April 2006 Archives

"Citizen Journalism: Embracing the New Power of Your Audience," explored the contributions of ordinary people to Web-based journalism, both in the form of blogs and contributed material.

As we all know, the easy availability of digital cameras, camera cell phones and inexpensive home video equipment have created a vast number of potential "photojournalists." The BBC, represented on the panel by Adrian Van Klaveren, controller of production and deputy director of news, received thousands of images immediately after the London subway bombings.

Yahoo! News General Manager Neil Budde encouraged the media to cultivate these amateur news-gatherers. He cited WKRN-TV in Nashville which has held workshops for these people on how to shoot video.

But with all these would-be photojournalists out there, how do you verify the authenticity of such material? Van Klaveren suggested that you have to use standards of traditional journalism: Describe to the audience what you have and where you got it. Laura Ling of Current TV, which uses a lot of viewer-contributed programming, said her network has an editorial team for fact checking. But she acknowledged that they often depend on the audience to correct mistakes.

Another question in the use of such material is payment. An audience member asked if this doesn't amount to using unpaid freelancers. No one on the panel answered that directly, but Budde predicted a kind of dual model using paid journalists and unpaid contributors. He also said Yahoo! is adding journalists to vet its news content. Currently, however, it uses a "spider"--computer software which automatically combs news sites for material. Van Klaveren made a similar prediction, saying the BBC would still need journalists to verify contributed content.

Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, said most bloggers aren't interested in money, they just want to get their message out.

Cox said he thinks that legal protections that apply to journalists also should apply to bloggers--such as the right to protect anonymous sources.

An educator in the audience asked if journalism schools should tear up their curriculums and start over. Ling said they need to be flexible. Van Klaveren said the media will still require "traditional" journalists because it's the only way to give people what they expect. And Brown urged supplementing the curriculum to familiarize students with the technical and business sides of the developing media.

As many of you know, I attended the annual Radio-TV News Directors Association convention this week in Las Vegas. This is the first of several posts summarizing highlights of the convention.

Even some major market stations (e.g. KRON-TV, San Francisco) are adopting the one-man-band mode of newsgathering. So a seminar on the subject attracted a large audience. The panel covered both the "how-to" and the pros and cons. Some interesting highlights:

• The newest label for these single-person crews is "backpack journalists." As to the question of whether it's sexist to call them one-man-bands, Angie Kucharski, chair of RTNDA, was quoted as saying it's okay with her. Thus it seems to be the unofficial RTNDA policy that it's acceptable. Certainly is easier to say than "one-person band."

• One of the panelists from Greensboro, NC, where they use one-man bands a lot, just lost one of hers to Denver, where she will continue to work solo at KUSA-TV. The ND attributed the person's success to the fact that every day she made it a challenge to do something that people would think she couldn't do.

• When they graduate to working with a photographer, former one-man bands become better reporters because they better appreciate how to work with video.

• One downside is that one-man bands don't get a chance to hone any one skill.

• Another downside, on the practical side, is that shooting breaking news one-man-band does not allow any time to gather information--you're too busy shooting.

• Another downside: you don't have a second set of eyes to see things you need to shoot, so it's easier to miss something.

• One issue in using one-man bands is safety. Some of the panelists said they have rules against sending people out alone on certain stories. A couple of them, from coastal areas, said they never send out a person alone during a hurricane, for instance.

Tips:

• To white balance, tape a piece of paper to a light stand and put it where you're shooting.

• To frame a standup, put a light stand--adjusted to your height--where you're going to stand and use it to frame and focus.

• To guarantee good framing on standups, shoot several takes. After the first one, put a notepad, or something similar, on the ground where you're standing. Check your first take. Use the notepad as a reference to adjust your shot left or right.

• In shooting interviews, shoot a little wider than you normally would. Liimit on-camera interview to things that need to be on camera. Interview for facts and general information off-camera. Don't let interview subject hold his/her own mic. Check your shot once or twice in the middle of the interview to make sure it's still framed ok. Pick out bites (in your head) while you're shooting the interview.

(On the subject of standups, not just those shot solo, one ND said he doesn't want to see reporters with nothing in their hands, and doesn't like walking standups that don't go anywhere--the walk to nowhere, he called it. He said, "Take me somewhere, show me something.") Bottom line: The panel agreed that in the perfect world there would be no one-man bands. But they also agreed that if you really want to you can do excellent stories working alone.

In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as bloggers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-List.

Wait. I think I might be confused. Oh, right. The A-List I'm supposed to be writing about doesn't have Mr. T in it.

Well, that's nowhere near as fun.

How could Andrew Sullivan ever hope to be as interesting as Mr. T? Andrew Sullivan doesn't wear gold chains, he doesn't drive a cool van, and he has never pitied a single fool. (Or if he has, he hasn't blogged about it.) So, given all this, why did Time hire Sullivan? What makes his blog so special?

Well, he certainly writes a LOT. I mean, he writes more in one day than I could write in a week. He also writes very well, and isn't afraid of his own opinions. It also helps that he has been blogging since 2001, way before blogging was cool. Quite simply, people like reading his blog.

Of course, the A-List is an entirely subjective term. Many of my favorite blogs get way too few hits to be on the so-called A-List, but I like them way better than certain A-List blogs, such as the Drudge Report. (No, I'm not linking to that hack. Godawful site design AND godawful content.)

The Internet audience is a fickle beast. People who read blogs have the attention span of a 5-year-old and are as cranky and picky as an 85-year-old. Many blogs have snagged people's attention, only to fade away just as quickly.

The approval of the masses does not necessarily make a blog good. cough Drudge cough Conversely, lack of approval does not make a blog bad. There are plenty of B through Z-List blogs that are worth your time to read. Of course, if you're reading this Z-List blog right now (Y-List, if you're reading this on the main ehub page), you probably already know that.

Now, the Internet just needs an A-List A-Team blog.

B.A. Baracus would be one heck of a blogger. All the kids would dial up his blog to get bling bling advice and information on all kinds of assault weapons.

Since Baracus is technically a fictional character (or at least somewhat of a fictional character) it takes a little more than a television show to make the blogging A-Team.

I'm a big fan of assigning popularity based on something quantitative. The popular blogs list on technorati does just that. It's a pretty simple formula too. The site that is linked to by the most sites is number one.

Linking to another site actually does a few things. First, and most obviously, it shows that other people are looking at the site. What it also does, however, is it gives people looking at the secondary site to link to the primary site, therefore increasing overall traffic to the primary site. So if a whole bunch of people are already looking at a site, it's going to be popular. But if they link to the site from their own site, it allows the popularity of the linked-to site to grow exponentially.

I also like the fact that blogs aren't ranked on traffic, because there should be some sort of interactivity with blogs. This also gives a definition to what makes an a-list blog. It's not about how many people see your site, but how many times, in a way, someone is recommending the blog.

The only problem is the amount of sites with a rundown of a-list blogs. And they're never the same. Take Blogebrity for example. I don't have a clue how they compile their a-list. I looked around the site for an explanation for a good 15 minutes before giving up.

In the end, I don't think it really matters if your blog is on some sort of stupid list. It's all about the content in your blog. If the content is worthy of attracting a lot of people and those people continue to come back on a daily or weekly basis, then it's a good blog.

But for those who are after fame and glory, there are plenty of helpful tips available for enhancing your stardom chances.

When I was a freshman you could always see me carting around my Bible. No, not God's word or Cosmo, but my map of campus. All those weird names like Anschutz or the buildings not visible from Wescoe Beach like Smith left my head spinning. My planner map was my navigator. But with a campus as hilly as ours, a flat map can be quite ambiguous.

Last semester I did a story about the ticket system for the basketball games. I scheduled an interview with Jim Marchioney, but I bluffed when I said I knew where his office was. Everyone knows where the Wagnon Student Athletic Center is located, right? Well I didn't. "Just look for the building near Allen Fieldhouse with the red roof," my partner said. Oh thanks, that helps!

But what if I could go to tv.ku.edu and click on a 360° map of the KU campus? Now that would be handy for not only me, but every student on campus who also may not know where the Spahr Engineering Library or Burt Hall are located.

Anyone can find a map of the KU campus on the ku.edu site - it's semi-3D, but not interactive, visual or even very helpful. It doesn't let me "stroll" down Jayhawk Boulevard online or point out the building I am searching for.

The tv.ku.edu is a resource to our student audience, so we should provide as much useful information as possible. My handy-dandy interactive map would let me pick a location on campus and take a 360° look at the surrounding area, but it would also let me… - "walk" through campus and map out my route to class.
- click on a hall and find out what classes are taught there and what teachers hold offices in the building.
- search for locations, teachers, classes, parking and the map would direct me to the corresponding location - locate where students can park and if they require a permit or paying a meter. - find the hours of operation for libraries, labs and food courts. - "walk" around each building on campus and find a specific room or tour the main wings.

A 360° map is a doable and practical approach at spawning user interaction on the tv.ku.edu site. Students want an easy, reliable and visually appealing way to search for anything, why not make it an interactive map?

I don't expect a lot of privacy on the internet today. I don't expect much privacy when I surf web pages. I don't expect much privacy when I check my email. I don't even expect much privacy when I Google something. But I do expect a little privacy on the internet and in this world.

It seems each generation of Americans is expecting less privacy. Speed, security and laziness are contributing factors. But 30 years from now, will Americans have any privacy at all? Not at this pace.

Your friendly government knows a lot about you. Big Brother knows what emails you are sending. "They" scan your . "They" can track your cell phone. That innocent web search you made? "They" know about it. Even your face isn't safe. They will recognize it. But that isn't a big deal when "They" could implant RF tags inside you anyway. And when local police chiefs want to put cameras in private homes, or your living room, you should be worried, too.

The media have a responsibility to watch the watchman. Certainly the media have had a field day with recent wireless phone taps and warrant-less searches.

But Chicagocrime.org is taking a different approach to protect us. The web site lists crimes committed in Chicago, then places them on a user friendly map. So the next time you want to take Rover or Fluffy for a walk, you might want to avoid the 11600 block on S. Halsted St.

However, I have some privacy concerns about this site. If there is a murder on my block (Chicagocrime.org usually just gives the block address, not an exact location), I don't really want to explain to neighbors and friends what happened in that apartment complex or parking garage down the road. And there is that whole guilt by association thing that I would rather not deal with ("He lives by a murder; maybe he did it!"). And I am sure that will do wonders for my property value when I try to sell my house or apartment.

Now I realize that all of the information on Chicagocrime.org is readily available to the public. But if the public wants it, they can go and get it. They don't need a user friendly map that gossipers galore and utilize.

But when Joe Sixpack can spy on me from space via Google maps just as easily as the government can, this privacy concen may be a little minute.

But a little privacy can go a long way. It has to. If it doesn't, "they" know where to find me.

While the city of Lawrence continues to expand to the south and west of town, the idea of a GPS map of the city and crime report on tv.ku.edu seems to be unnecessary to me. While every newsroom strives to have a cutting edge persona and welcome innovative ideas, a virtual map seems a little out of the question for the sleepy town of Lawrence.

I would be naive to ignore the increase in crime rate, but for our website to maintain an adequate report would be difficult given the cities report is already a maze to decipher. Yes, the city commission does give numbers, but how up-to-date they are remains debatable. I found out first hand how difficult, check that, impossible it is to find someone at the city commission who can give you a solid answer.

I'm not trying to dog the idea of having a crime report, but with how frustrating it is to work with the Lawrence police department, it may be easier to work alongside the campus police department. I know we're trying to provide a newscast and website that serves the entire community, but it may be better to test this idea with a smaller demographic and a department that may be more willing to give their time to help a fellow university service.

With regards to the virtual map of Lawrence, I feel this would create more traffic on the website but for the wrong reasons. People love using GPS maps to pass time and look for their house, not for news stories. Plus, I don't feel Lawrence is large enough to justify investing the time and money into the map. First and foremost, I would need to know the dollar issues before I would recommend something that intense. In my mind, a GPS map and crime report make more sense for a New York or Chicago where murder is a daily occurance.

Maybe it's just that I don't want to think of Lawrence as a big town with big problems. That doesn't mean we can't look to other websites as a template for the future, but to me a virtual map and crime report seems a little further down the road for the KUJH website.

{Flashback – travel with me.} It's 1:45 a.m. and my shift as design chief at the Kansan is finally over. As I reach for my cell phone to call my overprotective boyfriend who stays up to come pick me up on campus, I breathe a sigh of relief. Some students aren't so lucky to have such a great boyfriend who will stay up and drive at 2 a.m. in the middle of chilly November. I think of a dear friend of mine who weighs half my body weight and lives in the student ghetto. She justifies her 2 a.m. walks home because she doesn't "really live that far."

Two years ago, a good friend of mine came home from a night out to find a naked 6'4" 200-something-pound male passed out on the floor of her bedroom. One of her drunken roommates had forgotten to lock the front door. The intruder had lived in the apartment the year before (He was so drunk that he forgot he didn't live there anymore, got inside, and passed out). The next year, the apartment was broken into and five roommates worth of electronics and valuables were stolen. Bad luck you say? Stay out of the ghetto you say? Perhaps, or maybe it could have been prevented if Lawrence, KU & KUJH TV took a step towards making their residents and audience aware of the crime and danger in our community.

Amazing to think that we could actually have a police blotter set up on KUJH and see what's really going down like the one on chicagocrime.org. The maps are also a very convenient factor of the site. I think that if students were aware of other more well lit routes to campus, they would take them. Of course there is always Jaywalk and Safe Ride, but students can't always wait around for others.

Once upon a time, HousingMaps and Google's Ride Finder ruled the world. Then a guy by the name of Adrian Holovaty (whose blog can be found here) merged the Google map data with Chicago crime data to make a truly innovative concept: chicagocrime.org. This guy used to work for the LJ World. Could KUJH TV give Lawrence something like this?

I don't know.

Adrian blogs about how chicagocrime uses Apache/mod_python, PostgreSQL and Django, but I have no clue what they exactly do or how KJHK could use them.

Let's say it will work. That means KUJH TV needs 415 students who go to the police station each morning to help us. They will only map certain crimes such as burglaries, vandalism, murders, assaults, narcotics, and sex offenses. On the day of their police shifts, the 415 students will write a short synopses of each crime like chicgocrime's blotter.

How will KUJH-TV sort all of this information? Chicagocrime separates them many ways. KUJH TV should start simple by allowing people to browse by crime, street and date.

If this all works, it would be so simple, right?

Not even close. Instead of implementing something like this, many news organizations are marveling over it. The New York Times says "The most influential mashup this year wasn't a Beatles tune remixed with hip-hop lyrics. It was an online street map of Chicago overlaid with crime statistics." John Dowdell writes in his blog, "Certainly seems more efficient than getting everything from what the daily newspaper prints." USA Today says, "Who'd have thought that the ubiquitous old Internet maps would become one of the Internet's coolest new tricks?"

So why can't KUJH TV create something like this? It only took Adrian 50 hours to make.

Bonnie Bernstein, former CBS sideline reporter for the NFL and courtside reporter for the NCAA men's college basketball tournament, sat down with Aaron Whallon, Rahul Sharma, and Alex Wiebel to discuss her philosophy of sports journalism.

The hosts of the Friday night edition of Jayhawk Sports Talk brought up the infamous incident between Bernstein and Roy Williams following the Jayhawk's 81-78 loss to Syracuse.

Tune in Friday at 7 p.m. to see the entire interview with Bernstein. She discusses the challenges of being a sideline reporter, her start in broadcasting, and her new company Velvet Hammer Media. Whallon, Sharma, and Wiebel will also break down this weekend's KU action for the baseball and softball teams. And bring you the latest news and information from the Kansas Relays.

"Cameras are sometimes angled clumsily, or are ill-focused, or the sound is a little off. News pieces that are shot well often lack acceptable editing, or writing, or both."

Sound like a quote from one of my critiques of a KUJH-TV newscast? But noooooooo. This is from an article in SF Weekly (2006-04-12) describing the newscasts on KRON-TV in San Francisco (one of the nation's largest markets, obviously). KRON, once the NBC affilliate with an outstanding reputation in news, is now an also-ran independent that recently switched to one-person bands (mostly) -- the first major-market station to do so. (I might add, "and hopefully the last," but I'm sure it probably won't be.)

I just received the judges'comments on our KAB awards entries. It is interesting to note that THE most common criticism of our pieces was "bad lighting" on soundbites. The judges also noted bad audio, bad soundbite framing, and the use of autofocus. Does any of this sound familiar?

Interestingly, they had mostly positive comments about shooting, reporting and story structure.

But this makes it clear: You will have a tough time winning awards if your stories aren't technically "clean."

I should start this off by saying, I HATE ADS! Whew…I feel better. Really I do, but, through the experience I have gained in journalism thus far, I realize that ads are necessary for a publication of any kind to survive. Damn those necessary evils, they always get the kind-hearted journalists that are just trying to survive. Ha.

So, in my great quest to understand ads and those who sell ad space, I decided to look at the ever-so-famous Craigslist and Google's AdSense. They both annoyed me, but one was more annoying than the other. Are you waiting with bated breath to see which one I gave a half a thumb up? The winner is…

Google's AdSense! Yes, those crazy kids at Google get me every time. They are a great mix of corporate and homegrown lovin' all in one nice container.

So now you may be wondering, what is AdSense. Well, this is how Jefferson Graham describes AdSense in his article, "Google's AdSense a bonanza for some Web sites."

Graham wrote, "Google has a simple proposition for anyone who owns a Web site: Let it put up links to its ads, and Google's AdSense program will give you a piece of the action when someone clicks on them."

Graham continued to write that AdSense is a service by Google that has "text ads that appear next to search results." Basically, people searching click on keywords that an advertiser has bought and according to Graham, "Before AdSense, which began in March 2003, bloggers and other small Web publishers had fewer options to make money."

So, AdSense seems straightforward, as well as easy to understand and use. People are making money and are able to live a comfortable life. However for some reason, I am skeptical. I think my skepticism is from the fact that advertisers know what ads attract whom and they know which site to place the ads on for maximum profitability. I do not like the fact that advertisers apparently know what I like. I know it is no different than a television station running denture commercials during mid-morning television, but since it is on the Internet and these ads bombard me every day, I feel dirty.

Oh well, I guess I will go take a shower until the dirty ad feeling goes away.

KUJH-TV News, the University of Kansas student-operated television news operation, received 10 awards, including five first-place honors in the Society of Professional Journalists Mark of Excellence region 7 awards competition. Awards were presented at the region 7 SPJ convention April 8 in St. Louis.

The SPJ Mark of Excellence Awards honor the best work in student print, radio, television and online college journalism. The contest was open to degree-seeking students enrolled in a college or university for the 2005 academic year.

Entries are first judged on the regional level, and all first-place regional winners are automatically entered in the national competition. National winners will be honored at the 2006 SPJ Convention & National Journalism Conference in Chicago.

In addition to the first-place honors, KU students received two second-place awards, and three third-place awards.

KUJH-TV News and its website provide students with hands-on, professionally supervised work experience. The student-produced news airs at 5:30, 7:30, 9:30 and 11:30 p.m. Monday through Friday while KU classes are in session during the fall and spring semesters.

To watch select KUJH-TV stories and learn more about the station and the student staff, visit the awarding winning web site.

Students and their awards are listed below. Congratulations to all!

Tom Hipp, first-place for sports reporting, Final preparations for Kansas Relays (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/3172)

Natasha Trefla, first-place for breaking news, Fire Arrest made in deadly apartment fire (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/6582) and third-place for in-depth reporting, Rehab rather than prison (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/8661)

Haley Harrison, second-place for in-depth reporting, Evolution and faith - a peaceful coexistence? (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/8343)

Audrey Esther, second-place for general news, County offering Spanish class to workers (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/7224)

Audrey Esther, Jamie Zarda, Eric Sorrentino, and Jesse Newell, third-place for online in-depth reporting, Clinic attracts record number of patients (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/4882)

Samantha Horner, third-place for general news, Students encounter spring break woes (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/2554)

KUJH-TV News online staff, first-place for online news, tv.ku.edu (http://tv.ku.edu)

Jimmy Chavez, Tracey Perlman and Tim Veatch, first-place for online sports reporting, Arrowhead game may sack local business (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/4780)

Denise Spidle, first-place for online in-depth reporting, Cheerleading becoming a risky business (http://tv.ku.edu/stories/9221)

When I decided to attend the University of Kansas five years ago, I wanted a journalism school that was cutting edge, ahead of the pack, and had radio sports play-by-play. I don't regret my decision. And now sports has a chance to become front and center again at Kansas.

The William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications is again leading the pack in technology. With the addition of the Multimedia Newsroom, Kansas is preparing students for the online world of tomorrow, today.

I would bet that podcasting is going to be a growing phenomenon. Now KUJH-TV News fans can download their favorite stories via the TV website.

At first, I didn't really understand why people would want to watch movies, sports and news on a tiny two inch screen instead of big screen television (see Face Off). But in today's on the go society, podcasting makes sense. Now KU students can watch KUJH-TV News on the bus, Wescoe Beach and even in class (now KUJH can draw the same type ire from professors that the Kansan crossword puzzle has).

And being a sports nut in one of the biggest basketball capitals in the country, I believe the possibilities are endless.

What KU fan would not love to catch a KUJH-TV highlight podcast the night after the 'Hawks crush Mizzou. What did the coach have to say after the game? Well you would know if the press conference were podcasted. Then you could download KJHK sports talk to hear opinions about that bad substitution or missed traveling call. Or watch a player interview on Jayhawk Sports Talk that was podcasted.

The possibilities are endless.

I'm sure that 99 percent of people reading this post don't even understand the role of advertising in any form of media. I'm now convinced that the only company in the entire world that does understand advertising is Google. And I'll tell you why.

If you think about advertising over the last ten years, the question has always been how can we take advertising from traditional forms of media (newspaper, radio, and television) and convert that to the Internet. Google and other companies waited and waited and waited for this to happen. It slowly did happen, and Google has done the best at incorporating advertising into web sites. Other websites have done their own ad selling, but that's not the point.

The point is that Google has stopped waiting. They no longer have the best model for online revenue, but they have the best model for revenue period. Now Google is not only moving forward, but they're picking up on old technology on the way. Earlier this year, Google bought a digital solutions provider for the radio broadcast industry. Wasn't it supposed to go the other way? Weren't the radio people supposed to get into the Internet?

As for moving forward, just this week, Google introduced the option for more local business advertising. And they're presenting the information in an attractive, innovative manner. Users have to love the interactive maps with descriptions, web sites, telephone numbers, and other pertinent information.

While doing some research, I came across something interesting that may help answer the question as to whether or not retail ads can fund news in the future. And the answer came from NASCAR. NASCAR meats to be exact. Now I know this has nothing to do with the world of news, but it just goes to show you that if advertisers really try hard enough they can succeed at just about anything.

Ok, so I hate advertising. I hate the thought of it as a profession. I hate what it represents and what it is based on: cash-money.

However, I suppose that if advertising must exist to promote products and services (so people can make money), someone better do it right.

This someone I refer to is Google - the search engine that my life depends on. As a non-active, self-proclaimed try-to-be socialist, money is the root of all evil and only represents the greed that exists in this world, and more importantly, capitalistic society. So why do I succumb to the mind-numbing, corporate Google?

I'll tell you: Google represents a lot of things I hate, but how can I deny the convenience and opportunities it allows for? Research, music, politics, you name it. Google's got it. And now, Google's Adsense makes it all that much easier. It's an advertising agent that provides ads relevant to my search and hits my search target and hits it hard. Not to mention, it's an easy way for publishers to make some fast cash.

Although Google has its strengths (target effectiveness) and weaknesses (my hatred for it), does it have opportunities to overcome the threat of competitor retail ad-sites? This I do not know. But I don't really see how one of the largest Internet-based companies out there wouldn't be able to come up with something to have a lasting power. I mean, this generation, and those to come, rely on the Internet for everything.

Every time I turn on a business cable station like CNBC, it is almost impossible not to hear a story about Google. Google's stock is doing this and projected to go to that. The stock's numbers are quite impressive. In August of 2004 a share set back investors $85. Now the stock is bouncing around $350 to $400 a share (GOOG).

But one of the basic principles of investing is knowing how a company makes money. After scratching my head for a few minutes, a glorious question popped into my head: How the heck does Google make money? I remember the last Google search I made, and it was earlier today. But I sure do not remember ever buying something from Google.

According to the Google web site:

Google's business model is based on two revenue streams: search services and advertising program. Google's scalable search services, which include the Google Search Appliance, Google WebSearchâ„¢ and Google SiteSearchâ„¢, draw on Google's proprietary search technology and include a suite of fully automated options and capabilities. Google's advertising programs provide online advertisers and web properties options specifically tailored to meet their needs. For web properties, Google offers a sponsored links program that provides sites' users with targeted and relevant messages while earning revenue for the web property. For content sites, Google offers its Content Targeting program, which extends advertiser reach and makes web pages more useful by replacing untargeted ads with relevant sponsored links.

Got it? Yeah, I don't get it completely either. But Google makes most of its money by providing "sponsored" links that are tailored to a search.

But financially this search engine advertising front may be overvalued. David Dremin of Forbes Magazine, is weary of Google's growth numbers (story link). "The truth is that this advertising business still is overvalued."

Others agree with him. John Bradshaw Layfield of TheStreet.com said, "Google has no forward guidance for the stock, so it is really a stock that is hard to put a valuation on. Most highfliers have a lot of downside risk; Google is a stock that I couldn't stomach to own."

And don't forget click fraud. The inaccuracy in internet ad statistics could also eventually throw a wrench in Google's soaring stocks.

In 2003 MSNBC found that 53 percent of Americans were "irritated by online ad clutter."

Come to think of it, when was the last time you ever clicked on an internet ad? I would guess you would have just as much trouble remembering as I did. In fact, I am not sure I have ever knowingly clicked on a internet ad in my years of surfing the net.

In the end, we will probably see an online media world much like ESPN.com, where ads are prevalent and users have access to a lot of content, but some content is exclusive and requires a paid subscription. Or sites like The Kansas City Star and The New York Times that give free access to stories with registration, and charge a fee for older articles. Any way you look at it, the online news world is probably going to have to charge you for something.

If you don't like paying for it, I suggest you start clicking away on some ads.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

These brilliant words from a brilliant man permeate throughout the world today. Yes, we as a society have achieved so much with this type of mentality. The sky is the limit, as we continue to instill this philosophy in the journalists of the future.

NOT!

Here's my ignorant, lazy statement, "All of the mass media that can be invented have been invented."

I'm not going to offer my advice to change the media world, but I will provide some input as to where it may be heading.

Combining web and TV elements is the future of a modified version of a medium. It's called Interactive Television. It's so simple, it almost reminds me of the books I read in elementary school called Choose Your Own Adventures.

Why stop there?

Get the audience involved. CNN is already trying it.

This isn't inventing a new medium; it's putting them all together on the tube. Interaction must be instant. It can't be like some instances where a question asked via e-mail is used for a show a week later. People can call in, chat or e-mail the hosts of the TV show. It's a conversation like radio offers while having web and TV elements.

This interactive, instantaneous extravaganza cannot be done over night. It takes awareness, evaluation, initiation, implementation and adoption. But many of the media gurus can't even start thinking about this type of innovation because they ignore the first stage of innovation. Maybe they have been listening a little too much to Commissioner Duell.

The way the public receives its information may be changing, but that doesn't change the definition of mass media. Television, radio and newspaper are definitely still mass media. The nightly news in Topeka can still be seen by the enitre city. The fact that citizens can also get the same stories off the Internet doesn't mean the television stations have stopped broadcasting.

If anything, there are now more mass media than ever, and they are all starting to work together. Take our own KUJH web site for example. Everyone in Lawrence can watch the newscast at 5:30, 7:30, 9:30, and 11:30 p.m. If they can't catch the newscast, then they can hit up the website. It's as simple as that.

Now the Internet does have drawbacks as far as what content will be covered by reporters in the future. Since the Internet is relatively easy to use to post one's own individual content, the role of the reporter may change slightly.

If a politician wants to make a statement, he or she need not call a press conference anymore. The politician can post the statement on an official website. Anyone who follows that politician would probably read the statement, but it still doesn't go out to the general, non-partisan public. Reporters will still have to gather the correct information, but instead use a news website to distribute all the information.

This idea is not a new one, however. A fairly simple database is all that's needed to distribute content. An example of this is perfectly displayed by the freely browsable database of crimes reported in Chicago. And these databases still wouldn't take away, completely, the art of reporting things like crime. People have an innate interest in crime stories, which can't be satisfied by the mere hard facts.

I think it's obvious that mass media will have to evolve into something brand new. What that is exactly, that's impossible for one person to say at this point in time. That will come down to the demand of the public. What the public wants, the public will get.

We've been told that the way we gather our news will never be the same. Rumors of newspapers going the way of the dodo bird and nightly news on your cell phone have become common places in the news. While this may take years to come, news organizations have found themselves in a pickle trying to customize their product to the specific need of each customer.

News organizations have caught on to the online swing of things, i.e. Rupert Murdoch dumping $580 million into the purchase of MySpace.com. Blogs have become the latest buzz as people are beginning to access their news from an individual rather than an organization. So that brings us to the million dollar question, are there any mass media left?

While the days of reading the paper with your eggs may be a time of the past, people are turning to the web each day for coverage the local paper can't even come close to touching. Instead, people are using the local paper's website as a beginning tool to search for news. The blogging sphere has given readers the ability to dig deeper on issues that news organization feel are irrelevant to the news.

In the coming years, newsrooms MUST transition from the local ragsheet or tube to the net. One thing I like that newsrooms have begun to do is customize the homepage to the reader's likes and dislikes. With the availability and speed of the net, we have become an impatient audience that demands not only quick access to headline news, but also nuggets of information that center around our interests. The Minneapolis Star Tribune is an example of news organziations adapting to the times with their customized website. The beauty of all of this is that we the readers have the power over what becomes newsworthy. Rather than being limited to the paper or TV news, the internet gives the power to the reader with the capability of picking and choosing between thousands of different news organizations for our own, customized news.

Burger King has a great motto for business; "Have it your way." A customer could walk up to the counter and order a hamburger with whatever ingredients they had to offer. Not all fast food joints offered this kind of service. Wendy's just recently started doing commercials where people could customize their sandwiches. Subway even has the ingredients right in front of your face and you can choose from there. The news can turn into this really quick.

The audience itself chooses what they want to read in the paper. They can grab the paper, flip it open, and turn to their favorite sections. In a Monday History of Journalism class, Tom Volek asked his students what things do they look for mainly in the University Daily Kansan. The immediate response was "Crossword!" followed swiftly by "Free for All". Not one of the responses was anything with a news element. Not even sports news. It seems that more people rather just be entertained by what they read and not get any real information.

Speaking of sports, this seems to be the most popular thing in the Kansan right now. This campus is basically owned by EA Sports. Sports…sports…sports. That's the heavy hitter here on campus. Maybe this is the beat to be in for the future. All other beats could be essentially wiped out if the audience doesn't give a care for them.

Volek told us that papers at first were a "labor of love". The publishers put them out because they chose to. It wasn't for money. Today, it's quite different. In this fast-paced business world, it's all about making money. And newspapers make money by getting readers and having advertisers pay for spots. If they can give the readers more of what they want to see, then more money will flow to the paper.

So what will be the new beats in the new newspaper? It will be up to the audience. Maybe newspapers will be able to make the product the way each individual wants it to be; a different newspaper for different people. Maybe the next thing you'll hear will be: "Hi, welcome to the New York Times. What would you like on your paper today?"