The blogosphere appears to be slowly maturing and evolving as time goes by. Some A-listers are moving on to other interests, while professional media companies and group blogs are moving in to occupy the top spots among blogging’s elite (yes, there is a blogging elite). Jason Calaconis dramatically announced that he was quitting. Nick Carr is taking the summer off. Robert Scoble is spending more time with FriendFeed. And so it goes.

Last week, Rafat Ali’s PaidContent.org was acquired by The Guardian for an estimated $30 million, and now Alley Insider has raised a large chunk of cash to move its model to the next level. There’s talk of other acquisitions by mainstream companies of big, A-list blogs.

Stowe Boyd is transitioning his blog into a media company by adding others to create a mix that suits his interests.

Meanwhile, a look at Techmeme reveals the growing presence of mainstream media company blogs as contributors to the online conversation that is news. Individual voices are being pushed to the side, prompting some to speculate the the blogosphere is history. It’s not, but it makes for a nice story.

These changes are visible and clearly something is happening, but I don’t think it means as much as some observers suggest. It was just a matter of time before traditional media companies awakened to the reality that blogging and blogging software is just a much better way to communicate information online. I always remind people that blogging was not invented by traditional media; it was created by the tech community, which explains why every form of stand-alone blogging software shakes hands so perfectly with the Web. It’s clean and uncluttered, and RSS is the end game. Search engines are pinged, comments are automatic, trackbacks are allowed, the simple creation links is built-in, and posting is a breeze. Traditional media company online publishing software typically has had none of that, because it was created to be one-directional.

And so when I see mainstreamers entering the blogosphere, I rejoice that professional journalists have finally caught on to how important it is to be a part of the conversation instead of simply assuming a conversation-starter role. As important as that is, it’s vastly more important, IMO, that everybody participate in the conversation that is news.

In his post on these changes, Fred Wilson gave his reasons for blogging, and they’re both personal and professional.

This blog is me and I am this blog. It’s mine and will always be mine. I understand why many of the individuals who made blogging what it is are either moving on or turning their blogs into businesses. That’s the way it is. But I am fortunate that this blog is totally integrated into my business and provides great value to me and my partners. So it’s sustainable from an emotional and economic perspective and I plan to keep showing up every day.

Wilson’s blog is a powerful bully-pulpit from which he has enormous influence in the tech media space, and in this sense he’s a real competitor to the mainstream press.

As I explained on my “Transparent Terry” page, I blog to challenge my assumptions, and this I find enormously fulfilling personally and useful professionally. I never set out to gather a crowd, so I’m not as concerned about showing up every day as I used to be.

Personal publishing will always be the biggest part of the blogosphere, and niches the Holy Grail. But clearly, blogging has entered the mainstream, and who knows? Perhaps one day we’ll all just be plain old media instead of the “us versus them” that we still find today.

I’m on my way to D.C. to participate on a panel with Jeff Jarvis on blogging and journalism. The audience is public radio news directors, and I’ve been looking forward to this for a long time.

The organizer has selected a theme of what bloggers wish journalists knew about them and what journalists wish bloggers knew. Of course, the theme suggests a wall between the two, and this is the most important matter to address. With bloggers increasingly setting the news agenda (it’s already that way in sports), the professional crowd is concerned about losing their authority. Add to that the financial pressures on traditional media, and there’s a strong undercurrent that democracy is about to crash and burn. It’s not (and few will actually say that), but there’s still a culture clash between the two groups.

It’s amazing to me that we’re still having this debate, but feelings run deep. The two groups have much to offer each other, and I hope that is the takeaway for the audience. Jeff and I are on the same page about all of this, so it’s going to be a fun give and take.

I’m coming up for air from a few days of writer’s block, and I think it’s because there’s just so much to write about these days. The moment I start concentrating in one area, something even more compelling pops up. The bane of bloggers isn’t a lack of things to say; it’s having too much to say.

So I’m just going to go through some things quickly, beginning with the networks getting together to offer a video-on-demand service that encourages people to not use TiVo. The point? They want those same people to watch the ads! Call me a nut, but this is too little, too late.

The business of The New York Times offering an API for its content is intriguing and smart. I hope it sends a message to other companies, and while I fully endorse the concept, it’s still about keeping users inside the walls of The Times. We’ll see.

One of the brightest minds in media, Jack Myers, took a shot at media company ownership this week in his Media Business Report. I’ve been saying this kind of thing for a long time, but Myers is above my pay grade, so his commentary carries significant weight.

…most executives remain committed to outdated and dangerous mass-media-dependent economic models. Media companies today - even the largest digital media companies - are in danger of following the railroad industry model and becoming Industrial Age mass distribution vehicles rather than Relationship Age™ interactive brand and human connectors.

Nice, and absolutely spot-on.

The L.A. Times painted a chilling picture of the future of television in an article called Broadcast Networks Under Siege that examines the shocking ratings’ declines in May.

Broadcasting, simply put, isn’t casting broadly anymore. As the sweep suggests, the TV networks are losing not just their viewers but also their sense of specialness. They’re becoming just the lowest numbers on the multichannel dial, rather than the last outposts of mass culture. It’s true that this evolution has been happening for years, but this year a tipping point was reached, a Rubicon crossed. Broadcast exceptionalism — its supposed immunity from the market forces afflicting all other media — is finally dead.

Right, and the problem is that tipping point is, while acknowledged, problematic in terms of reacting, because we’re deep into a cycle of expense reduction. Broadcasting still makes a lot of money ($70 billion last year?), and more eyes are focused on salvaging that than actually responding to technology and changing consumer behavior. It’s a tough place to be.

Finally, there’s this gem from Robert Lichter in the American Journalism Review:

“I think there’s a feeling that journalists have overstepped their boundaries,” he says. “People don’t look on [journalists] the way journalists like to view themselves – as the public’s tribune, speaking truth to power, standing up for the little guy. They don’t look like the little guy anymore. They’re part of the celebrity culture.” Increasingly, he says, “people like the news but hate the news media.”

Go read the whole article by Paul Fahri. It’s filled with lots of good stuff that I’d love to comment about. However, I’ve got this writer’s block, see?

In a Vanity Fair article, Buzz Bissinger explains his tirade (tirade here) last week on HBO’s Costas Now against Deadspin blogger Will Leitch. Bissinger later apologized, not for his feelings but for the manner in which he expressed them. It was a classy move.

But the Costas segment was a stunning illustration of the real angst between mainstream sports writers and the sports blogosphere, which is increasingly setting the agenda for all sports reporting these days. As a guy who’s been following this for a long time, I found it painful to watch Bissinger make a fool of himself, and I felt equally uncomfortable watching Costas try and defend the status quo. Both are incredibly smart guys, but they’re blinded by their own perspective.

Costas referred to sports writers with “real credentials and real access.” The comment was obviously meant to separate “real” sports writers from (unreal) bloggers, and this doesn’t get anybody anywhere.

He also referred to the “legitimate complaint” about the sports blogosphere, namely the tone of gratuitous potshots and criticisms. Both Bissinger and Costas used quotes from commenters to make their case, which caused Leitch to note that, “surely we can differentiate between the blogger and the commenters.”

As I’ve written in the past, sports journalism has changed dramatically since Watergate brought to the surface the form of journalism known as “gotcha.” It has gone from entirely cheerleading to some excellent and insightful work by serious writers, be they mainstream or other. There’s still the sense, though, that access to athletes is a gift granted by their owners (yes, they are “owned”), and that this can be a significant conflict of interest, especially when such access crosses from professional to personal. Professional sports leagues are going out of their way to restrict access, because they want to control their message, and the extent to which the mainstream press is forced to go along with this is sad.

One of the very definitions of “news” goes like this: dog bites man, not news; man bites dog, news. So the norm is not news, and therefore when athletes perform according to their gifts and expectations, it doesn’t fit the definition of news. The exceptional athlete — Tiger Woods, for example — is certainly newsworthy, but the PGA’s slogan is “These Guys Are Good.” In that light, a “good” performance isn’t news, but a bad performance is. Yet we rarely see stories when “these guys are bad.”

Hell, show me, shot-by-shot, the 15 that John Daly scored on number 9, because that’s news.

So there is a symbiotic relationship between sports and sports writers, and that’s okay. But that isn’t the only form of sports journalism, for the output of this symbiotic relationship is fair game for observers (and fans), because both (the sport and the pro writer) are on the same pedestal. News about the news is one of the hallmarks of the blogosphere, and it may make the mainstream press uncomfortable, but it is every bit as much “journalism” as that which is published by the pros.

Moreover, I most disagree with the assertion by blogosphere critics (such as Bissinger and Costas) that bloggers are a part of any real or perceived “dumbing down” of the information stream. Any time I hear that, I’m immediately drawn to the Lippmannesque reasonings of colonial thinking, that culture must have an elite class to lead the ignorant and emotionally-driven masses. That is insulting and just plain wrong. The voices from the mass may seem crude to the pedestal dwellers of the culture, but those voices count as much as anyone’s.

I think this week has been the longest I’ve ever gone without a blog entry. For those who follow what I write, I apologize, but the press of the paying job has made it difficult. First there was the NAB/RTNDA convention in Las Vegas. We had a suite at the Bellagio (the happening hotel) and made presentations to many media companies, introducing them to the web platform software (a.k.a. Content Management System) we’ve created in conjunction with our technology partner, Synapse Multimedia of Shreveport, LA.

Since I played a role in developing the software, it was quite a sense of accomplishment watching as various media company people gave praise. We’ll have a press release coming out on it next week, because it’s a pretty big deal when a major consulting company gets into the product business. We did it, frankly, because it was easier than trying to convince others of the power of our ideas, especially when they had their own software to protect. Cory Bergman of Lost Remote sat in on a presentation and was duly impressed, and when you impress Cory, well that’s really saying something.

The web-based CMS allows just about anyone to drag-and-drop widgets to create their own web pages. It includes ad serving with behavioral targeting, a video player (live and on demand), basic video editing, image editing and user-generated content. One of the big sells of the CMS is its ability to publish content seamlessly across multiple sites — and import RSS feeds from any other site. It also has the ability for a local TV station to run a local ad network of unaffiliated sites.

As a company, we feel strongly that local media companies need control of their own web platform, if they are to reach their full online potential. The era of third-party sites is evolving into one where much more control is at the local level, regardless of who serves up the software.

So three days in Vegas flat wore me out, followed by writing a new essay, which will be published next week. The result has been neglecting my blog, which I promise won’t be the norm.

Speaking of blogs, veteran television newsman and consultant Jim Willi of AR&D has launched a blog, and if the first two entries are any indication, it’s going to be a good one. Jim tells it like it is and will be writing mostly about newsroom strategies and tactics. Mosey on over and have yourself a lookie-loo.

Sarah Perez has a great post over at Read Write Web that is a must-read for the serious student of New Media. Called “The Conversation Has Left The Blogosphere,” it takes a serious look at how new applications are making it possible for people to discuss issues, ideas and memes taken up by bloggers away from the blogs themselves. Oh no! You mean the original conversation lifters are having their conversations lifted? What’s the world coming to?

The truth of the matter is, like it or not, the conversations that once existed solely in the blogosphere have now moved on. People still comment, but in a lot of cases, those comments aren’t on found on the blog itself.

It is ironic, to say the least, that the blogosphere — the place where stories were lifted from the mainstream press for “discussion” — is now faced with the same issue that mainstreamers have been fighting for years.

Sarah’s post offers tips on how to keep up with all the dismantling, but it doesn’t offer solutions for ways to prevent it from happening. That’s because bloggers can’t stop it any more than the mainstream press could or can. We live in a world of unbundled media. Deal with it.

This will be interesting to watch.

Although late to the game, many anchors at television stations are beginning to blog. While each has its own flavor, most are of the “behind-the-scenes” genre. Some anchors “get it” more than others and use the Web to build a personal brand in the market.

I try to encourage anchors to just be themselves, and nobody I’ve encountered does that better than Sherri Talley of our client in Shreveport, KTBS-TV.

Sherri is loved and respected in the market; there’s no doubt about that. But the “real” Sherri is something far beyond what people see on TV, and her blog reflects that. Not only is Sherri involved in life to a degree beyond most, but she’s one of the funniest, wittiest people on the planet, and that’s front-and-center in her blog.

“I like this on so many levels,” she told me. “First, it’s a creative extension of myself. As much as there is still out there for me to learn about blogging, there’s also room for me to invent/create along the way.”

She says there’s a real similarity to anchoring and blogging, because they’re both very intimate. “I talk on the air as if I’m speaking to one person and do the same when I’m blogging,” she said. “That way I’m not announcing to an audience nor blogging for masses, but just having a conversation…ha…one where I hope someone responds.”

A while back, she found an old oil painting from the mid 20th Century of two babies. The thing is pretty ugly, because back then, painters would “touch up” photographs to make the babies look more adult. She bought the picture and made a cut-out copy of the two babies. She’s named them “Hazel and Jimmy” and they play a role in her blog, often showing up in the background of photos. She makes no reference to them other than in the cut line of her blog: “sherritalley.com, it’s good enough for Hazel & Jimmy.” Readers are in on the joke, and it gives the blog an automatic edge, for people are always waiting for the next reference to the two babies.

Sherri is unique in that she has an inherent self-effacing ability to see the humor in what she does and to take people behind-the-scenes in colorful and compelling ways. Readers are fully engaged, and most entries include a regular group of commenters, which gives the site a community feel. Sherri’s not trying to “be” anybody other than herself.

“I actually almost resigned several months ago to take a marketing job,” she told me “because I didn’t see much of a future in the direction of television anchoring and reporting in the traditional sense. When I realized our station had such a progressive approach to internet development, I asked to get involved. Now, I’m more passionate about my work. I feel more engaged than ever with viewers.”

Sherri’s blogging and her insatiable thirst for knowledge have elevated her status with the web team at the station, and she now plays a leadership role in newsroom online efforts.

Her advice to other bloggers, especially anchors? Be positive, invest yourself and have fun. “Some bloggers get frustrated because they can’t think of a topic. Just like everyone and every situation has a story, there’s always a topic.”

So do yourself a favor and drop by her site. Read the entries and the comments, and I think you’ll agree that if it’s good enough for Hazel & Jimmy, it might just be good enough for you.

Mike Allen wrote in The Politico this week that he doesn’t vote, because he’s a journalist.

I’m part of a minority school of thought among journalists that we owe it to the people we cover, and to our readers, to remain agnostic about elections, even in private. I figure that if the news media serve as an (imperfect) umpire, neither team wants us taking a few swings.

Where in the world do people get the idea that we’re “umpires,” imperfect or not? Umpires? Good grief! He quotes Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post:

“I decided to stop voting when I became the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper. I wanted to keep a completely open mind about everything we covered and not make a decision, even in my own mind or the privacy of the voting booth, about who should be president or mayor, for example.”

This caught my attention, because the firing of Chez Pazienza by CNN follows this line of thinking. Many, many people have commented on Chez’s blog, and here’s the reasoning of one:

I’m sure he knows deep down as a professional–if he attended journalism school–that he couldn’t be writing what he was writing and be in the news business.

So let’s take a step waaaaaaay back and examine this position of neutrality vis-à-vis the news business, something I have done many times here and in my essays. If there exists in the mind of collective America the idea that the press should be “neutral,” it is there because we put it there. This idea is not and was not a part of the First Amendment; it grew out of largely economic necessity — the creation of a sterile environment within which to sell advertising. Moreover, it is the social engineering centerpiece of Walter Lippmann (the “father” of professional journalism), Edward Bernays (the “father” of professional public relations) and other members of the Creel Committee formed under Woodrow Wilson as a way to convince the public that the U.S. needed to be in World War I.

I hate to be so bloody cynical, but the objectivity concept is crap, and we owe it to ourselves and our trade to let it go. Why? Because it’s impossible, it is used by special interests to mold culture, the public doesn’t believe the holiness of the calling, and it’s turned our political process into predictable mush. Read Chris Lasch, for crying out loud. Investigate the Creel Committee and the writings of Lippmann and Bernays.

I’ve no clue how we get from where we are now to a more ardent and involved press, but the blogosphere seems to have taken up the call. I will say that firing writers like Chez Pazienza isn’t the path.

In Mr. Allen’s column, it’s pretty clear that one of the reasons some journalists don’t vote is that it would make their jobs harder in the halls of power if people knew they batted for one team over the other. The poor political reporters need to protect their sources, right? (”They like me. They really, really like me.” Jim Carrey in “The Mask.”)

When will we find the courage to point the light of our own brilliance back onto ourselves?

Let’s file this one under unreal.

Chez Pazienza, a producer at CNN assigned to American Morning, was unceremoniously fired from his job today — without severance — over the content of his popular and edgy blog, Deus Ex Malcontent (warning: adult language). He had worked for CNN for four years, beginning as a Senior Producer in Atlanta. Chez is a member of my tribe and a friend, and I’m not happy about this turn of events.

According to Chez, he was terminated for violating network policy by not running what he was writing through their vetting system. So he was fired not for blogging but for the content of his blog. “It’s not that I’ve been writing,” he wrote in an email. “It’s WHAT I’ve been writing.” That may be the official decision, but the truth is he was fired because he had the balls to write about the industry without telling CNN. I would add that there is no mention of his connection to the network on his site, and as a producer, it’s hard to justify the notion that he’s in any way a public figure or publicly connected with the company.

What Chez Pazienza is is a damned fine writer and an even better observer and commentator on life. So spot on is the guy that he’s been “discovered” by sites like Fark, Pajiba and the Huffington Post, where he was recently brought on as a guest commentator. The guy is a brilliant new media writer, and CNN’s position is that it’s in their best interests to fire the guy. Go figure. What they should have done is find a place for that sensational talent.

Chez told me he knew that this day was possible, because he was determined to be true to himself, his history, his observations and his craft. Frankly, our industry needs more people like this and a few less of the people who fired him. What’s WRONG with us?

I feel bad for Chez, but I think this will turn out to be a blessing. I know that’s hard for him to see, because he and his wife are alone now in New York with a baby on the way and with only Jayne providing income. This is one extremely talented, albeit angry man, and I can hear the sound of doors opening elsewhere.

Long ago, a mentor of mine taught me about “the currency of ego,” and I want to share some of that with you to make a point about a Nieman Reports essay by Will Bunch — Forgetting Why Reporters Choose the Work They Do. The subtitle summarizes the article: “Will journalists ‘cover local news for life, with no chance of parole?’”

This is an outstanding essay and one that really strikes at the key local media matter of our time — coverage of “local” is really all that local media companies have left. Bunch writes that this is problematic with journalists who see local as a means to an end. He speaks of print journalists, but this also speaks dramatically to local television.

On an emotional level, I’m going on 49 years old, and I have a lot of friends around my age who have survived the surge in newsroom layoffs and are still working in an ink-stained newsroom somewhere. Not one of us wanted to be covering local news at our age (or, for that matter, at any age.) But we’ve been there, done that. To be brutally honest: For an ambitious journalist, the only way to get through a four-hour suburban school board meeting—even at age 22—is to keep repeating the mantra “this, too, shall pass.” In other words, treat this day’s assignment as just a boring but necessary pit stop on the road to Moscow or Beirut…

…I’d say that for the local journalism movement to succeed within the existing newsroom, there’s going to need to be a very different system of rewards to replace the dreams of Beltway punditry or a glamorous foreign beat. In fact, the rewards of the more pointed kind of journalism that blogging allows—the ability to develop a voice and a personality and to connect daily with readers—are considerable.

I tried to address this very thing in 2004 in a post that examined the assertion (by traditional media) that bloggers are in it for the money. I encourage you to read that post, because it speaks directly to what Bunch envisions. His vision has pretty profound ramifications for journalism altogether, all of which I view as good. I’m personally sickened by the farm system we’ve created, one in which budding reporters enter small market shops with one foot out the door. I’m heartened by the rise of personal media that is turning LOCAL citizens into reporters every day.

One of the ways bloggers get paid is through the currency of ego. It’s a form of status that’s recognized within, a feeling of being needed, of having a recognized place in the things of life — a voice, as Bunch calls it. Ego is an interesting part of the human condition, and it drives certain people forward more than even a paycheck.

I was taught about this from a very successful guy who was gifted at getting people to talk with him — to trust him and reveal things that they perhaps ought not to be revealing. He did this by always making the people he was interviewing feel like the most important people around. People left feeling great, although they never really learned much about my friend. He would turn every question about him around, so that the interviewee was talking about themselves. He taught me that there are many different currencies in life, and that ego was even stronger than money.

I had an employee once who was big on pay raises, because his father had taught him that this is how a company shows its appreciation for work done. That may indeed be true, but it limits life’s currencies to only one, but as my friend taught me, there are many more. At some point, they may cross, but the original currencies of journalism, I believe, have more to do with the chase for the story, recognition among peers and the public, the curiosity of how things work, the ability to influence others and make a difference, creative expression and a sense of worth that’s tied to one’s occupation. In a sense, the blogosphere is all this and more, and that’s why I agree so strongly with Bunch that the model for tomorrow is likely within that which is being evolved by bloggers.

As I’ve written many times, media is my life and has always been so. When I first got into the business in 1969, the newsroom was a place for people who found the trade one where a single person could make a different. My first news director was an old newspaper guy named Don Loose at WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee. When I became assignment editor and a member of his management team, he called me into his office and taught me the following:

“Terry, people are motivated in this business by three things: ego, working conditions and money. If somebody asks you for a raise, first ask yourself these questions: Does this person know their value in the newsroom? Am I making him feel valuable and appreciated? If the answers to those is true, then ask yourself this: Does this person’s equipment all work — his recorder, his typewriter? How does he get along with the photographers? Is there enough light at his work station? If the answers to these questions are all positive, then think about giving him the raise.”

When I retired from news management in 1998, 95% percent of the newbies I interviewed had gone to “communications” school, because they “wanted to be on TV.” These are the people who write on the discussion boards, “I just got my first job and want to know what I need to do to get my second?”

I have no problem if that kind of crap goes away permanently, because that’s the kind of ego that’s destroying the industry and something we can all do without.

I’ve said before that tomorrow’s reporters are being trained today in the school of personal media, including the guy or gal who sees drama of the school board personalities, issues and, yes, even the meetings. Life is like that. It sees a void and fills it.

In this case, we created the void ourselves, and I’m excited to be alive as the correction is underway.

(Hat tip Romenesko)

One of the big topics of discussion around the blogosphere this weekend was an emotional response to an Arizona RIAA lawsuit against an illegal downloader of copyrighted music. The music industry sadly continues to pursue legal remedy for its own malfeasance, and reports about various suits are commonplace discussions. Suing your customers is, after all, a highly crappy business practice.

Most of these stories are about sharing files, but this one had a twist.

According to a Washington Post story about the suit, “the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer” — that the MP3 files the defendant made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

This is what got the blogosphere all riled up. How DARE they tell me what I can do with MY music! The only problem is that the story isn’t, well, precise. The assertion regarding the simple copying of a song for personal use was not a part of the lawsuit.

Blogger and new media thinker Robert Scoble jumped aboard the story and wrote that the RIAA is actually doing consumers a favor by forcing artists away from the fold.

This behavior will make sure people buy (or steal) music directly from bands. See how Radiohead did it. By doing that, the price for music will go down thanks to fewer intermediaries. RIAA is just helping us get rid of them, which is good for everyone who loves music…Radiohead put the power of setting the price in OUR hands. Brilliant.

The truth about the matter appeared in the comments of Scoble’s post and elsewhere, and the sources of the story backed off.

Three commenters to Scoble’s post, Jerry, Louis and Shelley, raised serious questions about the journalistic practices of those who spread the story and used the opportunity to criticize citizens media as a result.

JERRY: Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument?

LOUIS: It seems pretty obvious to me from these comments that none have read the actual briefing. It doesn’t say the RIAA wants to prevent is (sic) from copying music for your PERSONAL use.

SHELLEY: The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD…Facts, people. I know facts aren’t fun, but can’t we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?

JERRY: So much for the accuracy and reliability of “citizen journalism”. And people complain about the accuracy of the MSM?

JERRY: I guess the adage “don’t believe everything you read” applies to the blogging world, too. Too bad most bloggers don’t apply it. Most are more interested in getting linked to than getting facts straight.

With respect to Jerry, this case shows the value of citizen journalism, not its shortcomings. As I pointed out in Scoble’s comments, the Washington Post was involved in this. They may have gotten their “tip” from the bloggers, but they were involved just the same.

Before the blogosphere, before citizen journalism or citizen media, before the people formerly known as the audience had the opportunity to publish for themselves, mainstream media outlets could operate with impunity with regards to the shaping of stories. This is called setting the information agenda, in which the only spin that matters is what the media company says.

Imagine, if you will, if the Washington Post had run such a story 10 years ago. Who would’ve provided the correction? Where would it have been published? How far downstream would the story have gotten before the focus shifted?

The point is that citizen journalism doesn’t function like the mainstream press of years gone by, because comments to a blog post or story ARE A PART OF THE STORY. News is a process, not a finished product, and this is crystal clear in the world of citizen journalism. As such, the fact that Jerry and Louis and Shelley could help set the record straight makes the case FOR the practice.

They and others might argue that the incorrect story shouldn’t have ever seen the light of day in the first place, but that idealistic perspective strikes at the heart of the problem of gatekeeper journalism. Journalists are no less human than anybody else, and despite elaborate (or not) systems of vetting, mistakes are commonplace. If we accept that, then any open and transparent method of immediate correction moves journalism forward, in my judgement, and not backwards, as many in traditional media would have us believe.

Here is the latest in the on-going series of essays, Local Media in a Postmodern World.

This piece examines a new working definition of news in the current marketplace and how media companies can (and should) adopt it as a central component of their Web content strategy. I believe we will see much of the traditional world shift to this model over the next 18 months, because it makes so much sense for the world of the Web. News-as-a-finished-product is the model for everything from the morning paper to the 6 o’clock news, and it is the model that’s broken by the disintermediation and unbundling of news and information. So what is evolving to take its place?

You don’t have to like their content to appreciate the work that TMZ.com is doing to evolve the new model, and this essay contains portions of an interview with Bob Mohler, Executive in Charge, New Media, Telepictures Productions and one of the creators of TMZ.com. I also reach inside the mind of the inimitable Doc Searls for his wisdom on the topic, and I think you’ll find it memorable.

The new model offers new value propositions for both users and advertisers, which is a big reason why I believe it will be successful.

News is a Process, Not a Finished Product

There are two headlines back-to-back in Romenesko’s RSS feed today that speak volumes:

Plain Dealer didn’t bow to political pressure in blog dust-up
Denver Post skewers governor in rare front-page editorial

In the former, the ombud for the Cleveland Plain Dealer speaks about his paper’s decision to shutter its political group blog and fire a liberal blogger. His crime was supporting a candidate and writing about the same candidate on the blog. The paper’s policy is carved from the canons of journalistic ethics:

“You can’t contribute to a political candidate and then write about his or her campaign, either as an employee or as a paid free-lancer for The Plain Dealer, on paper or online.”

But Jeff Jarvis asks why they hired the bloggers and created the blog in the first place, if it was not to hear the opinions of involved citizens.

The logic of all this is baffling. The paper knew it was hiring opinionated people. But it didn’t want involved people. That is a “difficulty.”

What we’re really seeing is the view of journalism from inside the cloister of the newspaper: Once you take a dollar from the paper, once you take its communion, you are transformed: You take a vow of political celibacy. You have no opinions and if you do, you hold them to yourself, like impure thoughts. You don’t participate in your community but stand apart from it. And you don’t mingle with those outside the walls who speak the vulgate, blog. So the priests of the paper said that the bloggers were sinners. And they were excommunicated.

The second headline from the Romenesko feed tells the story of a Denver Post editorial that refers to Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter as “Jimmy Hoffa,” “a toady for labor bosses” and “a bag man for unions.”

These two stories are different sides of the same coin, and they both make a case for the return of argument to journalism. They point out the silliness of the line between personal, paid support and corporate editorial support. Purists will argue that the person who wrote the Post editorial didn’t or hasn’t supported an opponent of the governor, but I would argue that this is semantics because support is support, whether its in the form of cash contributions or otherwise. Others will argue that the Post editorial was well thought out and agreed upon by the editorial board of the paper — that elite group of educated and informed people who guide the decisions of the paper. No name-calling; just thoughtful prose. Not.

But what’s really sad about these two instances is how they are viewed by people watching from the outside — the people formerly known as the audience. Those people are arming themselves with personal media technology and speaking for themselves in ways that are not part of the canons. The Cleveland paper was right to try and display some of that in its group blog, but it was wrong to put it under its banner (and its canons). You can’t have it both ways, and the worst thing we can do is try and drag that which is new into the model that’s being disrupted. When will we learn that?

Just like everything else, the canons of journalistic ethics — and how we apply them to our work — need to be reviewed. Otherwise, we’ll be clinging to them — with looks of deep pride — all the way to the ocean floor.

I had the great pleasure of attending a local blogger meet-up last night in Portland at the studios of KATU-TV. I’m not sure of the headcount, but 50-60 is probably about right.

As I travel around the country and do these gatherings, I find that the blogosphere of each community generally reflects the personality of the community itself. Bloggers are fun people to hang with — bright, witty, passionate, curious, and often quite comedic. Portland’s is a fun-loving bunch, moreso, I think, than their neighbors to the north in Seattle, where the humor is a bit more restrained (exceptions noted). It reminded me more of a meet-up with bloggers in Nashville than, say, San Francisco or Seattle.

Like other smart local media outlets, KATU-TV has taken a position of embracing the personal media revolution in its community. This isn’t easy for TV stations, but it’s an important first step in participating in the conversation — the buzz — that is the cyberspace community. I don’t see how media companies will be relevant in the years to come without taking this step.

And at every blogger meet-up, there’s always one blogger that really makes me smile. In Portland, that award goes to Athena, shown below holding court with (from left to right) Rob Dunlop of Fisher Communications, owners of KATU-TV, Don Pratt, KATU-TV news director, and Matt Davis, a reporter for the Portland Mercury and an active participant in the alternative paper’s Blogtown, PDX blog.

Athena tickled me. She’s the author of a book about ghosts in Seattle, so she begged Don for a tour of the KATU basement. Her blog is called TheBlissQuest, where her slogan is “Eat my bliss…” I asked her how the quest was going, and she said she’s experienced bliss only in bits and pieces so far, but “I’m still waiting for the big chunks.”

But Athena was just one of many Portland bloggers that I met, and everyone had something unique about them and a story to tell. Bloggers are like that, which is why I enjoy being in their company so much.

Jay Rosen offers an interesting piece over at Press Think called “Why Do We Suck? and Other Questions Political Journalists Asked Themselves at YearlyKos.” With a title like that, it’s gotta be good, right?

It doesn’t disappoint, and it reinforces what I’ve been picking up all over the place — that the awakening of journalists to what’s taking place around them is accelerating. Even two years ago, we would never have heard Big J journalists speaking the way many are today. Jay’s essay is an analysis of YearlyKos, a conference of liberal political bloggers held last week in Chicago.

Michael Scherer of Salon was in Chicago. He wrote about an expected “confrontation between the crusty old mainstream media and the tough and truth-telling blogosphere” that didn’t really happen. (It was a panel with Glenn Greenwald of Salon, Mike Allen of The Politico, Jay Carney of Time and Jill Filipovic of Feministe, overseen by Ari Berman of The Nation.) “At a few points, the crowd tried to get a fight started, by [asking] questions that amounted to “Why do you reporters suck so bad?”

A few years ago he and his peers would have made fun of this. Now? “I can say with authority that a lot of political reporters these days are thinking about it pretty closely.” Imagine that: introspection among journalists along the lines of…Why do we suck so badly?

Like other reporters, I don’t always agree with the criticisms, but I take them seriously. I try to avoid repeating my mistakes and I try to get better with each story. But the attacks on me and other writers signal something much bigger than just my work… Simply put, news is no longer a one-way process. It is now much more of a conversation between journalist and reader. Reporters at major news organizations no longer have the omnipotent authority they once had. The news process, in a word, has been democratized.

Wow. That’s quite an admission from the expensive seats.

It reminded me of an essay I wrote in January of 2004 called “News is a Conversation” that didn’t make me the most popular kid on the block, but its themes and conclusions are reflected above.

The editorial process certainly has its place in world of journalism, and as a recent commenter on my own blog pointed out, bloggers feed off the work of mainstream journalists. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two, and I’m certainly not suggesting one will replace the other. There is, however, a reformation underway, and while nobody knows exactly how it’s going to play out, I think it’ll be good for everybody in the end. Bloggers, who don’t necessarily care, will find validation in the journalism world, and mainstream news people will be forced to stop giving only lip service to interacting with their audiences.

And instead of turning to elite experts to guide us and solve all our problems, we might actually find that the answers we seek are with the people out here pounding the pavement and living the life that those experts only touch from a distance.

Wouldn’t that be something?

The truth that’s being revealed to professional journos is but a small glimpse of what I think is coming, for we are on a road of adventure and creative explosion that will rewrite the rules of contemporary journalism. A good story in the hands of a good storyteller will always draw a crowd, but the notion that all the good storytellers work in professional journalism is clearly coming apart.

And more importantly, the great awakening — as Dan Gillmor so brilliantly stated years ago — that “the readers know more than I do” is reaching places I could only imagine a few years ago.

That means good things for our trade and a bright future indeed.

Bloggers from the Seattle area got together last night in the studios of my client, KOMO-TV. I’ve been involved in many of these, and this was by far the best organized and best attended one of the lot. Some of that’s attributable to the web hip community of Seattle (we invited 800 active bloggers), but I’ve got to tip my hat to Chris Pirillo, the gnome himself, who help coordinate the event.

Chris is a little vertically challenged (hence, the chair), but there’s not a smarter new media guy on the planet, and his reputation in the local web community is as pristine as it is globally. Chris was the consummate master of ceremony (Gnomedex is next week, folks), and Fisher Communications’ Rob Dunlop (the only guy in a suit — no tie, though) was a gracious host and photographer.

One of the things I really enjoy about initial blogger meet-ups at stations is how the station people react to the eclectic blend of personalities before them. Bloggers are, after all, just people, and these kinds of meetings help break down walls and put a face on what most media types view as wannabe journalists. KOMO-TV anchor team of Kathi Goertzen and Eric Chapman mingled, made new friends and promised that they would soon start their own blogs.

We’ve a bunch of other cool things planned with bloggers in the Seattle community, and I’m looking forward to becoming a regular fixture there. Seattle has a rich blend of all sorts of wonderful blogs and a local web that’s second-to-none. It’s an exciting time for new ideas and new thinking in this world we call “new media.”

Don Lundy, GM of WRTV-TV in Indianapolis wrote this morning to tell me about their slick new website, ToddandTrisha.com. It’s a masterful stroke and a creative use of the web to introduce the station’s new anchor team of Trisha Shepherd and Todd Wallace a month before they go on-the-air. Each anchor has a blog, and they’re responding to comments. There are introductory videos, run via YouTube. Outstanding. Readers are also encouraged to say where they’d like the team to visit as part of a market wide road tour later this month, all of which, one assumes, will be blogged.

Kudos to Don (a blogging GM, BTW) and his entire team.

Anybody with a strong back is welcome at my place this weekend, as I’m moving from my apartment with its trees and squirrels for neighbors to a house a few miles away with trees and squirrels for neighbors. I doubt that I will be blogging at all during the next few days, because before I move, I’m off to Seattle for a blogger meet-up sponsored by a client, KOMO-TV. 184 people have given us their RSVP as of this writing, so it should be a heck of a party. I’ll bring pictures back, and if you live in the Seattle area, please come by and say hello.

A corporate executive called me “cerebral” during a meeting yesterday, which is something you don’t hear every day. The subsequent swelling of my cerebrum made it difficult to get out the door.

And so it goes…

Brittney Gilbert suddenly resigned yesterday as writer of the popular Nashville community blog, Nashville is Talking. I have more thoughts about this than I can say, but a few things require my comment. I was, after all, the creator of this site and concept. I believe Brittney was the first person paid by a local media company to be a full-time blogger. It’s sad that she’s leaving.

First of all, Brittney said she was resigning because she couldn’t take the nastiness of certain commenters anymore. In this sense, the bullies won. Brittney is a fine and sensitive young woman, despite her biting wit and prose. She notes that this has been coming for a long time, although everybody associated with the site was shocked.

While we can all talk about how ugly comments can get, they are a part of life in the democratized web world (just as they are in the real world). The community tends to police such, but it can get to you, if you’ll let it.

In her final post, she credits Mike Sechrist, Steve Sabato and myself with giving her this chance in life. I no longer consult for the station. Mike left a month ago, and Steve was fired shortly after Mike left. In other words, Brittney lost her support base, and while that’s not been mentioned as a reason for her departure (except by Rex Hammock), I have a hard time believing it didn’t play a role here.

It’s one thing to take criticism from an occasionally angry mob; it’s quite another take it without superiors watching your back and providing encouragement. WKRN’s web efforts have been pioneering, but not everyone is cut out to be a pioneer (something about the occasional arrows). There’s nothing “wrong” about that; it’s just life.

Her final post sprouted a flame war in the comments between members of the community who were antagonists and those who came to Brittney’s defense, and a thorough study of those comments — and the “final straw” issue — would make a great project for some journalism program. I added my two cents, because of references by some that Brittney “represented” the editorial process of WKRN-TV, an assertion I find self-serving.

…let me add that efforts to tie this blog to the output of WKRN’s news department benefit only those who seek to use the affiliation as a hammer in making their position come out on top. This is not a mainstream media outlet, and it never has been. It doesn’t operate by the same rules, and it doesn’t have to.

Members of both sides of the public debate have manipulated the “rules and traditions” of the mainstream press to give our country a bad case of irritable bowel syndrome. Walter Lippmann’s social engineering of a century ago has produced a culture void of argument, and this is what the personal media revolution is bringing back.

Those who wish to hide behind the “press isn’t supposed to be that way,” wish to have their cake and eat it, too. We can either argue or we can’t, but you don’t have a right to say only you can argue.

This website was an experiment in not only social media but also in shining a light on the many voices that make up the Nashville blogosphere. Brittney was required to walk a fine line here — to fully engage ALL voices, which she certainly seems to have done and at the same time maintain a certain distance. That some are unable to tolerate certain voices is sad not only for this experiment but also for the First Amendment.

Nashville is Talking will continue in some form, although it may end up in the hands of the community itself. Katherine Coble, herself a terrific blogger, has temporarily taken over for Brittney.

I know a lot of companies are trying to find ways to incorporate the local blogosphere into their plans and strategies, and there are many lessons we’ve learned from this experiment. I’ll likely write much more about that some other time.

An interesting spat developed over the last few days in Nashville that bears comment. It involves WKRN-TV and the bloggers who run their aggregator sites, Nashville is Talking and Volunteer Voters.

VV is an aggregator of the political blogosphere in Tennessee and has grown to become a very influential voice in state politics. It’s written by A.C. Kleinheider, a very smart young man who lives and breathes politics and has a fairly comprehensive understanding of the way things work in the state (Nashville is the state capital).

On Tuesday, he wrote a thoughtful but controversial piece about the extremes to which certain elements in our culture have gone to portray our service men and women as saints. Over at NiT, Brittney Gilbert saw it as a noteworthy entry in the local blogosphere and mentioned it and her support of Kleinheider’s argument.

This didn’t sit well with right-wing talk show host Steve Gill, who basically called both A.C. and Brittney unpatriotic communists. Gill told his listeners to call the station and protest. A war of online words ensued, which led to a story in the Nashville City Paper.

This is a fascinating event, because it strikes at the heart of the conflict between Big J journalism and the personal media revolution. These two people are employed by the station but function in the world of Media 2.0, where the rules are vastly different. Gill wants (needs) for the station to play by the Media 1.0 rules, for that is precisely what the political PR world knows how to manipulate. He’s appealing to “the rules” to place his perspective front-and-center.

The two websites carry disclaimers, which ought to be enough for intelligent people to recognize. Not only do Brittney and A.C. have a right to their arguments, this whole notion that journalists are somehow separate from their own selves is an illusion that the web is shining its light on every day. Moreover, these two sites are aggregators and serve a tremendous public service by observing what’s being said in the local (and state political) blogosphere. They would be irrelevant sites if they didn’t engage the local bloggers at the same time. Both regularly comment on other people’s blogs as well, and this is as it should be.

This particular event is all about a right wing talk show host trying to get publicity, which is exactly what’s happening. What’s most interesting to me — and ought to be of interest to everybody — is the general reaction of the blogosphere itself. That’s where this issue was born and that’s where it belongs.

The conversation that is news can be a messy business, especially where it’s up-close and personal like it is in the immediate world of the blogosphere. Issues are discussed here in a way that’s not codified and neat, and frankly, I think that’s incredibly healthy for our culture. This particular matter is going to get even messier as the 2008 elections approach. The question is will media companies have the spine to engage it this way or will they cling to the safe harbor of same-o, same-o?

NOTE: In the minds of the right, anybody who doesn’t follow certain positions is on the left. This is hogwash, but it has served conservatism well for almost three decades in the U.S. As E.P. of The 700 Club in the early 80s, I helped create this meme, and I think it’s time it was put to bed.

(Disclosure: WKRN-TV is a former client and I helped develop both of these aggregators)