What If?

What if the Internet suddenly stopped giving away free news? With so many people saying lately that they "get their news off the Internet," I wonder what would happen if the Internet stopped giving away the milk and instead made people start buying the cow?

I don't mean what would happen to people or society as a whole. I think we might scratch our heads for a moment, then pick up the phone and call back the few remaining people at newspapers' subscription departments and order up the "special." (Trust me. The subscription departments at your local paper are standing by, ready and waiting, with subscription specials anytime you call. Try it and see.)

I'm not suggesting that this will happen tomorrow. It would take some major doing because it would have to start with the wire services and go all the way down. No more freebies on information and intellectual property.

Those wire services, like Associated Press, Reuters, and United Press International, would all have to change their working agreements with groups to outlaw the posting of their reporting on the Internet. Since every major news organization in the world uses these wire services as the backbone of their product, this would shut down the Internet as a source of information, except in return for money. Which since the services pay their employees, is really how it should be, isn't it?

And all of the "stories" online? Most of those "news stories" that people would still see for free would suddenly be viewed as what they are: bloggers, babblers, pundits, and intellectual property thieves.

All of the real news therefore, would then be either distributed by television, radio, or in those quaint things called newspapers. Sure, the newspapers would go back to being the slowest of the medias, but they'd still retain their journalistic integrity by virtue of providing the most in-depth news coverage. And yeah, they'd have subscribers again. They might even hire back a few reporters.

Televisions and radio stations would gain viewers back, because well, yes, you'd have to get your news from one of the several legitimate sources, so they'd be back in demand.

It's an old school style approach. And it would require some allowances by the government. We'd have to invite the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to the meetings where such an agreement was negotiated because that might prevent us all from being dragged into court for an anti-trust case.

But there would be no "price fixing." Journalists have rarely agreed on anything (a more snarling, snapping dog-filled pack you've never seen) so how could they or even their bean-counters fix a price? But just to keep it all honest, as we work to restore the business model, it might be acceptable to have government approval.

And websites? Sure, we'd keep those. Why not post the freebie information, advertisements, a few teases to the real stories (available in the morning paper or evening newscasts) reporters and talent bios and emails. But generally, after a few details on the web, we let everyone go back to reporting things other than the latest demise of a venerated newspaper?

I put this question to someone in management at one of my current media clients. He said he thinks it's too late. He said he thought that newspapers and other media outlets had rushed onto the Internet years ago, without giving serious thought to what it would mean long-term and now the momentum was against them. The industry is "hemorrhaging without end."

But I wonder at that analogy and suggested he look at it in a different way:

"If you slit your wrists, you are allowed to go to the hospital."

Maybe it's time to do that. Maybe it's time to check in before we all check out.

U.S. Postal Service... not serviceable?

So the Postal Service says their business is failing and they need some cuts. I sorta get that. Don't we all?

Last quarter, they lost $2.4 Billion, with future projections that by the end of the year, they will lose a total $7 Billion. As we all know, Internet and email have pretty much killed them. Sure, they raise the price of a stamp six to twelve months, and we all know what's going on there. Postal carriers think they need more money and benefits. Otherwise, they'll... uh, go postal. (Whew! Now that we've gotten that one out of the way, we can move on.)

But this time, they don't want more money. They want less responsibility. Their big cheese, the U.S. Postmaster told Congress this past week that he needs to cut services back.

He really needs to cut new deals and be allowed to whack away at union deals that were made before he was in office. He needs freedom to chip away at service agreements and benefits and entitlements that are "guaranteed" to government workers that frankly, well, we really can't afford right now. Nor possibly could we ever have really "afforded" them.

Apparently, our postal carriers weren't paying attention to what happens to big unions when their employers can't afford them anymore. They didn't notice what happened to workers at various auto plants and factories. They took no notice of mechanics and flight attendants who slowly squeezed (is that a word?) the life out of their big bosses. Why aren't they worried? Because their contracts forbid layoffs, cutbacks, or any other attempts to cut their piece of the pie. In fact, the U.S. Postal Service is archaically required to set aside benefits money for "future employees." Do you know any other business that is required to set aside money for employees they don't have?

So Postmaster John Potter wants to cut a day or two, here and there.

I have another idea. Since a good number of us already have post office boxes, perhaps we might consider whether a lot more of us should get P.O. boxes? We could eliminate deliveries, except where age or illness makes getting our own mail impossible. We'd make Americans responsible for their own make pickups.

And think about it. Think of all the glorious "stimulus money" we could spend, building the additional mail drop facilities.

Just makes you want to go out and buy some stamps, doesn't it?

Twitter, Tweet, Twit and...

I've been spending a lot of time online lately. A. Lot. As part of my interest in the simultaneously expanding and contracting world of media, I am online a lot and recently took advice from a friend and "unlocked" my account on twitter.com.

You know about twitter, right? The Internet site where you post a profile and then update your status as often as you wish, but with only 140 characters per update? Your updates are seen by those who sign up to follow what you say.

Followers? The term seems a bit too biblical to me. It really bothers me that it is used on this blog, but then again, I always appreciate the fact that someone is reading it. And occasionally commenting.

Anyway, there are people using twitter to market themselves and their websites. There is a woman in the United Kingdom twittering complete recipes in 140 characters. And there are celebrities using twitter to promote everything from their new movies to books they've written, to their relationships and conversations with other celebrities.

For instance, Ashton Kutcher famously had a contest with a news organization over who could be the first to run up their followers list to 1 million people. Guess who won? The actor and his wife, Demi Moore, both signed up and soon were twittering things both personal and pseudo-profound. And the Internet roared its approval, with folks all over the globe a-titter about the twittering of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore.

When I initially joined awhile back, I wasn't keen on having just any old reader, so I locked the membership. Only those who I approved could read my twittering.

Two days ago that changed. And so did my opinion of twitter.com. And not entirely for the better.

I was immediately added or followed by people whose apparent reason for being on twitter is just to post links to their porn-ish pictures. I unknowingly clicked on the first one or two, and immediately got an eyeful of someone's thong-clad derriere boosted right into the lens of a very murky PC camera. In the animal kingdom, this would be what they call "presenting." It left me with the feeling of falling victim to a drive-by flasher.

I read an article on "How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live," in Time two weeks ago. But this was hardly what the authors or I had in mind. They discussed twitter's part in our ever-shrinking world and how it is bringing people together and allowing them to be part of the societal conversation at every level.

They didn't mention that Twitter.com is rapidly taking the place of craigslist.com for sex services.

I mean, they're using it to market weight loss and home business plans, fitness videos and books, and celebrity. (I can't explain how I ended up on Paris Hilton's page the other day, but it was oddly hypnotic looking at all the pictures she's posted in her effort to get attention. Then I realized I was fulfilling her desire and shut the window. Ew.)

From the pictures posted, I would say now that after craigslist.com recently cracked down on sex providers on their website, the girls have moved their business to twitter.com. It will be interesting to see how or if twitter.com will take action to stop their website from being used in this way.

TV News: Sharing Resources

One of the hottest topics in television news right now is the pooled sharing of video resources by stations in (mostly) major television markets. It's already going on in Chicago, Los Angeles, and several other cities. It's controversial with a lot of unhappy people on all sides.

So here's my vote. I'm for it. Before you throw a rock at the back of my head, let me explain.

It's a scary time right now for all of us, in and out of the journalism and television industries. I feel like whatever those stations have to do to actually stay in business while the business model is rejiggered so that it will actually work again is probably a reasonable thing.

It's tough personally because we've all been able to rely on our careers and the station taking care of us and our union protecting those jobs for us for a very long time. We're going to have to take care of ourselves now. It's time to grow up (admittedly, this is an industry where juvenile personalities and behavior were often what was needed to succeed) and be responsible for ourselves. For some of us, that change will be too great and it may be time to get out of the business.

But sharing video doesn't mean the demise of the business. It doesn't even mean the demise of quality journalism. It might mean the survival of some groups that are struggling with both the recession and the decline in viewership that is causing the television news industry to contract.

As I understand it, a lot of the video-sharing arrangements are for news conferences, which are scheduled events where everyone simultaneously gets the same information, interviews and elements. The quality of reports done on such stories isn't dependent on photographers (although if one of the stations decides that's where to stick the least qualified guy working that day, then it could really sink things fast) but on the reporting and the reporter.

Just imagine... it might actually free up crews to be out of those hideously boring news conferences to cover other issues. Who knows? They could conceivably be able to cover them with some depth.

Before you start to argue with me, consider that some of those considered to be the top journalists in the country are working with "pool video." Many of the events at the White House are covered by the "pool crew."

Among national news organizations, there is a fair amount of sharing already going on. On occasion, someone will get back to the office, have techical issues or have missed something and make a call to a friendly competitor who will occasionally share their pictures. Why? Because they know that they may be the beggar next time.

A reporter succeeds based on his or her own work. He or she succeeds on the strength of their sources, relationships, abilities and efforts in asking the right questions, focusing attention, offering insight and writing.

Photographers don't like it because, well, that's a no-brainer, isn't it? They don't like it because as the use of pooled video expands, the job pool for photographers shrinks. I had lunch with a beloved photographer friend this morning and we talked about his future.

He's a staff cameraman at a Los Angeles station, and is considering leaving his position sometime in the future. He and his significant other visited another city recently to "scout the lay of the land."

"I'm never going to get another staff job," he told me over my fish taco. "Those days are over and gone." I basically agreed with him and mentioned that network freelance photographers were among the happiest people I knew.

A freelance photographer makes his own hours, takes his own calls, accepts (or declines) assignments and has an incredible amount of personal and creative freedom. He works hard, but the bottomline is he works when he wants to.

It's an uneasy time. Anyone in freelance journalism, writing or photography has always needed nerves of steel. They've also needed skills to budget time, money, and resources to make occasional suppluses last through leaner times. It's not for the lazy, but it's do-able.

Someone said to me awhile back that my industry's "golden days" are over. That may be true for television, but it's not true for journalism and it's not true for photographers. We're still going to read and look at video, whatever the source. It is likely true that the laziest days are over. But those who truly succeeded were never lazy anyway.

"All We Have to Fear is Fear Itself"

You've seen pictures like this before, right? I mean, we all know what this is: an ostrich with its head in the sand. It's the image of a frightened animal, avoiding the very thing it fears by hiding its eyes and leaving the majority of itself vulnerable to whatever threatened it.

I'm never really sure (nor is important to this post) that these images are real or photoshopped.

These are dark days for journalists. Dark, bleak, frightening days of seemingly endless cutbacks and layoffs and buyouts. The road to the unemployment office or back to college is well traveled.

It's a sad and painful and uncertain time. The recession is hitting at a moment when the internet was already encroaching on how journalists are valued. And we aren't coming out ahead.

So I was very excited to meet with a news executive at a major city television station a week ago. He had sternly warned me prior to the meeting, "I have no jobs to offer. If five people walk in and quit tomorrow, they will not be replaced." But I was ready to counter that. I said that I had internet proposals for social network marketing and other suggestions. He seemed agreeable and interested in that idea and I took heart in my preparations.

I like to speak in simple terms, so let's just say my proposals were grouped in two categories: freebies and not so free. The freebies included ideas for social network marketing and setting up structures to handle those responsibilities and give the TV station's team of highly respected journalists ways to express those deep voices in the "new media."

The news executive told me "My people wouldn't be interested in that. They seem to get a big head of steam and then lose interest after two weeks."

I must admit feeling a bit surprised. I can only conclude he flunked the class at management retreat on "locker room pep talks." His people lose interest? (Anyone who has ever given an up-and-coming reporter a chance to promote their stories knows they rarely think of anything else ever again.) These were suggestions that wouldn't have cost him a dime to put into place and it wasn't within my power to offend the man by asking how he could afford to allow his people to not utilize these methods? To not promote his news product in these newer ways? I tucked my hair behind my ear and thought "Ok, so much for the freebies."

Then I offered my larger, over-arching proposal. It might have required some effort and perhaps working with the other stations in his group to develop the concept. But I think it would be a worthwhile investment in terms of what the future holds. It would have put that group forward in terms of where they stand in the new media and multiple platform use. And I included a quote I had seen in an article on Forbes.com only days before:

"Every day a station doesn't push more of its resources online is another day a competitor might."

He said he didn't see any benefit to it. His community wasn't interested and any investment would be a waste. I think at that moment I realized that I could say to him "Oreos are good dunked in milk," and he would have responded, "No, I think that wouldn't work for our viewers."
Let me point out that he lives in one of the top 2 or 3 most internet-connected cities in the country, where a large percentage of the population utilizes mass transit in their commute and is very focused on the daily news. So interested are many of his older viewers that they have an eye on the day's events continuously throughout the day. My proposal addressed all three of those aspects, and would have put the station itself out in front of many other stations and... allowed them a bigger piece of the network-to-affiliate pie. (Food metaphors flowing fast here today.)

Change is difficult. It frightens most of us. It is terrifying and painful and scares us witless. But as frightening as change is, in the communications field what we ought to fear most is being left behind.

And why do we have to be afraid? Can we not go forward with the knowledge that yes, there is a bit of Darwin's process is at work here. The fearless are going to make it. The weak are not. I don't know which I will be numbered among but I do know, I am not wanting to sit idly by and wait for it to happen. I'd rather bruise my knuckles knocking on the door than sit in the newsvan and do nothing. I'd rather get in the mix and be swallowed than the last kid in the game. There's always a risk that you get leftout that way, you know.

And if you stick your head in the sand, there is a possibility that winds will come up, swirling the sand around your body in a drift and bury you. Or at the very least, looking odd and a bit left out.

Social Networking Overtakes Porn as #1 Internet Draw

Good news for Moms everywhere: Reuters reports that social networking sites are now officially the top attraction on the Internet.

They have triumphed over pornography, which for years has been the leading destination for internet surfers. They also put down gaming sites, which perhaps were never really in contention as much as they were draws for teenaged boys and very sad social outcasts in their 20's and 30's.

But what this also indicates is a major change in how people communicate, according to some experts.

Bill Tancer, general manager of global research at analytics firm Hitwise, said in the article that analyzing web searches did not just reflect what was happening online but gave a wider picture of society and people's behavior.

"There are some patterns to our Internet use that we tend to repeat very specifically and predictably, from diet searches, to prom dresses, to what we do around the holidays," said Tancer, whose new book, "Click: What Millions of People are Doing Online and Why It Matters," was released a few weeks ago.

Tancer said in the article that porn surfing has dropped to about 10 percent of searches from 20 percent ten years ago. "As social networking traffic has increased, visits to porn sites have decreased," said Tancer, who also indicated that the 18-24 year old age group particularly was searching less for porn.

Social networking is actually often a more convenient way to communicate with friends because it weeds out everybody else. Anybody who has been put on a corporate listserv knows that going on vacation means you need to arrive back two hours early in order to clear out the email box so that you can start the real work of post-vacation catch-up.

Another reason it's good news: it also means we might be reading more... instead of just looking at the pictures.