Tornadoes, thunderstorms, mechanical problems and general chaos descended upon my trip. What should have been a 4-hour, 55 minute return flight turned into an epic 25-hour excursion that involved at least 12 separate delays, cancelations and flight changes.

Fortunately, I never pack my batteries, cords or computers — so I Tweeted the entire event. What follows is a narrative as I slowly fell to pieces during my overnight stay at O’Hare (brought on because of a 2 1/2 delay on the tarmac at LaGuardia and a 30-minute delay in getting to the gate in Chicago).

I have no edited the Tweets (although I may, sic, at some point). Please enjoy — and let me know what you think. (Oh and remember to read from the bottom up as the Tweets are from latest to earliest).

***

24.5 hrs after setting out, I have landed in Cincinnati - dad picking me up, either go for a run, write or pass out :) about 6 hours ago from txt

Ladies + gentleman - I’m on the plane, I have 5-2 odds that my flight crashes due to mechanical failure (or body odor) United 7926 about 8 hours ago from txt

Latest: mechanical issues on the cincy flight; may be scrubbed here, they say about 8 hours ago from txt

Airport rule: if you walk slow or weave, I will nudge you out of the way, I will cut you off. That is UR fault. Rules of the road. about 8 hours ago from txt

Starting bording the flight, then stopped and said we had to wait - no explanation given about 8 hours ago from txt

Funny passenger said: Cincy plane just left - it had not - mad rush to gate ensued about 8 hours ago from txt

@ReedieJR fewer delays could be: fewer domestic flights so fewer # od delays, better gauge is % delay-to- sked’d & % displaced people, about 8 hours ago from txt in reply to ReedieJR

United just sent me an email, offering great prices on their flights. EPIC FAIL ftw about 9 hours ago from txt

I once had a flight canceled when the flt crew went home, unaware they’d be assigned another flight. about 9 hours ago from txt

Even the pilots are confused. United can’t find the First Officer for the flight blocking my gate. More delays forthcoming… about 9 hours ago from txt

Flying is not for the weak, people. Old and kids need not apply. Stop whining, u nation of pansies. Bring a pillow + do as ur told. about 9 hours ago from txt

my flt arrives @ 1147, board says we leave on-time at 1153 - I am takibg bets on that happening about 9 hours ago from txt

Everyone de-planing looks defeated; everyone waiting looks pissed. Forget the army, navy - the airlines have won. about 9 hours ago from txt

No shit: 3 customer service reps just shut down the CS counter with10 people standing there - and they walkd away. thank u, good nite. about 9 hours ago from txt

As per our foreign policy, I think pre-emptive strike against the customers is proportional. Go Army. about 9 hours ago from txt

The Navy and Army have shown up. I’d like to say this is an over-reacrion - but the cust service desk has been flooded again. about 9 hours ago from txt

I’ve seen racial harmony - soccer moms of Beneton have lost their shit on customer service reps. Do not mess with spoiled soccer moms. about 9 hours ago from txt

Cust serv rep keeps closing line, customers keep opening back up - someone is going down about 9 hours ago from txt

@lewsmind, @ReedieJR - days like this I wish I was still drinking, I incite well - and O’Hare is teetering. Just needs on professional push about 9 hours ago from txt in reply to lewsmind

Customer service rep to delayed passengers, OH: I don’t care where u go, but I’m leaving here at 11. about 10 hours ago from txt

They just announced an interfaith service at the airport. The airport is FULL if imagination and fantasy today. about 10 hours ago from txt

I feel like I’m watching the beginning of a Sci-Fi movie, right before society falls apart. To quote Spock, fascinating. People are pissed. about 10 hours ago from txt

Customers now opening up lines that united staff tried to close; couple in their late 60s may verbally pummel next united employee to speak about 10 hours ago from txt

At 2 gates, employees have locked the gates down - say if u need help to see customer service - in Terminal 2 - yikes, United, yikes about 10 hours ago from txt

The mood in O’Hare Terminal 1 F has turned dark and hostile - airline employees are now openly avoiding irate customers about 10 hours ago from txt

The us airline industry must become completely transparent - and decentralize its supply chain — they are easily fixable probs about 10 hours ago from txt

When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro: HST. Brother, I’m about to turn pro. This wuld make more sense if I was bentm about 10 hours ago from txt

When u see so many people at the breaking point (several weak 1s already broke), u have 2 choices: anarchy or utter kindness - both r scary about 10 hours ago from txt

80 minutes to board and we’re still on time - 33 percent of flights delayed - I feel like tom hanks in the terminal - or maybe cast away about 10 hours ago from txt

@Geletka: if I had a ride to cincy - and a ticket to adtech, I would - about 10 hours ago from txt in reply to Geletka

‘cept anyone building a business on ads and technology is in trouble about 11 hours ago from txt

I guess I should just stay in chicago for adtech - since I may never leave about 11 hours ago from txt

Hey reporters - where’s the story about the airline infrastructure (@jason_pontin) - probly worth a look since all but SW r losing $$ about 12 hours ago from txt

@andrhia - yuppers, and rain in chitown may delay me more - could be a 2 day flt from nyc to cincy; yahtzee. about 12 hours ago from mobile web in reply to andrhia

Checked in to a flight that does not yet exist - interesting and existential. I wonder if i’m here? Must be, my back aches. about 13 hours ago from txt

well, at least I can’t go outside to smoke until 4 am (really, we deny people who have been cooped up all day + expect rationale behavior) about 19 hours ago from txt

Mt connecting flt - I shit u not - closed the door as I walked up: u were close, sir. Fuck you, he replied. 12 hrs until next flt about 19 hours ago from txt

I said socialism, went to berkeley and teach college - surprised I haven’t been put in jail yet… about 20 hours ago from txt

If we bail out the industry + don’t force failure/innovation - then we either need to go full socialism or I am leaving the country about 20 hours ago from txt

5 hours late to Chicago - and now they won’t give us a gate. Hooray airlines :) my congressman will be getting a letter. about 20 hours ago from txt

If its 51 million, we’re good - otherwise, yall make me people like in the poor house disproportionately about 24 hours ago from txt

3.3 million Appalachians - trying to get a figure percent of overall population about 24 hours ago from txt

Hey Tweets - someone look up, us census, poverty - how many americans living below the poverty line in the US? about 24 hours ago from txt

Hey Chicago - stop raining :) and hey airline industry, you have taken my last domestic dollar: if I can’t drive, I won’t see you about 24 hours ago from txt

On the bright side, bittorrent gave me batman begins (should have grabbed the matrix) and I have 6 hrs of battery time 09:14 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

In the immortal words of The Simpsons: its not die, bart, die. Its The, Bart, The 08:40 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

Now we are 1h and 50 mins away - but I’m sure they have their reasons 08:34 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

We were, I shit you not, beginning the run to take off when they shut down o’hare for an hour 08:33 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

I can’t believe I’m likely going to miss a connection that had 4 1/2 hours. Cover yer ears kids: Fuck United Airlines. thk u, goodnite. 07:57 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

To recap: weather delay - 6, 630, 7, 720 - then mechanical delay 750 - original 2nd leg, canceled, 954 - no idea if I’ll make it 07:00 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

@sarahcuda - had similar experiences at LensCrafters, United Airlines w/in the last 2 weeks: go US economy, the markets decide!! 06:45 PM August 04, 2008 from txt in reply to sarahcuda

My delayed flight delayed more - ninja skills stretched - had 100 mins between last leg - now have 39 minutes - but gates next 2 each othr 06:43 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

I’m an airport ninja - was told I got the only connecting flight home on this by continually calling the cust ser reps - 04:22 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

I have an indian asst, I a.m doing work in china - I have a weird accent - the cust serv rep I just spoke to - unintelligible - go united!! 03:56 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

United flights are canceled - text message system failed - soooooooo standing in line, waiting - may spend the night in the terminal 02:47 PM August 04, 2008 from txt

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bad Travel Karma Day
• Airports Gear Up for Crowds and Delays
• American Cancels More Than 1,000 Flights
• Weather Makes A Long Road Home For Some
• American grounds 1,000 more flights

They are wrong. The world has changed. A good story is still important. It’s just not AS important as it used to be because there are more ways to tell a story and more people telling them. I grew up in Appalachia, surrounded by the best storytellers you’ve never met. Trust me on this when I tell you that it’s an art form that can be mastered by anyone.

But hypocrasy is a nasty beast in the new media world. Jeff Jarvis reminded me of that today when he published the “excuse” part of his upcoming book, which basically said that while new media is the dominant force of the future he was writing a book because it paid the bills.

There’s a grand tradition of these apologies in the world of new media writing. Former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte did it artfully in Being Digital. And, frankly, I can understand why it’s there. Still, I understand why the nail gun is there too, I just don’t shoot a nail in my hand. That doesn’t make sense.

Since my book deals with new media storytelling, I thought it about time to do a few things: the Wiki for the book is now launched and you can get to that using the link on the right side of the page — or by clicking here; and I booked a flight to New York City with no interviews set up and no idea who I would talk to. You know, kind of like you get an assignment in the morning and have to figure out what to write by the end of the day.

Within four hours, that was fixed. Here’s how:

I’d been Twittering the possibility of this trip for a few weeks with absolutely no response at all. My followers, it turns out, are shy — or ignoring me.

So I created a writer’s list on Facebook from my contacts and I put together a list of media types on LinkedIn. I sent out notes to everyone explaining my book, when I’d be there and asked for help setting up interviews.

I was almost immediately swamped with names. I spent the better part of the afternoon emailing folks, talking on the phone and explaining the project — and within a few hours, I had:

• a tour of AP set up
• several meetings with rather well-connected media types
• a tour of a think-tank set up
• a tour of a marketing agency

I even found out that a friend from Texas was going to be in town (we’re having dinner) and Dan Gillmor introduced me to a travel network, Dopplr, that allows me to connect with other friends who are on the road.

All by activitating ( you like that word, marketing people apparently use that word) my social network to work for me. On faith. I knew my network was big enough to help me, I’d just never used them before.

As for my apology, well, I won’t have one because the book is a Red Herring, a ruse for something bigger.

That doesn’t mean it’s not important. It certainly is. It’s just not the end. And I make no apologies for it.

Normally I would have blown right past this but I’ve been thinking about my own shopping habits recently because I’ve loaded all my finances into Quicken. (Side note: apparently I spent a lot of money on ridiculous stuff). One thing I have noticed: I have my Borders coupons sent to my mobile phone, and I use those coupons to purchase books.

My premise with the book project, though, is that newspapers need to fundamentally alter how they view themselves. And that means overhauling the idea that they tell stories and instead view themselves as conduits for data.

What better way to do that then create a customizable online coupon section that people can use to print out — and organize — all of their online coupons.

My mother is notorious for making lists. She has — since my earliest recollections — had lists everywhere, including one on the side of the fridge with all the food they buy. When she’s out of something, she makes a check. Enough checks — its’ time to go to the store.

Wouldn’t it be amazing for her if she could go to the Cincinnati Enquirer (whenever they fix the abysmal interface that Gannett launched without having done one piece of usability testing — not focus groups Gannett, usability testing) and use a directory or database to aggregate all of the products she wants, the online store coupons and print them out?

Answer: yes.

This would likely involve the paper building some technology — or working with the big supermarkets in the area — to create a system for doing that. The business model wouldn’t be hard to build either. This is a service that would take off with the right type of thought.

It’s not the end all beat all of everything, but it’s another step in the evolution of the paper — offering something locally that a big player is going to have a difficult time doing.

Post your thoughts here — or join our conversation in the NING social networking group. That discussion is here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 7 Ways Your Newspaper Can Make Money Online
• Online Couponing Up 56% During Weak Economy, High Energy Prices
• 5 companies to test mobile coupons at grocery chain

There’s so much interesting thinking on globalization — and how technology has changed not only where we do business, but how we do business. It’s a trite statement to say just that, which is why I’m writing a book specifically about media. I want to delve into the heart of what a complete overhaul of the industry means — and what it means for the every day, average media consumer.

The effects are profound. And too far-reaching for me to explain in any detail on a blog. Or at least in this blog post (I’m 286 posts into this blog, I think we’ve gone into great detail overall).

One major theme, though, is that old adage about Rising Tides and Boats.

Journalism is going through a horrific time right now. Companies are shedding jobs faster than ever before and the industry has grown bitter. Not a day goes by that I don’t talk to a friends in the industry — and many of my adult friends are media folks — who are just pissed off and angry. They are angry their company stocks are failing. They are angry their company hasn’t prepared them for the future. They are angry that folks like me are replacing them. They are angry at themselves for not adapting.

It’s all very unfocused because their isn’t really ONE place to blame. It’s a systemic failure we seeing that can be summed up in one question, posed by Mexican president Zedillo in The World is Flat.

A Mexican newspaper recently ran a story about how the Converse whoe company was making tennis shoes in Chinca using Mexican glue. “The whole article was about why are we giving them our glue,” said Zedillo, “when the right attitude would be, How much more glue can we sell them? We still need to break some mental barriers. (The World is Flat, 431)

I read that sitting in the Anchor Grill, a little cash-only eatery around the corner from my house. I put the book down, sipped my coffee and realized the answer to that question (and even the question itself) was the exact problem facing journalism.

Friedman’s argument is simply this: in a globalized world, protectionism may keep the jobs you have now safe but it ensurs that no new jobs will be created, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

The question posed by the Zedillo is just an extension of that. And — in turn — that is an extension of the challenge journalism faces.

It starts with content (we must protect it), which ensures that fewer people will see it, interact with it and see it as relevant. You may declare your work precious, but by doing so, you will also likely limit what its relevance in a digital world.

It moves through information (let them eat cake), which ensures that fewer people will come to you for the answers that they need. Software tools like Twitter, blog CMS applications and the like allow people to easily post and share information. Here is how I found out George Carlin died: someone Twittered it, I went to Wikipedia, then to YouTube and finally to the blogs. Never once did I go to a mainstream news site — and I’ll bet I can tell you just about everything I need to know.

It makes it way up through management (we’ve been doing this for a long time, leave us alone), which ensures that no new ideas are brought up and implemented in one industry even while these same systems are implemented in new, competing industries. I’ve interviewed several media start-ups in the last 6 months — most started by ex-newspaper folks — and without question, they have each said the same thing: I am so glad I don’t have to deal with that legacy system crap anymore.

Which leads the industry as a whole into an isolationist camp, filled with people concerned (rightfully so) about their livelihoods with management unable — and ill-equipped — to make the decisions to right the ship in a modern world.

The macro view, of course, is much easier to take than the micro view. I am on the right side of the hill. I have enough technical skills to exist (right now, anyway) in a modern world. For those who don’t, they are facing the prospect of a mid-career change that has little chance of providing the same quality of life they have now.

The reality, though, is that doesn’t make much of a difference for the industry. These changes are happening and the isolationists won’t win. The globalized media company — the one that finds a way to implement new technologies and hire people who can exploit them — will win. And they will win big.

Because the right question isn’t how can we stop the job loss — it’s how can we create new ones?

And the answer isn’t write better stories or hire better copy editors. The answer is by exploiting the data structures of the Internet and delivering — and taking in — data from the very people reading your paper.

The rising tide, after all, lifts all boats.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 5 Reasons the Story is Dead
• Twittering while California burns
• 8 Rules: What it Takes to Build an Online Community
• Why Guardian Media Bought paidContent for $30M
• Newspaper Co Buys Blog for Big Bucks [Print Is Dead]
• Big Daddy Newspaper Left Journalism. It’s Just Us.

I’ve been noticably absent from the blog for the past few weeks, which I’ve explained in the last post. This should begin to change in the next few months as I’ve taken some steps to lighten my research load.

Yesterday, I spoke with two managers — and I use that term, but I’m not sure what their actual titles are; all that I know is they manage other people — from Brickwork India, a Flat World company that handles business affairs for businesses and individuals.

The two — Ritu (pronounced Ree-two, which means “seasons”) and Sandhya (pronounced Sand-h-yee-ah, which means “evenings”) — switched easily between professional and personal. They asked questions about my project and put together a proposal for our working relationship in between trading stories about Bangalore (”the new technology center of the world”, Ritu said laughingly, but without joking) and my time in San Francisco (”there are a lot of Indians there”) and Boston.

They were very happy to hear that my project was about social media and technology since they have a background in that area, although neither of them will be working with me. Much of the work they get is in the science and medical fields, which are apparently filled with scads of very large — very, very large — words.

Apparently, my assistant is someone who had graduated from college and has three years working in the private sector.

The work — mainly transcription and research work — is very similar to graduate assistant work, they said, which suits me just fine since I’m a professor. They were also happy to hear that since I’m used to working with younger folks — and giving them direction (although my students will certainly give wide and varying descriptions of how well I do that).

I’ve contracted with Brickwork India for 10 hours per week for any type of business services I require, with the option to bump that up to 20 hours per week if I need to. At the moment, my assitant will be transcribing and doing research — but I suspect I’ll have this person helping organize my contact list and do some other leg work before it’s all said and done.

The last thing I told them was this: the work will all be documented here — and in the book — which means I’m making them all a part of the writing process. And..if and when the publisher accepts the proposal, I’m buying a ticket to Bangalore next year to come and visit the people who helped me write my book (the epilogue, so to speak).

They promised to give me a tour of their facilities if I come.

So, that’s that. I’ve got about 30 hours of interviews to get transcribed — and about 10 pieces of long-term research that needs done. And we’re doing it without geographic concerns.

Long live modern journalism.

Quite the contrary. I’ve been doing a few things that are moving my project along quite well — in no small measure to some of my readers, my blog readers and — let’s face it — India.

What I’m working on:

1. I’ve done 30 interviews so  far for the book using Skype and Pamela for Skype, and amazing recording device that let’s me capture every call as a .WAV file. I love it.
2. On Thursday, I’ll start shipping off the first of these interviews to India for transcription.
3. Next week, I’ll then begin putting behind the firewall on the PBWiki that I’ll be using to craft the individual sections. Only those I’ve interviewed will have access to this — but it will hopefully make the writing process more accurate.
4. I’m finishing up the proposal on Thursday and it’s going out to everyone who has said they would help me — with the goal of having it off to at least one press next wee.
5. The NING social network is about to get re-invigorated as well — so for those of you commenting over there — thanks — and for those interested, please join us.
6. Finally, once the proposal is out — I’ll be picking up steam again with the blog.

It’s an exciting time for me — finishing up the proposal and talking to so many amazing social media folks. It’s been a great deal of fun so far — only like 150 more interviews to go :)

My main point is that the tradeoffs should usually be skewed further in the direction of “Obvious” than we care to think. (Don’t Make Me Think, p 14)

I’ve been spending a lot of time writing about the editorial side of digital news, but that’s only part of the story. In fact, it’s not even half of the story because there are so many other aspects of a modern news organization (sales, marketing, circulation and design).

The irony is that the content is the third thing people notice about your site, which inherently makes it the second most important part of the site — if you go by the top down mentality.

The most important aspect of a site is functionality. When you type in the URL or click on a search link, that site better load — and load fast. Regardless of what the site looks like and what the site says, people want the site to work.

Every click is a promise to your user that they will have a functioning, fast experience. Break that promise, you’ll lose readers.

The second important aspect is design. Once that site loads, you better have an easy-to-use visual navigation that 1) let’s me know who you are what you do, 2) displays in simple terms what is important, 3) makes search prominent and 4) tells me where to start.

An epic fail on those four parts breaks your promise to the reader and will limit your growth. But there are ways to avoid that.

When you site down to architect your site, the first thing you need to do is take a serious look at what you do — and throw out every convention you have used in the paper.

Start from scratch. What you’re doing online is different than what you do in print.

You need to re-examine what you call sections; you need to re-examine how you construct and archive data; you need to examine what goes in a footer (there’s a standard expectation); you need to examine what goes in the header (there’s a standard expectation).

You need to understand that how you want your reader to use the site has no basis in the reality of how they will use it.

At Technology Review, the first thing I did was take our multi-topic area with two navigation systems down to one system with 5 topics. We eliminated near 60 navigation and sub-navigation terms.

You know what happened? Traffic spiked. People could more easily find what they were looking for because we simplified everything.

In a modern world, you don’t need tabbed navigation for EVERY subsection. Use tags to allow people to do targeted search — but do not combine that with the search box. Better yet, let the users tag stories along with your tags.

In the past ten years I’ve spent a lot of time watching people use the Web, and the thing that has struck me most is the difference between how we think people use Web sites and how they actually use them…We’re thinking “great literature (or at least “product brochure”) while they user’s reality is much closer to “billboard going by at 60 miles per hour. (Don’t Make me Think, p 21)

When everything on the page is clamoring for my attention the effect can be overwhelming: Lots of invitations to buy! Lots of exclamation points and bright colors! A lot of shouting going on. (Don’t Make me Think, p 38)

It’s also important to realize that not everything is important. It’s just not. I don’t care what people in your organization say, some of the crap that’s produced doesn’t need it’s own box on the home page.

Your home is a front door, window shopping.

Ask yourself what you do: what is your core mission? Once you answer that question, you can design an architecture with proper navigation (because your tabs will be in that mission) and you’ll understand what it is that you are trying to do.

Advertisers love that because they can determine the type of audience you reach; but your design architect will love you because they can easily create a series of layouts that enhance that mission.

That’s how you keep your pages from turning into a circus sideshow.

When we were redesigning Technology Review, we had a series of off-site meeting with the management team to discuss what our core mission was. We thought we knew, but it evolved over the course of the week. (Actually, we basically settled on what had been discussed with my information discussions with the other managers while we did the basic redesign: Information Technology, Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Energy).

Our magazine and conference businesses were also important to us.

Since I left, they’ve added BizTech, Blogs, Video and Newsletters to the mix. The point is this: our core mission is to report on those 6 topic areas using 3 other forms of communication — blogs, video and newsletters — all wrapped with a conference.

That is the Technology Review experience.

Partly, I think, because good multi-level navigation is just plain hard to design — given the limited amount of space on the page, and the number of elements that have to be squeezed in.

Partly because designers usually don’t even have enough time to figure out the first two levels.

Partly because it just doesn’t seem that important.

And then there’s the problem with getting sample content and hierarchy examples for lower-level pages. (Don’t Make me Think, p 71)

The design process was a nightmare, though, because the editorial department would never sit down to tell us exactly what they wanted to do.

Instead, the print side — which hadn’t yet been melded with the online side to create one editorial staff — refused to sit down and lay out what they wanted. We received a series of generalities.

Finally, I told my boss — if they weren’t going to help, they would be stuck with what we did.

After a few stops and starts, Jason — who understood what we needed and supported us — convinced the print editors that buy-in was necessary. And after the print folks saw what we were doing — and freaked out a little bit — they came to the table.

While the site has evolved since I’ve left, the basic framework we designed is still the framework. There has been no front-end overhaul because: 1) we designed with Web principles (no more than a one-second load time, syndication based, simple navigation — which is different than the magazine’s navigation, btw), 2) we eventually included the entire staff and 3) we did a usability test on the project to see what was working.

But the reality is that we’re often dropped in the middle of a site with no idea where we are because we’ve followed a link from a search engine or from another site, and we’ve never seen this site’s navigation scheme before (Don’t Make me Think, p 85)

That last point — usability testing — is the most overlooked part of the process.

I simply refused to listen to any discussion that started with “When I use the Web…” because it’s counter-productive. We all use the Web differently; and we use the Web differently depending upon the task we’re trying to solve.

You are using this site differently than you use Google.

So designing for “the average experience” is ridiculous. If a researcher found an article through Google and came to our site just to read and leave, great. But I’m not designing my site for that person.

Instead, I’m working to make sure that the experience for everyone is simple, efficient and offers tools enough to complete any task they want with no more than a one-second load wait.

Throughout the design process, though, you need to develop several iterations of the site and test them. And if you don’t know how to construct and run a usability test, you probably shouldn’t be in charge of the redesign.

Web design is not graphic design. You design for web interactivity and functionality, not anything else.

Remember, functionality trumps design navigation and architecture. Design navigation and architecture trumps content.

When you’re running your tests, you have to make sure that you are testing functionality, design and content. They need to work together; however, when you’re making decisions about what goes where or what name is used, you need to keep that hierarchy in order.

Functionality –> Design Architecture –> Content

Otherwise you have a pretty site with good navigation that doesn’t work or you have a smart site where nobody can find anything and none of the tools work.

Image via Wikipedia

Of the 23 percent who got news on the internet yesterday, only a minority visited newspaper websites. Instead, websites that include quick updates of major headlines, such as MSNBC, Yahoo, and CNN, dominate the web-news landscape.(July 20, 2006, The Pew Center for the People and the Press: Online Newspapers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership)

I’ve had a question rattling around in my cage for the last few days. Which would rather give up: Google, Travelocity (for travel and leisure), MovieFone (for movie and entertainment news) or your local newspaper?

What about Twitter v. your newspaper? Or Facebook?

Where is the line where you finally say — okay, I live without that application but I can’t live without my local paper.

It’s a broad question, as Chris Graves pointed out on The Modern Journalist social network — where I first posed this. Her response was to question whether it’s fair to compare sites like Google and Travelocity to the local paper, which I took to mean: do people use these for the same things, and if not, what does it matter which one you use for what.

The point is well taken, although I think her question misses a larger issue. The Pew Internet & American Life surveyed people in December 2007 to find out what they were doing online. 37 percent of all people — behind only “use the Internet” and “email” — was “get news”.

That should be a big boost to newspapers. The number one activity — that is the thing people do after checking their email — is read the news.

Yet less than 1 in 4 people actually go to a newspaper for that news.

Just behind that getting news, things start to get interesting. 29 percent of people look for something related to an interest or hobby, which one assumes means they are looking away from news sites for that information.

A bit further down the list is watching videos from Google or YouTube.

But one I found particularly interesting was getting news or information on politics. The language there is very important to pay attention. The survey results separated that topic out from the newspaper — and specifically made mention of information, the underlying assumption that we view information differently than we do news.

Four-in-ten Americans say they read a newspaper yesterday, with 6 percent reading a newspaper online 4 percent read both a print and online newspaper, while percent read it only online. In addition, 3 percent say they read something on a local or national newspaper website yesterday. (July 20, 2006, The Pew Center for the People and the Press: Online Newspapers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership)

When I worked at Technology Review, we made a concerted effort to view what we did on the Web completely separate from what we did in the magazine — although it was written by the same staff.

The reason: if you wanted the full experience, you would read all of our properties; however, if you didn’t, then it was up to you to chose the type of information that you wanted.

We weren’t concerned about cannibalizing our readers, we just viewed each medium as offering something different. I refused to let the Web play second-fiddle to the print product and the print folks refused to let their quality and style be compromised by an emerging medium.

Too often, news sites attempt to use the Web to re-create what they did on paper. They have trained their audience to look at the Web as a secondary information source, which makes it awfully hard to attract new readers.

More than 70 percent of U.S. adults where online by December 2007, a higher percentage than at any other time. (December 2007. Pew Internet & American Life: Percentage of U.S. Adults Online.)

And if they aren’t attracting new readers but Internet usage is increasing — what are all those people doing?

And the answer to that gets me to the premise of the question, which is that newspapers are competing with a global information economy that has very little in common with what they are doing.

When you look at the top 100 sites in the U.S., there are some news organizations — The New York Times, the BBC, CNN and Fox — but many of these sites (and every one in the top ten) are made up of specialities: search, shopping, auction and video).

The middle ten are even more interesting. Blogger is three sites above the first news organization and Word Press is one below the New York Times.

So the top ten sites are those that allow people to find, watch and buy things. The middle ten, which include some news organizations — also includes blogging and other publishing tools.

And for those who say that it’s impossible for a local paper to generate real page views to compete nationally, two things: that’s true because you made that decision years ago with the types of technologies and interactivity you abandoned; and that wouldn’t explain these sites such as Digg, QuizRocket, Ask, Imeem, CareerBuilder and Answers — not to mention every blogging, picture, video and other publishing platform (and publishing is what newspapers do, right)?

The top sites are littered with sites that allow people to answer their questions, find what they are looking for, make purchases or plan.

The few news sites are major media conglomerates — but DeviantArt, a very cool artist community, is nearly as popular.

So I end with a restatement of my question: which would you rather give up, you’re local newspaper or your favorite Web tool?

(The) “big successes” on the Internet, Web sites such as YouTube, have content that’s 95 percent generated by the public. Content on the Tribune’s site is 97 percent house generated, just 3 percent public — the comment boards and photos. (June 18, 2008, Chicago Reader: Will Newspapers Survive?)

There is a disturbing construct I’ve noticed in my discussions about journalism: the distinction between professional journalism and citizen journalism.

My brethren are rightly nervous about the transitional period happening with ad revenues. Jobs are disappearing quicker than most in the industry imagined. Readers are finding their ways to new outlets. Emerging skill sets are replacing traditional skills sets.

That has rationally led to the bunker mentality. Lock the doors. Get out the guns. Ain’t nobody coming in this house without a fight.

They’re fighting a war with people who, at best, regard them with the same emotional level as a pedestrian walking down a busy street, which is to say not at all.

They have signaled the masses to help them save the venerable institution of traditional journalism. The problem: many people don’t care. They are moving on to other outlets, ones more in tune with how they experience and interact with data and information on a daily basis.

They have, like the recording industry, alienated the very people who should be their closest allies: the readers.

Over all, ad revenue fell almost 8 percent last year. This year, it is running about 12 percent below that dismal performance, and company reports issued last week suggested a 14 percent to 15 percent decline in May. (June 23, 2008, NYT: Papers Facing Worst Ad Year For Revenue)

Once the readers leave, it’s hard to convince advertisers that they will get a return on their investment.

Advertisers are not silly. They know — or even worse, they perceive — a fundamental shift in how we use data these days. We all do, even if we can’t quite put our finger on it. We love Google. We do not love our newspaper.

It’s hard to close a deal when there is a lingering voice in the back of the clients brain telling them something doesn’t feel right. And that voice isn’t just talking about a decline in readers. It’s talking about the things the reader can’t do, the very value that we expect to get in almost every online endeavor we have.

Interactivity.

The database-driven Web has ushered in a new form of storytelling, one that has several components to it and involves something more than any one person — or one team — could ever hope to do.

Step 1, Data: Stories should first and foremost be built upon raw data, which is parsed up in ways that enable people to use drop-downs, drag-and-drops, maps and APIs to download and play with data.

I was discussing how a story should be constructed with a former reporter today and he gave me a real-life example. Newport, Kentucky is putting together an early childhood educational plan to help students succeed in school. The only data available is the data done by the group that launched the program.

Where does the data for that story come?

My response: you find every test score from the city, region and state; the Census data; the educational budget and create a database for spending and population that people can breakdown by school district, city, region and state — then open the API and allow people to create new forms.

Then you have a real framework for your story.

South Dakota’s weekly and daily newspapers have created a free, text-searchable Web site that includes thousands of government public notices from across the state. The site www.sdpublicnotices .com is a database of public notices such as the minutes of school boards, city councils and county commissions. (June 21, 2008: Brookings Register Online: Newspapers Create Public Notices Site)

Step 2, Crowds: Readers need to get value from the sites they visit, otherwise, they will not return on any regular basis. You return to Google repeatedly because the search engine gives you answers. You return to Wikipedia because there is something that answers a question.

What is that magic bullet for newspapers? The readers.

There are simple ways to engage readers that allow them to build software applications, to deliver usable and parsable content and to develop a sense of belonging and investment.

These are tantamount to any successful Web operation.

In the educational story, I told my colleague that I would have set up a “scavenger hunt” of sorts. I would have created a series of tasks, each with point totals, and put them on the site — and approached the marketing department for some good prizes (a family of 4 Kings Island pass, for instance). The tasks (off the top of my head):

1. take a picture of your child’s early childhood classes at school and upload them to Flickr tagged “Enquirer”, “EarlyChildhood” for 3 points;
2. upload your school district’s budget for all of its after school activities for 10 points;
3. scan in and upload 5 activities accomplished by your child during one of these school days for 30 points;
4. input a daily schedule of activities from your children’s classes for 8 points.
5. hold an informal gathering of at least 3 other parents to discuss  the classes; take a picture (with tags) and input 3 complaints and 3 benefits for 50 points
6. contact your local school and get a detailed answer that explains either what they are doing for early childhood education or why they are not doing anything with early childhood education. Upload the answer for 75 points.

Of course, you’ll need a community manager to organize, promote and oversee the various engagement activities you have. Some of them will work. Some of them won’t. You’ll figure that out as you go.

From there, you can organize sit-downs or Town Hall to discuss the matter, which can be recorded and parsed up. Suddenly, you are developing a dynamic information section around a topic area of interest.

These types of games, called Alternate Reality Games, have started to pop up around the country, mostly run by non-media companies.

The video game industry is expected to shoot from $41.9 billion in global sales last year to $68.3 billion in 2012, a compound annual growth rate of 10.3 percent and better than all other media sectors except for online advertising and access. (June 18, 2008, Reuters: Video Game Sales on Winning Streak, Study Projects)

Step 3, Story: Once you have that, you can write a compelling story that puts some perspective on the data and community involvement. Your reporters are creating a truly functional section that enables people to find answers to questions they have, created interest around that area (and if there is none, you will have some gauge of that ahead of time) and then given expert perspective.

But you’ll notice that each is integral to the part — and the story doesn’t come until the end. Each part is necessary to create a modern story.

Step 4, Monetize: But you don’t end there. You created a crowd, a database where people can find answers — and the smart newspaper will have an up-to-data database of all the representatives and government officials in the city, region and state. Then you open up that database so that people can update — or make changes to — any outdated information.

You begin to migrate that into other stories, building databases and information sources that do those three things:

1. give people tools to answer their own questions
2. engage the crowd to contribute
3. give perspective

With the right planning and implementation, newspapers can create thriving sections that have both user-generated content and reporter-created content working simultaneously to build audio, video, database and other areas that will both draw an interactive crowd and open up other business and revenue opportunities.

Earlier estimates pegged YouTube’s 2008 revenue around the $100 million range, but last month Forbes floated a $200 million estimate for this year, and $350 million for next year. Now Citi’s Mark Mahaney says YouTube could generate up to $500 million in net revenue next year. (June 19, 2008: Silicon Valley Inside: Citi: YouTube Can Generate $500M In 2009)

Image via Wikipedia

The past few days have transformed my thinking about the future of journalism. For the first time since I started this project, I had time to sit, contemplate and read what other people far smarter than me had to say — not about journalism, but about the way we work in the modern world.

The more I read, the more I have become convinced that my initial thesis for the book — that technology is radically shifting the journalism landscape quicker than the industry is set to deal with — is correct.

If Thomas Friedman is correct that The World is Flat — and I think he is, the way we both interact with and consumer data (er, news) will never be the same.

But journalists don’t believe that yet. And it might be too late.

Whenever civilization has gone through a major technological revolution, the world has changed in profound and unsettling ways. But there is something about the flattening of the world that is going to be qualitatively different from the great changes of previous eras: the speed and breadth with which it is taking hold. (p49, The World is Flat)

I’ve been reading The World is Flat, a tome about the radical shift in how all types of information is constructed. While Friedman is an award-winning journalist, the story is not about journalism. It’s about how fiber optic and wireless networks, along with powerful PCs, allow us to gather and construct and analyze information outside of geographic limitations.

He does touch on journalism, though. He mentions that Reuters in 2004 decided to outsource its press release rewrites — that rote task process where a financial release comes in and a reporter churns out the data in a very short story — to India.

I remember the news breaking on this — and I remember the talk that companies were looking to outsource their copy editing as well — and thinking to myself, “What a horrible idea.”

Yesterday, though, something curious happened. As I read the passages in Friedman’s book, I had different thoughts: “What else could be taken off the plate of the reporters to allow them to do their jobs?”

The idea of a cross-continent collaboration on constructing the news seems like a perfectly logical way to go about business.

Since the late 1980s, people had been putting up databases with Internet access. (p 65, The World is Flat)

I tell you this because that thought — along with the quote above — echoed through my head today as I met with a former Cincinnati Post reporter, who is now working at Northern Kentucky University. He is a well-respected journalist in this town who found himself out of a job after the Post, Cincinnati’s afternoon newspaper, shuttered earlier this year.

We were discussing databases and modern journalism. But he kept referring to using the database for him to write stories — and I kept referring to them as ways for people to interact with the data on a website (any website).

Me: The guiding force behind the Web is — and always will be — data. So newspapers should have the best databases available.

Him: Brad, that’s great if they are publicly available. But they are really had to put together particularly if you’re working on stories.

Me: People are already putting these together. Without newspapers.

Him: But they can’t bring that cynical (in this case, the best kind of cynical — prove it — not the bad kind) knowledge to the story.

Me: But people are doing this anyway. Without newspapers.

In fact, much of the history of the Web and the Internet is database driven. Actually, it all is. The whole Web is run with databases. The cleaner the data, better the information. We have become a society that expects and demands access to raw data — with really good software tools that let us manipulate that data — to give us the answers that we need.

Don’t believe me? Don’t use Google for a week. No Google Maps. No Fandango or MovieFone. No Travelocity. No online banking. No Excel or financial spreadsheets.

Now try not reading a newspaper.

Which do you think is easier to give up?

Totalitarian systems depend on a monopoly of information and force, and too much information started to slip through the Iron Curtain, thanks to the spread of fax machines, telephones, and eventually, the personal computer. (p55, The World is Flat)

Friedman’s passage is about technology’s role in the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it just as easily could be about metaphorical role newspapers have had with information.

Until the 1980s, media outlets were the sole provider of information. If you wanted to find out what was happening, you turned on the TV, listened to the radio or read the newspaper.

Last night, I found out George Carlin had passed away through a Twitter post, logged on to MySpace to see what my friends had said and then watched his old routines on YouTube while I was reading Wikipedia about his life.

I still haven’t visited a newspaper site because I have no desire to read some reported story.

I don’t need to.

Any activity where we can digitize and decompose the value chain, and move the work around, will get moved around. Some people will say, ‘Yes, but you can’t serve me the steak.’ True, but I can take the reservation for your table sitting anywhere in the world, if the restaurant does not have an operator. (p15, The World is Flat)

All of which brings me back to my original thought: that journalism is in a more precarious state that I thought because most companies are  not able to fully grasp how their operation would look in a flat world.

Repeatedly, I’ve been told by working reporters why you can’t build a business model around news as I’ve watched places like Pegasus News and The Examiner begin to pull those models together.

Heck, I helped build a model that is moving towards profitability in large part by trimming the extra costs associated with our processes. We even hired some programmers from around the world to build components for our Content Management System.

That does mean some journalists will lose their job; however, if — as has been suggested by numerous reporters — there is too much work and not enough time to do it, then it seems a solution is parsing out the rote tasks, outsourcing them, laying off U.S. staff and building a robust team of programmers, designers and reporters who can create a viable, modern newspaper.

As I told my colleague today: I don’t care one iota about the paper part of news, but I care a great deal about the news.

In a modern world, though, that doesn’t mean stories. It means something entirely different. I am not arguing that reporters shouldn’t be writing stories and adding some depth to the data. They should and they must.

But they must do more — and that means the entire system needs to be thrown out and overhauled.

The more we cling to that antiquated, traditional notion, the deeper into the morass we fall.

Reuters also recently opened a software development center in Bangkok because it turned out to be a good place to recruit developers who had been overlooked by all the Western companies vying for talent in Bangalore. (p19, The World is Flat)