One definition of Journalism is the “gathering, writing, and reporting of news.” Under this broad definition, it seems like both Twitter and Blogging represent different kinds of journalism. Two points on a spectrum of understanding.

“What?” you might say. “Isn’t Twittering reserved for naval gazing mutterings of individuals who ‘report’ nothing more than mundane banalities of their lives?” That might be true. On the other hand, that kind of value statement judges the medium based on content of what’s being said, not the medium itself.

After all, haven’t the early criticisms of blogs been in the same vein?

While some / most individuals Twitter about things that you or I don’t care to know about, Twitter, as an ambient braodcasting mechanism which transcends online space, can be used to disseminate information quickly, effortlessly, and in real time, in a way that blogging cannot.

Granted, because its limited to 140 characters, the messages have to be concise.

But that doesn’t mean that you can’t use it for reporting. In fact, because of its 140 character restriction, one could argue that it is, in fact, perfect for communicating stories that have immediate impact, forcing you to get to the heart of the issue.

Case in point.

Did you know how I learned about Photobucket being purchased by MySpace?

Twitter.

Granted, the message was something like “OMG, Myspace bought out Photobucket; Rupert pwns all!”

Is that Journalism? I think its a *form* of journalism.

Twittering ought to be no more castigated for its triviality than blogging because people cannot make the distinction between the message and the medium.

Twittering (and other forms of ambient broadcasting) are not the place or forum for extended and well thought out ideas, assertions, and in depth reporting, that’s true. But, on the other hand, its a great mechanism for reporting headlines — things that are happening in the moment, and since you can do it with text messaging you don’t even need to be at a keyboard to make it happen.

In that respect, perhaps its *more* like reporting than blogging ever could be. For real event that are happening in “real” life, citizen journalists could be twittering away about events that are happening in real time, perhaps even as they’re happening.

It hasn’t happened yet — but if Twitter continues to grow, one day when there’s something newsworthy, someone will. And I suspect Twittering will be one of the tools *of* a citizen reporter, all available by cell phone, which so far has includes taking video and photos.

What twittering does, however, is that it provides the ability to provide description and editorial — even if you only have 140 characters at a time.

• how he thought of the name
• how Techmeme works
• his actual role on Techmeme
• how some blogs are different because of their integration with industry
• why he put techmeme together
• his thoughts on free vs. paid model for Techmeme
• his ideas on Techmeme’s competition

If you’re a fan of Techmeme, or, perhaps you’ve never heard Gabe being interviewed before, check the podcast out. You might learn a thing or three about one of the best tech news aggregators out there today.

Is it merely cock-eyed optimism?

Or is it an acceptance that newspapers, as a medium, are changing, and will necessarily continue to change to survive?

Its hard to really divine the thoughts from a newspaper article, but it certainly seems like its more of the latter than the former. And I think at the end of the day, isn’t that all its about? The will to acknowedge change, and then having the intestinal fortitude, and above all *buy-in* that things will need to change?

I think that’s what got most folks (well, *me* anyway) all riled up after Sam Zell gave his thoughts on his recent acquisition of the Tribune and “those boys” at Google .

Its not that his thoughts were specifically boorish and uninformed, but that he clearly doesn’t have the passion or vision for a man who was in a unique position to effect change. He’s viewing his purchase like any other that he’s made billions off of: a distressed undervalued property that he plans to “turn around”, and, if history is any indication, flip it.

It sounds like European news editors and owners are taking the longer view of things, making appropriate changes to their media strategy, and in so doing, are confident that their efforts will bear real fruit.

Is there a dash of cock-eyed optimism? Perhaps.

But at least its coming from a place which makes sense to me, and isn’t full of bluster and scarcely veiled legal threats.

I don’t like to do posts that are full of quotes, but this article was so important I thought I’d share with you a few select quotes for your reading pleasure.

On why “real” journalists will one day (if not already) flock to the web:

As reporters well know, they can obtain more verifiable insider dope on Motown (and Stuttgart and Toyota City) from the website Autoextremist.com than from the Detroit Free Press or the Detroit News. The same applies to specialist medical, legal, investment banking and architecture sites. Newspapers can sail along for months without breaking news, but websites perish if they lack a sense of urgency. That’s why many of the best and brightest journalists will soon chuck the Daily Bugle to work at them.

On how one-paper monopolies have encouraged mediocrity:

The monopoly mentality also encouraged proprietors, beginning in the 1950s, to adopt a formula of inoffensive content calculated to attract and hold every potential reader. What resulted are papers so bland and formulaic that you can pick one up and have no idea what town or set of values the paper represents

… Add to that the feckless squandering of cash on over-priced acquisitions rather than newsgathering – on the “content providers,” or reporters and editors, that are a paper’s chief calling card – and the resistance to innovation among owners and editors of a certain age, and it’s a marvel papers are still part of the daily life of so many millions of North Americans.

[emphasis my own]

And lastly, what newspapers really need to do to survive:

To be forcefully relevant again, newspapers need to rediscover a point of view even at the risk of alienating readers, to champion selected causes, to develop unsurpassed proficiency in coverage of niche topics (the L.A. Times inexplicably has never attempted to become the undisputed leader in coverage of Hollywood), and, in the case of metropolitan dailies, to adopt “hyperlocalism” as their mantra.

[emphasis my own]

Some really good stuff, courtesy of a local paper in Toronto.

With the chorus growing louder for change, I suppose the remaining question is thus: will newspapers, and their owners, have the will to effect these changes? I think they really get to the heart of what news media was and has become, and I imagine it will be (or will have been) met with extreme resistance from the establishment.

Case in point: Sam Zells, the new owner of the Tribune is in a peculiarly unique position to effect these kind of changes, and doesn’t seem to have a clue.

Sure, I’ll give him two weeks to be a “genius”, but it seems like the Tribune needs someone (or hire someone) with a grander scope and vision to see it through, not someone who seems to be focused on the bottom line.

Its a long train of thought — but bear with me, because I’ll get to the Real Issue in a second.

His most notable quote about his recent purchase, and more importantly, his belief about how newspapers should interact with Google was as follows:

“If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do?” he asked. “We have a situation today where effectively the content is being paid for by the newspapers and stolen by Google, etcetera. That can last for a short time, but it can’t last forever. I think Google and the boys understand that. We’re going to see new deals and new formulas in the media space that reflect the reality of cost benefit.”

What if Zell Got His Way?

Let’s do a thought experiment for a second, and forget that Google News doesn’t actually make a cent off of advertising (although, yes, it might be making it indirectly).

Let’s further assume that Google *is* cutting into potential revenue, because the Tribune *could* charge for its content, let’s say, for example, through licensing fees and so forth; or perhaps, through “lost” ad revenue, as people who find the Tribune through Google rarely travel to any other page on their site.

And what if Sam Zell had his way, and got Google to stop indexing the Tribune’s media properties, let’s say, through the force of litigation (and it seems like that’s the only way to do it — although I suspect that it would really use the billions of market cap at its disposal to fight it).

You would then get Zell’s perfect scenario: Tribune would then be able to put an offer down on the table, whereby it could extract a few shekels from Google in order for the privilege of Google to index the Tribune’s media properties. Without payment, no listings.

Well, what would happen then?

I suspect that Google would yank the Tribune’s listings while they fought it out in court. It would remain in limbo for a long time.

I think the question remains: if Sam Zell’s objective, is, as he states himself, “to increase revenues and cut costs while supporting quality journalism”, would getting Google to delist Tribune properties, in fact, increase revenues, all other things being equal?

I don’t think so.

And that’s because his perfect scenario hinges on a critical assumption: people would be as comfortable going directly to Tribune media properties directly for news, rather than finding their news elsewhere, through other news “aggregators”.

Like, for example, Google.

Now let’s savour for a minute how hilariously absurd this assumption is.

….

done, yet?

To be fair, there is only a single scenario in which his assumption would apply, and that is for local news. For national and international news? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. If I had the resources, I’d do a “man on the street” video cast polling random people with the open ended question “where do you find information or news on the web?”

Google isn’t the Internet, but for many people, its pretty damn close. And I’m not even talking to you, the people reading this blog, who probably also use it for email.

Why would Zell want this? It would clearly be a losing proposition on behalf of his media properties, because, Yes, I believe, in fact a great deal of traffic from all media properties does come from Search Engines, and that by cutting them off, over all traffic would slow down, with the exception of local traffic. Since newspapers are dependent on online advertising as a revenue model, over all revenues would grind to a halt.

I think the real reason why he doesn’t want Google to list his media properties, and perhaps he’s echoing the sentiments of many owners of newspapers, is that he’s worried about the Real Problem with Google.

The Real Problem With Google

The Real Problem with Google is that it levels the playing field. All newspaper brands are laid out equally and fairly. Everything is judged on name and content alone.

Google, as it refers to newspapers, is the ultimate commoditizing force, allowing users to judge which news they would like to read based on the content (headline and copy) and relevance of said content.

If I was Zell, this scary stuff is the REAL problem that I’d be worried about.

And that is that the vast majority of any news in any topic is the same. Pick a category. Let’s say, “Technology”. Subscribe to a few RSS feeds of your favourite newspapers. At any one time, the biggest stories will not be substantially different from each other. There’s a duty to report on things that are newsworthy, sure, but often times there is nothing more than what is reported at the competing newspaper.

No alternate opinions, no breaking news, no hard-to-get interviews.

Hey, its almost like blogging! ;)

Look, the problem with Google is not that its disintermediating the newspapers (although they are), but that they are commoditizing their content. And I would argue that the latter is the Real Problem.

Imagine waking up one day and knowing that your best selling product was like everyone else’s, and then having that illusion lifted in front of your customer’s eyes. That’s what Google does for News.

Or, if you want to put it in a positive way, it is an evolutionary force which drives news organizations to create better content. If they can’t, then they will necessarily not be selected, because their content is no different than the masses.

Again, it almost makes me think of blogging!

So, Zell’s faced with a real quandry: What would he rather have?

Traffic, which drives ad revenue and helps the bottom line, but at the expense of commoditizing his brand, and in the long run, making it difficult for him to derive revenues for an undifferentiated business.

Or, preservation of his brand at the expense of decreasing his traffic down, and ultimately his bottom line?

Zell’s chosen to fight Google on this one, and it seems like he’s going with the second option, which is reasonable. But he’s contradicting himself if he thinks that he’s hoping to maintain or increase revenues by cutting out search traffic for the sake of his media brands.

Now, if he plans to go “hyper-local” that’s another side of the story, because that’s one thing that media properties can really do well on.

Or, if he plans to put a lot of effort into “quality journalism”, putting funds into creating awesome novel content that online folks want to read — that too would be something else. But, as he stated, he’s looking to cut costs, rather than increase them in the short term.

And hey, perhaps that’s the reason why we’re reading and debating about Zell’s quote in the Washington Post, and not, say, the Chicago Tribune or the LA Times.

Heady stuff.

Steve Rubel says USAToday.com isn’t going far *enough* — it needs to “go where we already spend our time. RSS, widgets and embedded content would help here. For example, USA Today should let us add our blog, Twitter or Facebook feeds or even embedded YouTube vids to our profile pages.”

And the social web2.0 geek in me says “damn skippy!”

The realist in me, however, tends to think otherwise. Social features and encouragement of the audience WITH the news is all well and good. But, to what audience is this really playing to? Sure, the socialization of information is the future of news. And blogs like this one like to write about it like its the here and now, and if you’re not with it — well, you’re past it. But the reality is that fans of “web2.0″ are a tiny sliver of a hair of the online population at large — and to radically change the format of a major online newspaper, to accomodate those early adopters is incredibly premature.

I am predicting that the vast majority of the net *in general* (nevermind USAToday’s particular audience, who, and chastise me if I’m being techno-elitest, may lack the technical sophistication to appreciate social features) will simply not understand these new features, and clamor for a return to a simpler non-involved news website.

Am I being too drastic?

Maybe. Time will tell, after all, if traffic starts to decline precipitously. But I’m basing this opinion on an example of an “old-school” news portal which dramatically changed their features so that they became a “pure” social play.

Can you guess which one I’m talking about?

Of course, I’m talking about Netscape.

Jason Calacanis can yak all he wants about how “great” Netscape is doing — but facts are that traffic has taken continued to take a dramatic nose dive since it became a social news engine, and strayed away from the traditional news portal [to be fair, 2-4 months into their transition, traffic levels stabilized, but are far from their highs of 2005]. Sure, there are technical reasons for this too — such as the fact that they spun off their email login to a different subdomain (or something), but all things being equal it made sense.

Hey, *I* like social news. I like Digg. But Netscape is an old domain and by switching to an entirely different format which is fairly bleeding edge (and fairly baffling if you’re not interested in it), it alienated many of its older users, who didn’t care for the new format and never came back. If you doubt me, google “bring back old netscape” and you’ll see the kinds of discussions that are going on.

Has the drop in newspaper readership so scared USAToday that they have embraced a technology that is a little beyond its time — and beyond the interests of its users? Will embracing the “social” aspect of news translate into higher traffic and more ad revenue? Or will it act as a stop-gap measure to quell the loss of readership? Or will USAToday “Netscape” itself and find that it may have accelerated downwards itself to a new baseline of traffic?

As I said — time will tell. The geek in me hopes that it will succeed. The realist, however, is feeling smug that it might not.

Other opinions:

• Mat Ingram wonders if we want to socialize with newspapers or the people who work there
• Paul Kedrosky takes the position that these new changes may alienate its installed base of readers
• Stowe Boyd seems to want to be able to use a single point of reference as a social tool rather than many different newspapers trying to be their own social site
• Rex Hammock and Mike Arrington have both dived in with both feet right after Steve Rubel with the feeling like it is a good improvement.

Blog pages accounted for 13 percent of overall visits to newspaper sites in that month, up from 4 percent a year earlier. Total visitors to the top newspaper sites rose 9 percent to 29.9 million.

I guess the issue was brought up some months ago when Business2.0 got a whole passle of journalists to start blogging, and has further received a little more momentum given how CNet discussed how ZDnet’s blog-authors will get paid, (many of them are veteran journalists) in small part, due to their pageviews.

Well, I remember asking a journalist of two (maybe even a former journalist) on what they thought about this.

I believe the opinion was that journalists COULD probably blog, as their occupations put them in front of breaking news, and they have the excellent opportunity to report on it; alternatively, it could give them the opportunity to put their own salty spin on what goes on in a particular industry.

Moreover, many of them might have the TIME to pursue such extra-curricular activities, and I think that at this point someone discretely pointed in the direction of Om Malik (who created a fabulous blog in his spare time that is on its own way of becoming a mini empire).

The question that was brought up, however, was if any WANTED to blog.

Many people have their jobs. To some, its merely an occupation. Perhaps it is so for some journalists. But to blog actively, regularly, and in a way that is engaged with its readers and the blogging community-at-large requires a level of commitment that might transcend the definition of a job — particularly if you are doing so in ADDITION to your usual duties.

Sure, you can dangle the prospect of higher wages, and bonuses for extra work done (because, let’s face it, no matter how much you love it, its still work), but to blog successfully, you’ve got to (really) want to do it.

And, to be fair, some might not … even with the prospect of more coin.

So, should all journalists be bloggers? At the end of the day, I’m not sure if its a question of “should”, so much as a question of “which”. That is, which journalists should be bloggers?

I think blogging is a great complementary occupation that journalists actually have a leg up on — for all the reasons I mentioned above. But also because if they do for their parent company, they already have a built in audience and potential readership base. Which is both a blessing and a curse, I suppose, that many independent bloggers work their tails off to acquire.

A couple of individuals that seem to have made the jump successfully include my own hommie (or is that only with one “m”) Mat Ingram, prolific blogger, and columnist for the Globe and Mail, as well Mark Evans one-type journalist for the National Post, but now VP for b5media.

And heck, they certainly seem to be having fun with it. ;)