting into their readers.

Broadcasters also coming out of period of limited competition. Once, a broadcast licence was a licence to print money. Cable and then the internet caused decline. From spectacular height broadcast has fallen, and no one sheds a tear.

not only loss of audience but development more disturbing, long term decline in attention for news. Robert Putnam look at casual role in generational change. Those come of age during WWII and Cold War, high level of engagement. Younger generation, decline in participation in civic society. Also, younger generation decline in news consumption. Despite rising level of education.

How media contribute to these trends, Putnam sees television itself as reason for declining civic engagement. Princeton research found that TV first increased civic engagement that only decreased with multiple channels.

Recent State of the News Media report every sector of news media apart from two decline – online news and ethnic sector. Since 2001, decline in work force 7-10%. Number of American foreign correspondents has dropped 188 to 141. Broadcast networks have shut bureaux around the world. Amount of foreign coverage has declined from 27% of total in 87 and 97 to 24% in 2004. Internet provides access to international news such as BBC. Declining number of foreign correspondents, decrease boots on the ground.

But there has also been a decline also in state and local reporting. Tom Rosenstiel said: More and more reporters are following fewer and fewer events. All news organisations are becoming niche players.

Another trend, ideological. In 19th Century most of press is partisan, and there has been a recent return to partisan for confluence of factors. Until 1980s, partisan tendencies in broadcast held in check by regulation – FCC fairness doctrine. There were a limited channels and for competitive reasons they had to appeal to broad ideological cross-section of the population.

Abandon Fairness Doctrine 1987, rise of Rush and Fox News, a complete media system enveloping its audience. No liberal equivalent to right wing talk shows. Liberals on TV, but no liberal equivalent to Fox and right wing talk show. Part of broader trend.

Next he said:

Newspaper web site can get back into the business of breaking news and broadcast website can provide much more depth. Different rhythms of media are lost when media migrate to the web.

Each news organisation has an identity tied to legacy medium but these fade into the past. Broadcast and print will combine into single hybrid media. Distinctions are breaking down. One of most important distinction breaking down is between media and their audience. Journalists can no longer put themselves between public and public figures and opinion makers.

The future. the underlying financial and competitive pressures will increase.

They are living off aging audiences and obsolete business models. As older audiences die off, all of these news organisations face a mortal threat.

However, bloggers rely on old media. “Just as any parasite doesn’t want to kill off their prey”, but unclear if bloggers and citizen journalists can be profitable enough to support a viable news gathering function. News organisations still remain profitable, and they can eliminate 70% of cost structure, that which they use to support the print publication.

It is not a question of which organisations survive but how new framework affect what they do and how they do it. What are basic features of this emerging framework? One comes from Yochai Benkler: Mass media public sphere and networked public sphere.

Mass-commercial media had industrial model reliant on large audiences and large amounts of capital. The system has constraints on feedback.

The declining price of computation, production and storage has put into hands of up to a billion people around the world means of cultural and information production. Opportunities for feedback increased. Benkler says that internet has evolved systems for information synthesis and analysis.

There is a good interview with Benkler on Kottke that expands on these issues.

Big media has two capacities that might not be replaced: 1) They can mount long term investigation 2) They can stand up to government (see Pentagon Papers). Rather than replacement, networked public sphere may overlap and interact with mass-commercial media. Josh Marshall’s TPM bring down Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, but Josh Marshall depended on main stream media to deliver knock out blow.

Early history of the internet may have spoiled us into ultimate direction it will take. Lessig and Zittrain say that there is an ongoing struggle between open internet and those who want to lock the internet down. In connection of news media, cell phones and handheld devices become more secure platforms for news delivery than desktop computer (I think to myself what about Android or open mobile platforms? I guess it depends on open networks.)

Second set of issues, economics, if MSM no longer able to cross subsidise and Benkler’s collaborative network public sphere can’t produce, there will have to be other business models. In the US, only public radio provides quality radio news. That is one possible replacement.

What must not be lost in transition, values must not be lost. The press must remain independent and committed to a social mission.

Q: Issue of partisanship in news media. One hundred years ago, penny press quite blatantly partisan.

A: Disengenous of me as co-editor of American Prospect to criticise partisan press. Partisan press in 19th century marked an error of high civic participation. Not in itself a bad thing. Unruly aspect of democracy.

Q: Old media, more directly regul-able (easier to regulate). What is your opinion of the BBC?

A: The BBC is a great institution. Model of public service broadcast journalism in Commonwealth countries financed by tax. US has historically opposed to any special taxation for press, TV and radio. We never had support to finance anything like the BBC. Shielded from everyday influence of politics. It has established itself as authoritative source of news. Somewhat surprising, it has expanded its reach beyond the UK.

Q: Pentagon Papers quintessial reason for why we need press. But think not good example. If I had them, I could put them and no one could take them down. (Possibly a good example is WikiLeaks.)

A: What you are talking about is putting investigative reporters on story for several months. Can non-market model sustain that type of investigations is a question. Lot of reasons to worry whether that is true.

Q: You seem to say that more is better in terms of number of reporters, number of bureaux. Is there a level?

A: I can’t say what optimal level. But this is a period of time when Americans need to know more about the world given the circumstances we face.