October 2006 Archives

It was another day in class and Uncle Rick was bemoaning the University Daily Kansan's loss of revenue.

Click ads may not be the savior of online news yet.
Photo: Steve Lynn

He reminisced about how he used to be a tough news boss who mercilessly fired managers who failed to ensure 30 percent profit margins. Now he's on the the Kansan board, so even if a student were responsible for the Kansan's decline, he couldn't fire him or her.

I thought he needed help, so that night, I clicked on a few ads beneath a couple Kansan articles. I quickly lost interest, but it felt good making the Kansan a few cents. Later, I realized I could have committed a crime: click fraud.

Fortunately, I don't do this for a living. But thousands of others do, according to the Washington Post. Some Web sites actually pay people to click on ads for hours at a time.

Sites that host the ads and companies who provide the service have benefited the most from click ads. The Economist credits innovations such as Google's AdSense with the "growth and revival" of online advertising.

But advertisers are crying foul. Advertisers have filed several class-action law suits against Google and Yahoo. Google says that click fraud accounts for less than 10 percent of its AdSense hits. But click fraud couild become a bigger problem if advertisers lose confidence, the article says.

Will models such as AdSense fund the news of the future? It's possible if Google and Yahoo work out the kinks.

On second thought, maybe news outlets should join this organization.

Time is money, and for the right content, I'm willing to give you some of mine.
Photo: Heidi Fedak

I may not know much when it comes to the inner workings of the Internet, but this is what I know for sure:

I don't pay attention to pop-ups.

I don't click on banner ads.

I don't pay for content.

And, if I'm already getting the content for free, I don't donate money after the fact. If I can download your podcast without donating a dime, then that's what I'm going to do, even if you put up a "donations button" and waste my precious listening time reciting a list of people who use it.

Call me a skin flint, if you must, but the truth is, I'm like most people: If I can get it for free, I don't see why I should pay for it. I'm nothing if not frugal.

In terms of online advertising, here's what does work for me: the traditional model transported into the modern world. Perhaps, it's my age, but I'll sit through the Acura commercial that holds me hostage until I can hear the latest from NPR. I'll suffer through the sponsorship spot that serves as a prelude to the Business Week cover story podcast. Heck, I'll even watch the Century 21, Subway and Nexium commercials that are part of ABC's online television service.

And here's why: NPR, Business Week, ABC? They have what I want: content and they let me have it for free. That's pretty smart, because I'm cheap enough to sit through just about anything to get it. That's one of the tenets of social marketing:

"Action is undertaken whenever target audiences believe that the benefits they receive will be greater than the costs they incur."

Sign me up.

For me, the advertising model that works best is the one that gives me what I want when I want it with the least amount of impact. In short, the benefits outweigh the costs.

Time may be money, but, if the content's right, I'm willing to give you mine for free.

Last week, I came home from a long day. Four hours of class, followed by a six hour shift in the Topeka Capital Journal newsroom. I was exhausted.

I got home, unhooked my laptop, settled into my chair and got on espn.com, like I always do. It's my happy place. I always know I'll find something to read and interest me there. This time, there was a huge front page story about my St. Louis Rams. I got excited and was ready to read away about my boys.

I clicked on the story to get the news and saw that it was an ESPN Insider story. What that means is that I have to have a subscription to read the story. What a bummer. Not to mention, just when you get on the site ,a commercial starts to play, without even clicking on it.

ESPN Insider burns a hole in people's pocket by charging them to read premium stories. It's a growing trend.

This is becoming more and more common. Good stories by quality journalists that I want to read, but can't. Despite my anger and frustration at the time, I understand why these companies do it.

I did cave under the pressure for one site. I pay eight bucks a month to read jayhawkslant.com. I have to, it's for work, I have to know what's going on. The message boards knew about C.J Giles before most journalists got word of it.

Paying for websites is one thing, but getting bombarded with ads when you are trying to read those stories or other stories is a different thing. I hate it, get those ads out of my way. I've gotten used to ignoring them, but it's annoying.

Again, I understand why websites have to use Google Adsense. But, in my years of surfing for good stories, I've never clicked on one of those ads, and I never will.

Ads belong on television, in the newspaper, the web is ours.

I know that's not how it works, or will ever works, but that's how I feel. Then again, when I get a job out of college, those ads could be paying my salary, and then I might have a much different view on it.

I love YouTube. I think it's the greatest thing ever.

Just today I loved watching a famous baseball game re-enacted on the Nintendo. Last week I loved watching Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach do the weather on a Lubbock tv station (if you feel that you're not in on the joke, check out this profile of him).

That said, I would not buy YouTube. I certainly wouldn't buy it for $1.65 billion dollars. I'm not even sure I would buy it for $1.65.

Right now, the site reminds me of Napster. Just like Napster brought digital audio to the masses, now YouTube is doing the same with video. Formats like Quicktime and Windows Media are dying out because the YouTube flash player is insanely easy to use, keeps file sizes small, and works on just about every computer ever.

The problem is, the site's popularity is based entirely on copyrighted content. Set aside issues with copyright holders, and you'll still have a problem with amateur video creators, who aren't going to send their videos to YouTube just to watch the site make big bucks off of them. Broadband pioneer Mark Cuban agrees, and adds that the lawsuit threat is huge now that Google, a company with deep pockets, owns the site.

So what's the lesson here in advertising? Well, the best things are still free, but people are still willing to pay for quality content. The iTunes store proved that when it overtook Napster. The winner in the video wars will be a site that charges for the content, but offers it commercial-free and without viewing restrictions.

I'm willing to pay for the best content with no commercials. It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's pretty close.

I thought my fixation on MSM news coverage of the Duke lacrosse team knew no bounds last spring, but I never hit the blogs for my fix. Maybe I should have.

You could do worse than the New York Times. Much, much worse.
Photo: YouTube

I read articles from the New York Times and other news outlets. I emerged from it all thinking, "These players are guilty." But new information about the case has convinced some that the MSM, particularly the New York Times, covered the case unfairly.

Newsweek admitted it erred; others, such as the New York Times, have not — much to the chagrin of this article's writer and the sources he quotes from the Times' own newsroom.

I'm not sure who had it right first. I have yet to see the New York Times' smoking gun. The matter will be probably be settled in some scholarly journal. But until then, examine the details now. You might find yourself wishing you had done the same weeks after the news first broke.

Some of the same bloggers who have railed against MSM coverage of the Duke lacrosse team from the outset have contribued good coverage that defied the MSM's credulous narrative.

Take K.C. Johnson's blog, for example. Johnson, professor of history at Brooklyn College, has dedicated an entire blog to the case, replete with mucho entries that explore the story's nuances.

Johnson has reported in Durham several times, according to New York Magazine. Allow me to repeat: A blogger did actual reporting. He spent days talking to 15 North Carolina law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to find out whether the Durham D.A. and police department conducted its investigation legally.

His site contains more depth than any MSM Duke lacrosse thread I've seen. I wish I knew about Durham in Wonderland when I was suspended in the Times.

There is no reason to be nervous now.

When I first signed up for Uncle Rick's online production class, I had no idea what to expect. I had never been a producer before. Hell, I wasn't quite sure what a producer did. I'm still not quite sure.

Here I sit, seven weeks in. The semester is half way over and I can now say I produce content for the TV web site. I can report, I can edit, I can write, I can collaborate ... I can do it all. I gots me some skills. And that's a damn good thing.

Multimedia convergence is the here and now
Photo: University of South Florida

The media profession is an intriguing one. I always thought I would develop a niche and work in a specific media area (i.e. newspaper, TV, radio). It's not looking that way.

In my own back yard corporations such as the World Co. are leading the way in a new type of journalism -- one that incorporates everything I've learned into a comprehensive unit. People aren't being hired for great writing skills, excellent video editing capabilities or the ability to shoot great b-roll. They need all of those. And they had better be able to learn on the fly.

That's why I feel my time at KU and in the J-School so far has been benefical. I always hoped that I would be competitive for jobs; I didn't want to have to seek out employers online. No, they're gonna come looking for me. And thanks to this class, I'll be ready.

I like to think of myself as a revolutionary.

You know this whole online community (PDF) thing that's dominating American society? Well I was there at the start. Before Facebook and Myspace, there were Web forums.

I was one of the few loyal users of ESPN.com's message boards when they were first created in the mid-1990s, after the site abandoned its chat room feature. I was 14 when I first started posting and danged if I wasn't an integral part of a large community of sports fans.

I eventually grew out of the site after ESPN changed the format and I went off to college. But I learned a thing or two during my time there.

First, I learned how to form an argument. This was before the days of trolls and troublemakers—well, there were some, but not nearly as many as there seem to be these days—and if you didn't know your stuff, or if your arguments were weak, you would get eaten alive by the board regulars. I got so good I rarely lost an argument. Not because I was always right, though. I just knew how to argue better than most people.

I also learned how not to form an argument. Name calling and personal attacks were proof you couldn't argue your own point well enough, and that sort of thing got you nowhere.

Second, I learned how to write. Along with that element of validity, if you sounded like a moron in your writing style, no one was going to pay attention. People weren't willing to take the time to wade through poor writing and bad grammar to find content. The boards helped me develop organizational writing skills and my own unique voice.

Forums like this paved the way for the comment sections we take for granted on modern Web sites. I can't say whether message boards serve the same purpose these days, because I'm not a member of any. But as we push forward in the digital world of online communication, I will always look back fondly on the time I spent as a member of the ESPN Nation, perhaps a better person because of it.

I have officially become addicted. I can't go through a day without going to YouTube and checking out the latest videos.

This popular website that has allowed millions of users to broadcast themselves is being threatened.

Warner Music is waging a legal and business warfare on the popular website, YouTube. YouTube allows video-sharing and there has been an uproar about it giving free access to its millions of users to songs and videos. Most of theses songs and videos belong to record labels.

If YouTube were smart and would learn a thing or two from the past, they would realize that they could be dealing with the big dogs. We all can remember how record label companies sued Napster. The same outcome will happen to YouTube unless something is done.

There is talk that YouTube is in the midst of a deal between the company and Warner Music. This would allow Warner Music to have control over the content and would also mean dividing the revenue that YouTube plans to make from advertisement.

With all of these legal battles and mergers, it is hard to see where the future of YouTube is headed. Will it become the money making website that people thought it would become? Will YouTube users be able to use this website to broadcast themselves, or will more limitations be put on the website?

I'm going to take a risk here. I'm admitting I may not have had the best intentions when I signed up for this class. I mean, I knew it would probably help me in the long run, but my main motivation was just to get my second advanced media done, and be able to graduate in December.

Well, after listening to Uncle Rick lecture week after week, I'm realizing more and more, that this was a solid class selection and could help put me over the top.

As Rick said last week, I drank the Kool-Aid. I'm realizing how big of a part the web, blogging and multimedia journalism in general is going to play in the future of journalism.

I'm a print guy, through and through. I've tried other areas of journalism, in front of the camera, behind the microphone on radio, but I've always been the most confident behind a computer typing my story on a strict deadline. In fact, my good friend Jimmy Chavez used to say, after a game there wasn't a better thing in the world than sitting in the press room and just listening to everyone type away and get there stories in. The sound of the writers pounding away on their computer was priceless.

Well, it is priceless, but it's not enough. I'm working now for the Topeka Capital Journal, and loving every minute of it. But, combined with the learning experiences from that newsroom combined with Uncle Rick's lessons, I know I need to expand. There's a lot of people out there like me. I like to think I'm special, and my mom has always told me I am, but I know I need something to seperate myself from the rest of the "special" sportswriters.

.The Topeka Capital Journal, my new homebase. Picture from echo-media.com

I think about the newspaper business and realize, especially in sports, If Terrell Ownens, a star player in the NFL, overdoses on pain killers at 7 a.m. in the morning. No newspaper in the country is going to have that story untill it's old news. All day long people will watch about it on television, or go to espn.com, but by the time the newspaper comes out 18-20 hours later, does anyone still care?

This is where I become "extra special." Not, all of those guys I'll be competing against have online producing skills. Not, all of those people have experience with the web. But, guess what, I drank the Kool Aid, and I like it. I'm seperating myself everyday.

A couple weeks ago, I said who knows, maybe I'll be the next Sports Guy. Well, guess what, I am going to be the next Sports Guy. Except, it's a whole new generation of the Sports Guy. I'm going to be the multimedia Sports Guy. That's right, print columns, web producing, behind the mic yelling at sports fans in the morning, in front of the camera for live web updates.

I drank the Kool Aid and I want some more.

As college freshmen, my dorm mates and I explored the Internet voraciously, each one of us attempting to one-up the others with a new finding.

The newfound freedom provided by the anarchy of the Internet led some of us to the Web's darker corners. Some found entertainment and others found horror.

Soldiers ride in the back of a pickup truck before encountering an explosion. The video probably was shot in Iraq, but the person who posted it provided a short, unsatisfactory explanation of the event.
Photo:Youtube.com

I'll never forget the video clip with a closeup shot of a foreign soldier's face before being stabbed in the neck. He wore a terrible grimace before the knife pentrated his pallid skin. I still find his expression unbearable to think about.

Who committed this sickening atrocity? I don't know, I probably never will.

The experience taught me a valuable lesson: violence that lacks context is trite and meaningless. We lack the story behind the violence, so it teaches us nothing and leaves our consciences unresolved.

These videos used to be rare; now they're harder to avoid. The New York Times reported recently that videos on YouTube and Google Video that depict deaths of American soldiers and others in Iraq have grown in number (though the reporter fails to tell us what method he used to gather this evidence). Both sites have begun to remove a number of the videos, the article states.

These videos have power and value for the general public, but only if accompanied by interpretation. For a journalist, they provide an abundance of untold stories.

There will always be a segment of the public who view the videos because they like watching stuff blow up." This is the dark side of freedom. But the videos will remind others of the horror of war if a journalist provides an explanation.

Marv Albert is a renowned sports announcer, formerly of NBC sports.
Courtesy: Answers.com

I can't tell you all the times my teachers have accused me of speaking in sportsugese.

Whether its "tallying a clean sheet" – (used in soccer when a goalkeeper allows no goals), "going on a killing spree" – (used in volleyball when referring to a player who scores a series of immediate points), "bombing an ace down the Texas-t-bone" – (used in tennis when a players serves an ace down the center of the service line), "going yard" – (used in baseball when a player hits a home run), the bottom line is that journalism teachers can't stand this talk.

But last time I checked, the first amendment under the U.S. constitution protects free speech. How can anyone limit us sports guys from communicating within our world?

In essence, I'm deprived when I can't speak in my native sportsugese. The language is the foundation of what I do and that is covering sports.

Bob Gross of the Oakland Press points out that Dr. Don Powell supports sports clichés.

I mean, let's face it, even the professionals speak in terms you probably don't even understand.

Former NBC sports announcer and current TNT broadcaster Marv Albert is a pioneer of the language. His catch phrases in basketball, including: "From downtown – (used when a 3-point shot is made), "He is on fire" – (used to indicate a player does not miss a shot), and "Serves up a facial" – (used when a player slam dunks a ball), are all indicative of a dialect that belongs to a much larger language.

And over the course of his 30-year career, Albert's sports jargon has become an accepted form of communication in the sports world. EA sports got a clue about his ever growing popularity, signing him to a multi-year deal to help sell video game merchandise.

ESPN college basketball color analyst Dick Vitale is another contributor to the much criticized language. His frequent use of "diaper dandies" – (used to refer to freshman basketball players) and his annual "all-Windex performer" – (used to recognize players who can clean the glass, or grab rebounds), is part of a growing trend of sports phrases only understood by those who speak the language.

Sportsugese allows the announcer to be creative without the repetitive, boring, tedious insight otherwise accustomed. The language provides flare and excitement upon any sports discussion.

Maybe KU should get a clue about sportsugese. Maybe the university should offer sportsugese as a course for students looking to fulfill a language requirement. Without it, they may never understand the true meaning of sports.

When it comes to newspapers, my rose-colored glasses are firmly in place.
Photo: Heidi Fedak

Late at night, alone in my dining room, I cyber spy.

Awash in the glow of my HP laptop, I am the silent third wheel at Alicia and Andy's Saturday dinner, the quiet co-pilot during Laurie's LA commute, the quirky lurker at BlufftonToday.

These people have become my friends, confidants and informers. None of them (save for the reporter-bloggers on Bluffton Today) are trained journalists. And still, I read their words nearly every day. I don't care about their writing mistakes or their reporting mishaps. I care about what they have to say.

Philip Meyer, a UNC professor and author of "The Vanishing Newspaper," suggests that newspapers, as we know them, will cease to exist in 2043. In order to survive, he says, journalists must become more professional. With all due respect to Meyer, I think we should become less so.

Does Meyer really think that people are turning to YouTube, the Daily Kos, Little Green Footballs because they're more professional than we are? Puhleeze. They do it because those people have mastered the art of making connections. Objectivity? Yeah, right.

Yes, the print posse is, perhaps, a bit slow on the uptake. We write every day, but for far too long, we failed to see the writing on the wall. We need to change. We need to toss the idea of objectivity and become friendly with our readers.

I realized that last week when fellow student Daniel Berk said that a Web site he enjoyed had bad writing but good content. Until that moment, I didn't think it was possible for that combination to exist: good writing = good content, right? WRONG!

Content (not writing, not professionalism) is key. I'm not saying we should give writing short shrift, but what we say is just as important as how we say it. And that means figuring out what our customers want. You can't bolster the bottom line if you ignore the wants and needs of your market.

And until we realize that our market wants a pal, not another professor or preacher, we're going to stay on Meyer's fast train to doom.

Sunday evening I'm sitting at dinner with my family, explaining my ecstasy that fall break is approaching within three days, when my Mom proceeds to hand me an anvil and drops me from floating in the clouds. "I hope you enjoy your last fall break. Just think, this will be the last fall break you'll ever have in your life."

Bam, the high feeling is over! Back to reality and the realization that I'm graduating and enjoying my last fall break.

So I got to thinking. How many people really do graduate in four years and only get to enjoy four fall breaks like me?

My old roomie is one of the 52 percent at KU
Photo: Sam Bennett

Throw out your exception of geniuses like David Banh who graduated from Virginia in one year with a double major, and you're left with two-thirds of freshman at four-year colleges in Virginia graduate within six years.

According to the Office of Institutional Research and Planning, the 2005-2006 stats at Kutztown University show only 29 percent of Kutztown students graduate in four years. Fifty-one percent though, graduate in six years.

This is pretty normal. A March 10, 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the nationwide four-year college graduation rate is 34 percent, but the six-year rate is 56 percent!

In September 2005, KU released its Graduate in Four Task Force. Only 29 percent of KU students graduate in four years. Fifty-two percent graduate in five years and 58 percent in six.

So, as I'm in the minority of those who graduate in four, I realize that I have to make the most of my fall break. Maybe if I'd have planned things out a little better I could have stretched my college out to five years, so I could enjoy my last fall break next year, not this year. Just kidding! But, hey it's a thought.

After hitting the halfway point of the semester, it's time to take stock of what we've learned this far. And while I may not yet be able to parse paragraphs, crazily comment or alliterate alligators quite like Heidi, I'd like to think I've picked up a few tricks along the way.

The overarching theme of the semester has been citizens doing things that professional journalists do, whether it's report information, comment on events, or even just create media.

I think the biggest debate was over the usage of Wikipedia by journalists. Stephen Lynn started the debate by advocating its usage. Most of what followed was support for his position, although I'm still not sure pointing out that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica is a convincing argument in and of itself.

Hayley taught us that self-portraits are cool.

Meanwhile Daniel Berk wrote about a citizen journalist who is living firmly in both worlds. It's hard to imagine the Bill Simmons model becoming standard, but it would make for a very interesting sports world if everybody was able to write about anything. Berk's blog title and article title combined to make for an interesting page title on the article: "Daniel Berk: The Ultimate Citizen Journalist." As though he's making some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

But I've completely neglected to mention the other half of the class, the web shift, where we have all learned a great deal about online video and production. Not to mention the web class routinely produces some of the best eHub material, like this, this, this, or this.

Now if only I could learn to talk like the Sharmanator. That would be something.

The competition of bloggers reaching the A-list is at an all-time high.
Courtesy: The Daily Journal of Commerce

I blog for free. That's right. I receive no money for any of my posts.

Well, the fact that my posts rarely make the ehub web site (2 posts since the beginning of school) doesn't help my cause. But, you get the picture.

So you probably are wondering: What can I do to get noticed more than just a meager two times?

One solution rests in joining an advertising network.

A recent trend shows blogs increasing on the business landscape. And why not? The market for online advertising with blogs continues to grow.

Any blogger has the potential to reach the A-list through the use of advertising.

Paul Berger points out that bloggers seek advertisers as a way to get noticed.

Forrester research said that online expenditures in advertising will reach $26 billion by 2010.

The fact that big businesses and advertising companies will take notice only increases the level of potential for bloggers to reach the so-called A-list.

With the help of advertising, the fun does not stop.

Biz stone offers three ways of promoting blogs that will help gain exposure.

For bloggers who want to facilitate the greatest turnaround in the blogosphere, there are quick and easy ways of making a short-term impact.

It's about time that I get a clue about getting on the map. Just because I'm apart of ehub does not guarantee me a spot above the rest.

The question of how can I become an A-List blogger seems to be one for the ages. It might be on par with what is the meaning of life, or it might seem rather easy to figure out how to become part of the A-Team.

It seems that success is bound on writing a whole lot of short entries in a small time period, linking to other top notch bloggers and most importantly making sure everything is visually pleasing. Apparently this is all it takes to become part of the bloggerati Don't you love when a plan comes together?

But, of course, nothing is really that easy. This is only the beginning of what it takes to be an A-list blogger.

Original Content: Have something to say. Grab your audience from the headline and run. It is much like journalism. By finding a different way to tell the same story you have already won.

Passion It must be obvious to your reader that there is drive and fire in the writing. If there is not passion in the blog posts then why would someone else read them?

Socialize: If you take the time to become part of the blogosphere by commenting other people's blogs and master the art of socialization then you will reap the benefits in your own blog.

Being part of the A-Team is not an easy chore, but there are people that are dedicated. For most of us we don't have the time, but if you implement any or all of these ideas then you will have a more successful blog.

This crew received a mention on Boing Boing
Photo: NASA

I wish I could be like Boing Boing. It's the most popular blog in the world! It's already won a Lifetime Achievement and Best Group Blog award at the 2006 Bloggies ceremony. It's big. But why is Boing Boing so big?

Wow! Anousheh Ansari says space smells like burnt almond cookie. I see a photo of a Suspicious-Looking Device. The Onion has done a tongue-in-cheeck article about the War on Moisture.

Boing Boing is fun. Much more fun than CNN. Boing Boing's bit on Expedition 13 was much better than the story on NASA's home page, which had no mention of burned almond cookie. I'd rather get a sense of what space feels like than read about how the trip went.

Also, instead of reading about the gripping fear of terrorism, I would rather read a short description of a Suspicious-Looking Device.

Boing Boing is in tune with what's going on, but more importantly, it's also in tune with people who are frightened and need to laugh at a Suspicious-Looking Device. Boing Boing reflects the cynicism of its audience in it's post about the Onion. The blog also includes a detail about what space smells like to satiate human curiousity.

As I sip coffee and ponder the brave new world of free speech, something bubbles from my usually-murky miasma of notions: Blogging could ruin someone's life.

Recent example: Republican Rep. Mark Foley was outed - and ousted - by the "Stop Sex Predators" blog. An article on CNN.com marveled that ABC was scooped by a mere blogger.

Another recent example of the blog's destructive power: Two police officers were fired after they copied and posted evidence photos of a tattoo that was forcibly applied to convicted murder. Their lives might not be ruined, but their careers certainly might be.

And finally, one giant global example of the potential havoc of the blog: Blogging may even be ruining the Chinese government's control. CNN, quoting Reuters, stated that The number of bloggers in China reached 34 million in August. As these blogs grew, the Chinese government also censored the blogs. How much longer can the Chinese government do that, though? How much longer can they police 34 million blogs?

A blogger is not just an unshaven loser staring bug-eyed at the screen into the wee hours of the night. A blogger has potential to impact lives by what they write.

As I finish the last sweet drop of my coffee, I ponder the effects of the electronic on the actual. If nothing else, we've invented a new problem for the philosophers.

Writing an A-list political blog is like making a ham sandwich: It looks easy, and it is.

"Sandwich on a plate"
Permission from: synthesized nirvana

Link to news items. Write short quips. Pray that people frequently link to your blog. Kazaam, you got an A-list blog.

Those were among the findings from my research of A-list political blogs in May 2006. I studied four conservative blogs and six liberal blogs from Technorati's top 100. I wanted to figure out whether the blogs engaged in some type of discourse or whether they simply linked to news sites from the mainstream media, other bloggers' sites, etc.

I read 10 posts from each blog on two random days. If the entry had one sentence of description of the news or fewer, I coded it as a filter blog. If the entry had two sentences or more of political analysis, I coded it as a personal journal. If the entry had four paragraphs or more of analysis, I counted it as a notebook.

Liberal blogs contained 54 percent filters, 24 percent personal journals and 22 percent notebooks. Conservative blogs contained 75 percent filters, 12.5 percent personal journals and 12.5 percent notebooks.

Other factors go into making a good blog, such as debating with and linking to other bloggers. But at least now you know what they look like.

You don't have to do a study to figure it out. Glenn Reynolds, of the A-list conservative blog InstaPundit, writes, "There's very little independent factual reportage on InstaPundit, and when I'm reporting something based on my own experience that will be clear. But normally, information in posts comes from somebody else... Think of InstaPundit as being like a card catalog in a library — it steers you to other things, mostly."

So if I want to get on the A-list, I should probably do less writing and thinking, and instead do more politics and linking.

What's it mean to be a top blogger? Prestige, power and influence to be sure, but definitely not money.

Two of the largest blogging companies, Gawker Media and Weblogs, Inc., each pay their writers far below what a small-town newspaper editor could expect to earn.

Weblogs, Inc. president Jason McCabe Calacanis told the Online Journalism Review that his bloggers made between $100 and $3,000 per month. That would mean his highest-paid blogger, likely Peter Rojas of Engadget (an A-lister), pulled in only $36,000 a year. Rojas has since been offered a stake in the company, but it's clear from the numbers that he didn't seek blogging's Everest just for the money.

One of these companies pays much better than the others.

Over at Gawker media, which has several A-listers, the salary is $2,500 a month, according to Lockhart Steele, Gawker Media managing editor. He added that bloggers can get paid more depending on the traffic that they get.

This is disputed by a Gawker blogger, who anonymously commented in the OJR article. "There's a maximum withdrawal per month, so you could actually make $50,000 in traffic bonuses per month, but you could only take out $5,000 or so," the blogger said. "It makes sense for [CEO] Nick [Denton], but it makes all of us really uneasy."

Getting paid by traffic is further proof that blogging is not yet a mainstream media. This practice encourages bloggers to write sensationalist stories or gratuitously link to hundreds of sites to build their traffic (and salary).

I've got some experience with the issue myself. In high school I worked with Wichita real estate agent Jerry Self and designed a website for him. After some manipulation, the site is currently registering No. 2 on Google when people search for a Wichita Realtor.

So what's all this mean for newspaper writers? It's not time to switch to blogging just yet.

Even Steele said that blogging is seen as a transitional move by most of these writers. "A way to circumvent having to go to work at a daily paper in Arkansas for two or three years," as he puts it.

Until there's more money in blogging, the perks of being on the A-list will continue to be strictly of the non-monetary kind.

I'll admit it. I am not exactly the most popular blogger. In fact, the only hits I have had on my blogs came from my professor. My life as a blogger remains on the "D list".

Like me, many bloggers often wonder how they can move up from the "D list" of bloggers to the "A list".

There are many tips online that are a great guide to getting a blog noticed.

First impressions are key with everything, and blogging is no exception. Blogs that have catchy headlines will have more readers. Pictures are also appealing to the eye and will draw in more readers.

Tags will also help bloggers increase their popularity. Metadata can be an important tool in ensuring the success of a blog. Metadata allows the blogger to describe the blog and make it appear in search engines. The more tags a blog has, the better the chances are of the blog appearing in a search engine.

Even with all of the tags and eye-catching details, the most important element to a successful, "A list" blog is personality. When it comes down to it, personality will keep the reader coming back.

As I increasingly become more involved in this technological world, I will start using more of these tips and hopefully start clawing my way up from "D list".

At first I simply tried to write. I wasn't too concerned with style or format, let alone readership and popularity. My goal was simple: get a handle on writing for myself and the rest will follow. Now, it's time for "the rest" to jump on the bandwagon.

So how do I get others interested in my blogging? That is to say, what makes a good blog? What can I do to have someone out there on the Web choose my blog over others? I think I have some ideas.

Several Web sites offer their tips for writing good blogs. Other sites steer in a different direction and provide hints on what not to do, or other common mistakes.

While some might find those hints and tips helpful, I am a little skeptical. I think the major key to writing good blogs is simply writing about things that people want to read and doing so in a fun, informative style. That's it. If you can do that, you're half way home.

Oh, and to give yourself that little extra something special, you will want to make sure that you have some killer pictures. Don't have a digital camera? No problem. You can always get free visuals for your blog.

I am ehub's only subscriber on bloglines.
Photo: Heidi Fedak

As if that's not bad enough, take a look at some of blogs that have us beat: Stuff on My Cats has 74 subscribers (that's 73 more than we have, for those of you who aren't good at math). Cute Overload, meanwhile, has a whopping 241 subscribers and 4,515 blogs linking to it. It's No. 46 on Technorati's most popular list.

So, what does it take to be on top? IMHO, it's nothing more than blog branding (you'll need to read down a bit for the meat of the post). Technorati tracks the top blogs by the number of people who link to them. Every time I link to someone else's blog, I push that blog higher on Technorati's list.

So that begs the question: What blogs get the most bang for their linking buck? First, they need to focus on a topic that can draw people's interest. That means writing about politics and people, gadgets and gossip, secrets and software. If you think I'm wrong, take a look at Technorati's current top 10. Many of those same blogs were on top when I did a blogging report last year at this time. Clearly, topic choice is as important as anything else. (A quick note: As I'm writing this, the media as a topic first makes the list at No. 56 with Newsbusters)

Beyond the topic, we need to consider the other elements of branding: developing a "voice" that has personality and flair; writing well; having something to say. And then, we need to add in the blogging basics: frequent updates, comments and a sense of community.

And if all that fails? We need to start fishing for linkers. Quid pro quo, baby, quid pro quo. You link to my blog; I'll link to yours. Together, we'll climb to the top.

I've had a lot of blogs over the years, none of which were apparently worth reading. At one point or another I've had my own page on Live Journal, Xanga, and Blogger. But no one ever visited. It didn't seem to matter what I wrote about, how I formatted my blog or what I did to attract readers, no one was reading or commenting.

Jason Mulgrew at a young age, before everything was wrong with him.

I realized in my failures that the secret to maintaining a popular blog is creating an online community. The best way to do that is to exchange links with people. The more links you have floating around in cyberspace, the more likely you are to attract an audience. People aren't going to find your blog if there are no links to it.

Then again, sometimes it just requires a certain amount of dumb luck. Jason Mulgrew's blog, Everything is Wrong With Me, was little more than a site chock full of dick and fart jokes until he was featured as one of People Magazine's 50 Hottest Bachelors of 2005. It's still full of rude humor and less than helpful posts about weekend after weekend of heavy drinking and bad decisions, but as he argues, he's semi-famous now! It doesn't hurt that his site is hilarious either.

The Internet is a tricky customer. It's hard to say why certain blogs are popular or how they got that way. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort in expanding your social network to get your site noticed. Other times, it just happens.

Every week I take blogs more seriously. Every week, there is some reference, whether it be on the new show I'm watching on NBC, or by reading an article that the first blog from space was posted, I take blogs more seriously.

I'm still new to this, so I don't know what makes a good blog from a great one. But, something really caught my eyes this week.

When I picked up the Kansas City Star last week, just like I do every day, to read Jason Whitlock's sports column. What I was reading, I couldn't believe.

Love him or hate him, Whitlock is one of the very best at what he does. Whether you agree with him or not, he presents valid points and backs them up with solid evidence and makes you think. That's the job of a sports journalist.

. Jason Whitlock, one of sports's most controversial colmnists. Photo from www.kansascity.com

What Whitlock was writing about that day, was that he would no longer be hosting TV shows on ESPN, essentially because of an interview he did on a guy's blog. That's right a blog got one of the best sports journalists of our time fired from ESPN. He said some not so nice things about ESPN and critized the way they use a couple of their contributors. Was he right? I don't know. Should he have said it? Probably not. But, the point is a blog got the man fired. Not an official interview in a credited magazine or a credited newspaper, but a blog. Yes that's right, blogs have that type of power these days.

I have no idea if this blog website is an A-List one or not. But, it was powerful enough to get one of the best sports journalists in trouble. After going to the site and looking around it, I figured out why it probably does get a lot of hits and is a good blog site.

It's trashy.

That's what eHub needs, more trash. Sad, but true, that's what makes a good blog. Bad words, bad writing and good content is what draws readers. Readers want to feel smart, a well put together, educated site, isn't going to do that. No, a trashy one will.

If eHub was trashier, it would get more hits. If it was more controversial, it would get more hits. People read news sites for news, they read blogs for entertainment and news. The blog Whitlock was on is a prime example, great content, bad words and bad writing, but the people love it.

It sounds like a horrible solution, but that's my answer. More trash, less education.

As a journalist, collaborative efforts like Wikipedia make my job much easier. When I need a statistic that is stunning, sensational, or just superfluous, it delivers.

The thrill of Wikipedia is that you can access information about anything at anytime. It's amazingly current and thorough, especially for pop-culture references. The downside is that anybody with an agenda can put anything on it.

Supporters of the system argue that the bad facts get weeded out over time, and I don't doubt that they do. But by the time an incorrect fact has been found and fixed, its information has already seeped into other areas.

Today's Kansan Fact of the Day was found using Wikipedia...and verified elsewhere. Courtesy Kansan.com.

For an example, take NBC's show Dateline. When running a special about catching sexual predators on the internet, the network used the statistic that, at any given time, 50,000 potential child molesters lurk on the internet.

When the statistic was questioned, Dateline stopped using it. However, the "fact "was out there, and later that month Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech on the topic, saying that at any given time, 50,000 potential child molesters lurk on the internet, citing Dateline as his source. When somebody reads his speech later, they see that as fact and don't bother to trace down the questionable origin of the statistic.

This example goes to show that while Wikipedia is an amazing innovation made possible by the internet, journalists cannot rely on it for facts, especially at the risk of spreading inaccurate information as truth.

As for me, I write the "Fact of the Day" for the University Daily Kansan. Do I use Wikipedia to find facts? Every day. And then I verify that fact elsewhere. It's the responsible thing to do.

I'd be lying if I said I've never wasted an afternoon on Wikipedia.com reading about random things like frogs and the Fingerpoke of Doom.

But would I ever cite a Wikipedia page in a paper or assignment? No. I don't care what Patrick Lafferty says.

The Onion has an interesting take on Wikipedia. Interesting, and hilarious.

Well, maybe I would if I was in high school. But I'm not. I'm in college, and college papers require primary resources. Or at least they should.

In that sense, Wikipedia is a great place to start. The articles are usually packed with interesting links, citations and sources. If I was going to write a paper, I'd probably go to Wikipedia first for ideas, as a place to find some helpful background information and maybe check out some related topics. But that's about it.

I don't believe the debate about the validity of Wikipedia has an answer yet. We need more time and research. Nature.com fired the first shot at the Encyclopedia Britannica, claiming that it contains roughly 3 errors per article, while Wikipedia contains 4. The difference, many argue, is not enough to separate the two in terms of validity. Britannica's fiery response--which Steven Lynn failed to mention—seemed to prove that Nature's methods were anything but efficient or scientific. Seems to me—and Britannica—as though the study was completely ridiculous and arbitrary. I don't think this study solves anything.

So I'm still not sure what to think. Maybe I should check out Wikipedia's page about its own reliability for the answer.

If that doesn't work, this dinosaur makes a good point.

I didn't know a thing about wikipedia before this assignment was given. Point blank.

After researching it and reading some articles, the first thing that popped in to my head, was, where the heck have I been?

I had used it unknowlingly, when I have googled some stuff and information from wikipedia has come up. But, I had no idea what kind of a stir it was causing.

My answer to, is it citizen journalism, you bet it is. However, that doesn't mean that it should be taken off the bad link list.

Citizen journalism is something that makes you think and question the norms of society, written and researched by people who aren't professional journalists. That's what wikipedia is. It is written and researched by people who probably have other jobs, and it makes people think.

When I started my research on wikipedia, I found an article on cnet.com, about it. On the bottom of the article, just like about any other web site in the world, is the comments section. Here's the first one I read.

"I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that noticed that Wikipedia sucked. Too many people insert data from that site, having no idea that much of the data is completely incorrect."

That was posted by a guy named dailypiglet. He was heated. That's what journalism is intended for. To get people passionate about a topic, and defend it to the bone.

Also, when I googled the term citizen journalism, I found an article on poynter online. A website that our teacher, Rick, talks about with high regard. They had an article about citizen journalism. Where did there defintion about citizen journalism come from? You guessed it, wikipedia.

With that said, I don't trust a lot of the stuff on the site. I wouldn't use it as a link on a academic website, and think it has a long way to go before it can be trusted fully. But that doesn't change the fact that it's citizen journalism. For the people, by the people.

After all, that's what citizen journalism is.