November 2006 Archives

I remember when I was younger, my father used to get so upset with some reporters from the Hutchinson News about stories on farming that he really didn't think the reporters knew what they were talking about. He would just gripe for a few minutes and then finally put the paper down. My father would always say he wished there were an easy way to tell reporters true facts that their reporting seemed to miss.

Today, the Internet has delivered that opportunity. Readers now have the opportunity to interact and be a part of the news that is reported; however, there is also the ugly that comes with the good.

Internet forums and comment sections give readers a voice and the opportunity to become a part of a news story. This opportunity has changed news. Reporters now have to deal with the fact that anyone could post a comment on their story, and anyone can read the comment. Sometimes, this voice is not always pleasant. In fact, some comments can get down right offensive and hurtful.

Newsrooms have to be careful with trolls and comments posted. Web producers should constantly check the website for posts that could be considered offensive. Reporters should not become part of the comments section because this would only create more of a problem. Commenting back to troll would only be fueling the fire and open doors for other offensive comments.

Steps can be taken to help soften the language used. For example, topix.net has started posting the location of the person that posted the comment. This humanized the comments more and helped tame some of the comments.

Internet forums and comment sections have created an opportunity for communities to interact with newspapers and TV stations; however, newsrooms beware. Do not feed the trolls!

His name was CousinE and he was a Creighton basketball fan.

He loved his Blue Jays and hated Nebraska, and boy was he obnoxious about it. He spent much of his time lurking around ESPN.com's message boards, picking fights with anyone who disagreed Creighton was God's gift to basketball and Nebraska was the worst team ever.

I stopped posting on those message boards largely because they had become overrun with trolls like CousinE. I was there to discuss sports; they were there to instigate arguments by making fun of people and saying absurd things.

ESPN.com's only line of defense against trolls was a registration process that required a credit card confirmation. It didn't do much to deter troublemakers.

I even went as far as to join another sports chat forum with a more pretentious reputation. Unlike at ESPN.com, the administrators there would delete entire profiles and block users if they felt they were acting like trolls. That site ran a lot more smoothly and had fewer problems because the administrators were more intimately involved, reading the posts, deleting offensive material and locking unnecessary threads that maybe got off topic.

At the time, I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Just because you don't like what someone else is saying doesn't mean that it's any less valid. Or just because someone makes a controversial remark doesn't mean they have no place in the discussion.

But that only goes so far. Many of the trolls don't merely present their own opinions for the sake of fair and balanced discussion. Many of them are only there to cause trouble and therefore have no place in a rational discussion.

CousinE was a different kind of troll. I really didn't mind him in that respect. If he wants to believe Creighton is the best team in the history of the world, then that's his prerogative. I respect his right to voice that opinion. I just didn't expect to engage in any meaningful conversations with him.

The idea of free speech and censorship online is blurred with people falling on both sides of the fence. Recently the Washington Post shut down the comments section on a blog about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Jim Brady, executive editor of the washingtonpost.com, defended the decision to close the comments by saying that the Post's Web site is not a place where "people can use whatever vulgar language they want" or aim personal attacks at Post reporters and editors.

Brady is in the frame of thought that Web sites have standards they need to live up to and it is not a breeding ground for people who turn off their inhibition switch when conversing online. Jeff Jarvis from Buzz Machine sees comments online in a different light. Jarvis said, "Democracy and discussion are messy, like life so get used to it"

So you are left with two extremes and still the same problem. Rich Skrenta, CEO of Topix.net, believes that you should take the good with the bad while adding a little bit of association. The conversations changed tone on his Web site after including in each message where the message was posted.

The idea of having the location where the post was made gives the writer more of an identity and it beats complete censorship or just reckless abandon when it comes to online commenting. Some sort of happy medium must be made between the two extremes and I think that perhaps Skrenta is on to something here.

I spend quite a bit of time lurking around the Bluffton Today blogs. It's part of the work I'm doing for my thesis and usually, it's quite enjoyable.

That is, it was enjoyable until last week when I stumbled on a post that was so annoying, so over the top, so troublesome and irritating, I knew it could be just one thing: a troll.

Traditionally, trolls trawl other people's blogs looking for places where they can comment and cause problems. But this troll takes a different approach. He wields his blog like a weapon. There, wedged within the blogs on Bluffton, peaking out from the posts on pets, Buzz tucks in tempting tid-bits intended to incite turmoil and trouble

I know many people would call Buzz a baiter, a trouble maker, a troll. And, perhaps, he is. Still, I (and the other Bluffton bloggers) can't resist. We read the posts and the comments they draw, even though we know we shouldn't. We're just adding fuel to Buzz's raging bonfire.

Or are we? If the Internet can build a virtual community (and I, along with many others, contend that it can), then isn't Buzz a basic part of that? One of the many unfounded fears (Warning: PDF) about the Internet is that it allows people to seek out only the information they're interested in, that it gives them carte blanche to ignore divergent opinions, that it turns them into thoroughbreds, with their eyes focused on one thing and one thing alone: their opinion and the people who support it.

Don't get me wrong; trolls can be disruptive, dismissive and disagreeable. But they can also peel away those blinders and offer us a divergent opinion. Since when is that a bad thing?

My seven-year-old stepbrother once told my father, "I'm gonna beat your ass, Dad."

I could not believe my ears. I was even more surprised when my dad only wagged his finger.

The family dynamic has certainly changed since I was a kid, but so has the rest of the world — especially the Internet, where armies of renegade trolls roam in search of people to upset or slander. Like my stepbrother, trolls say the darnedest things on Internet forums, comment sections and other places where reasonable people congregate. And much of the time, they get away with it.

Trolls create real problems. Remember the pornographic images posted in Los Angeles Times editorials? How often do you see a potential libel suit in an online newspaper's comments section?

Webmasters cannot just leave these ne'er-do-wells alone. They have to think about ways to foil the crafty trolls, who, if they aren't seven to 17 years old, seem bent on reliving these years. Topix.net has learned how to decrease the number of trolls while increasing their number of comments.Their method has been so successful, the MSM has caught on.

Too bad they don't have technology that stops kids from cursing outside the Internet.

People say things online they would never say in person. To me, for instance.

When I ran a newspaper column detailing how I felt about Kansas State, they responded on the site in a big-time way. My e-mail was even uglier, if you can imagine that.

For whatever reason, people are not afraid to let their true feelings out when they do it behind a wall of anonymity. It makes online discussions more confrontational, and can even lead to situations where people say deliberately offensive things in order to bait for comments.

The New York Times recently wrote about online obituary site Legacy.com and the battle it has against offensive comments.

"When they're face to face at a funeral, people don't have the guts to do something like that and write something offensive," a funeral home embalmer said in the article.

Of course, online they have no qualms with it. One online observer even suggests forcing all commenters on newspaper sites to post a name. That way, the debate can be as transparent as possible.

I'm not quite ready to recommend that, but it is a solution that will get a lot more play as conversations usually reserved for barstools make their way into the online world.

As for myself, people can have at me all they want. I got the last laugh.

When I heard about iStockphoto, I called my photographer friend in Texas, thinking she would be outraged at the idea that companies can buy images for much less than her asking price. Her response was far from it.

"That seems like the ultimate American way," she observed. And she's right. "A work that can be sold is professional, no matter who did it," she said. Even if it's sold for a buck. There's room for her business in the market, no matter how cheap iStockphoto is. That's because she knows her job and she understands her market. Crowds of people may have created more challenges, but her product is high-end enough to attract a solid consumer base.

Crowdsourcing increases competition because more people are offering solutions outside the box. This increases the consumer's power. That's what capitalism is all about. The crowds of people change the dynamics of business, whether that business is graphics or media or pearl diving. To make it big, or to make it at all, everyone is forced to be more creative, build more skills, be more marketable. It's a bloodbath, but it's also more innovative than ever.

Dare I suggest that, rather than whine about crowdsourcing, people need to just... get a little tougher?

If you want to tell the thinkers at Gannett that their new crowdsourcing methods are bad for journalism, go right ahead.

But considering their stock has plummeted 30 percent since January, 2004, I don't think they're going to listen to you.

Instead they're going to continue with exactly what they should be doing—finding ways to improve the flow of information and give the people what they want. Their goals are simple: to emphasize local news over national, publish more user-generated content, get citizens involved in telling the news, and better utilize the Internet to create round-the-clock content.

That doesn't sound "bad" to me, just smart. This seems to be the direction the American media is going and perhaps other organizations will be left behind if they don't take the progressive steps Gannett is taking toward better serving its customers.

If that's not enough proof crowdsourcing is a smart idea, consider a Web site like InnoCentive.com. It's a research and development site devoted to finding solutions to problems facing all kinds of companies all over the world. Through crowdsourcing, it calls upon the collective knowledge of the public to overcome contemporary scientific challenges and problems. So what's wrong with that?

You couldn't possibly tell me with a straight face that having more people work at fixing scientific problems is a bad idea. It's the same in journalism; Gannett is merely ahead of the game.

I can remember taking my younger brother to his sixth-grade basketball game as if it were yesterday. In the second half, he misses a wide-open, uncontested lay-up. Now, I'm thinking to myself, while sitting in the bleachers, that I could have easily made that shot. Other times while sitting at home, I've watched football on television, witnessing million dollar receivers drop passes thrown to them by the quarterback, thinking to myself, that I could have easily caught that pass.

Maybe pro sports should "crowdsource" to me and let me dominate the playing fields. It's too bad that reality does not exist for me. But the idea of "crowdsourcing" does exist and has surprisingly, worked at a pretty sufficient rate.

Jessica Golden points out that "crowdsourcing" leads to high amounts of participation from the public.

Just ask former NBA player Dee Brown. The Jacksonville, Florida, native got his chance to work as a studio analyst, winning a competition setup by the World Wide Leader in Sports, called ESPN Dream Job.

With no journalistic background or news related experience, Brown became an instant hit for ESPN's coverage of pro basketball. Its one thing if you're good, but I can barely understand Brown when he speaks on-air. And you would think I would show him more sympathy than that, since we both hail from the same high school (The Bolles School).

In 1984, ESPN took a gamble with its NFL draft coverage, hiring then 24-year-old Mel Kiper, Jr. Without any journalism experience or playing experience for that matter, Kiper emerged as one of the top draft experts in football. His annual first round predictions rank as one of the best in recent memory.

The bottom line is that Brown and Kiper add content and improve the vision of ESPN. The trend continues with ex-athletes who retire from their respective sports - (using the excuse of wanting to spend time with their families) – and consequently are picked up by the network as valuable sources for its content.

The idea of crowdsourcing diminishes the role of an education. But then again, who needs an education these days when you can just go out and make things happen.

They say that two heads are better than one and, in most cases, I agree.

So when it comes to working together to get projects and/or assignments done, I feel that the more input received, the better. That is why I am in favor of this relatively new concept -- crowdsourcing.

Now, let me clarify -- do I believe that amateur, less-experienced folks can do the same type of work as professional journalists with years of experience? In a word: no. But I do think that they can provide valuable information to them.

Take, for example, the fact that crowdsourcing, while it may be a new concept, appears to be taking the world by storm. One Web site hosts an interactive discussion board forum where people can discuss the ever-changing world of crowdsourcing and can even attend meetings and round table discussions about the dang thing.

I wouldn't go that far -- but I do think that using all of the resources at ones disposal is a smart play in the long run.

And that's where people like interns and associates come in. I imagine that in the next couple of months, you will see this term being used a lot more with these types of people -- ones who aren't on the same level as someone else but are being asked to help out in various forms of crowdsourcing.

Even Business Week Magazine ran a story on companies using this technique. I think it's safe to say that it's here -- and it's here to stay. So why not jump on board?

Crowdsourcing could garner more eyeballs for advertisers, but at the expense of good journalism.

Gannett plans to involve its readers in the news — er, excuse me — information gathering process to a greater degree than most companies have in the past. But what motivated Gannett to implement crowdsourcing in the first place?

Critics say it's the money. The company has not planned any layoffs as part of this initiative. But the move may draw more readers to view advertisements if they feel involved in the news gathering process.

In a statement, Gannett's Senior Vice President of news Phil Currie links to a number of articles, both from the mainstream media and from bloggers.

"Not everything here is positive, of course," Currie said in the statement. "But some people didn't think the Wright brothers could fly, either."

Sound like an absurd comparison? I agree. The Wright brothers may have flown the Kitty Hawk, but Gannett seems to be piloting the Spruce Goose. What happens when Gannett cannot rely on news suggested by its readers after the company completely restructures its organizational culture?

In a world of publish-first-ask-questions-later, crowdsourcing will further damage the mainstream media's credibility for the sake of, as Uncle Rick likes to say, "selling eyeballs."

Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register, seems to approve of the Gannett paper's move to implement the crowdsourcing concept.

"We no longer want to be limited to the places we can get to ourselves; no matter how many other events we have to cover on a given day, we will immediately publish photos and information from your event because we've created an easy way for you to send it to us," Washburn writes.

Readers may just have to get used to seeing an unusual amount of smoke in the sky.

It's 7 am. Friday morning and I'm standing in line at the KCI Airport. I was supposed to be on a 6 a.m. flight to Georgia. Unfortunately, a bird smashed into the plane's wing, causing a catastrophic chain reaction that forced the airline to cancel the 6 a.m. flight just minutes before take-off.

After an Amazing Race-like dash to the ticket counter and a call to a helpful ticket agent, I'm trying to catch the 7:40 a.m. flight to Cincinnati, Ohio, and then on to Georgia.

When I left the ticket counter, I assumed I had a reserved seat on this flight and the next one, too. Now, the crowd in line around me insists that I do not. The guy behind me tells me none of us are going to make this flight.

"Do you have a boarding pass from Cincinnati to Savannah?" he asks, accusingly.

In fact, I do not.

"See," he says, "the airline knows you're not going to make this flight, so it's not giving you a boarding pass for the next leg, so it can give that seat to someone else, someone who IS going to make the flight."

Annoyed, I quickly turn around and focus on the guy in front of me, a Boy Scout leader who's supposed to take 30 kids backpacking later that night.

He tells me that the bird hit the plane last night at 11. "Why didn't the airline call us and let us know the flight would be canceled?" And then, "That must have been some bird, because they test the wings with frozen turkeys."

I picture a Boeing being bombarded by Butterballs and am immediately suspicious. I am in line with a crowd full of turkeys, I think to myself.

But this is my crowd and this is what they're sharing. Even though they have no reason to lie, I still feel the need to do my homework. And that's the thing with crowd-sourcing: ultimately, someone has to tell fact from fiction, truth from tale, rumor from revelation. And that person, when it comes to journalism and news, is a professional journalist, with the time, talent and expertise to do the heavy lifting.

You can't just take the crowd at face value, as I quickly learn during my airport affair. I do get onto the flight to Cincinnati and the one to Savannah, too, much to the dismay of the "negative Nick" who insisted I wouldn't.

And the turkeys? Well, that's not true, either. Go figure.

I was one of the many people who wasn't familiar with the term crowdsourcing before it was introduced in class.

Once I did some research, I realized I was familiar with what it is, just not the technical name.

I think of all the outside journalism topics we've talked about, this one interests me the least. Citizen journalism, podcasts and mashups are exciting things that I think one day I will take part in. But, crowdsourcing? I'm not sure.

It's no secret I want to be a sports journalist. It's known by everyone in class. When you're reporting about a game, I want someone who knows what they are talking about, someone who has a successful background and someone who is related to the sport I am watching.

However, crowdsourcing does have a minor spot in the sports journalism industry. When Trent Green suffers a concussion, sportswriters scramble to talk to trauma doctors about the repercussions of a concussion and the aftermath.

When a college basketball player gets shot on the streets of Pittsburgh, again sports journalists scramble to talk to people who know about crime. They don't always chase down policemen or crime experts, but sometimes people on the streets that know about how bad the crime is in a certain spot.

But, in my industry, a guy sitting around his garage working on his car all day isn't going to know before I do that a certain player has been suspended for the year or hurt or something similar.

I've been threatened by many of the topics introduced in this class this semester, but this is not one of them. I think I'm safe. And I'll stick to experts for my articles.

Okay, so I think I keep up with new technology pretty well.

I mean, I may still have a Nintendo 64, and my iPod is so old it doesn't work with Windows, but I read trendy sites like Slashdot.

That's why I was floored when our blog topic for the week featured a term I'd never heard outside of class: crowdsourcing.

Looks like Uncle Rick may be the first one on this bandwagon. The popular (and accurate) website Wikipedia said that the word was coined in June of 2006, just four months ago. It broke through into mainstream usage when the Gannett company, which owns many large newspapers, announced that crowdsourcing would be a big part of its future.

What's it all mean for newspapers? It means its time to quit forming exploratory committees to investigate new technologies, because the technology will be here and gone before you can find a date that works for everyone to meet.

Kudos to Gannett for taking a bold step into the future. I bet most newspaper bosses in America have never heard the term crowdsourcing, let alone considered implementing it in their newsroom. That kind of throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks attitude is exactly what newspapers need to thrive in the digital world.

And perhaps someday I'll be able to keep up with developments in technology as well as my professor.

I couldn't imagine life without my iPod. More to the point, I couldn't imagine life without music. I prefer to stroll around campus with my buds in my ears, rockin' out to my favorite tunes. That's the reason I have an iPod. (Actually, the indefinite article "an" is inaccurate considering I have two, thanks to the dead battery in my iPod Mini.)

The whole podcasting thing seems like an afterthought in the world of MP3 players. These days everyone is so obsessed with personalized content—blogs, TiVo, YouTube and now this? I don't want to download an MP3 of an interview or of two people talking in a studio. That kind of thing is boring enough the first time it's on the radio. That's why I only listen to the radio in the morning when I need some background noise to distract me from the fact that I'm too tired to stand.

Sorry, I just don't care enough about radio programs or amateur recordings to take the time to upload them to my iPod and listen to them.

Podcasts are essentially the answer to a question no one asked. They are merely a technological addition to blogs. The difference is, I can skim through a blog page, find one specific blog I want to read, skim through it to find the parts that interest me, and move onto the next one. What's more, I can do all this in the same amount of time it takes to even download an MP3 on my slow, high-traffic apartment complex network. Actually finding the time to listen to it is a different story.

It's not that there's anything wrong with podcasting. But when asked if it's already passé, my question is, did anyone ever listen to being with? I sure didn't.

This past weekend as I was in the grocery store, I spotted a young boy jamming out to music. There is nothing new about seeing people walk around with headphones attached to their heads. In fact, MP3 headphones are the fastest growing accessories. However, there was something that caught my eye about the boy jamming out to music. He was listening to music from his cell phone.

It is evident that MP3 players are becoming a major part of our society. It has been reported that 85% of teens choose to listen to music from their MP3 players rather than traditional radio. According to Neielsen ratings, podcasting is increasing among adults.

Cell phones can now function as MP3 players, allowing people to have the power to access music and podcasts all the time. Today, it is not uncommon to buy cell phones that are MP3 compatible. V-casting for Verizon users is a growing trend. It allows someone to download music, podcasts, and even music videos.

This technology allows listeners to have the power to listen to podcasts and music when they want to, and not be tied down to when networks or radios play programs or songs.

With this technology in our pockets or purses and going everywhere we go, listening to music and podcasts will only gain popularity. Our society is technology hungry. The growing fashion trend of headphones as accessories proves that MP3 players are a "must have" for anyone.

Yes, I hate to admit it, but I'm one of the millions of people that own not just any mp3 player, but an Apple iPod. Actually, it's an iPod mini to be exact. I bought it the summer after my sophomore year because it was the "in" electronic device to have on campus.

Apparently I wasn't the only person to pick up the iPod trend in 2005. According to apple insider, the number of iPod units sold in 2005 was about 35 million, an increase of almost 25 million from 2004!

I will say this though; I am not a music buff by any means. The sole purpose of me buying the iPod was for working out. It was light enough, small enough, and could carry all my music; just perfect for those long boring runs or grueling lifting sessions.

So the only place I wear my iPod is at the gym. Good thing too, because apparently, one is just a walking target for a mugging when they are wearing their distinct iPod headphones. In some parts of Britain, street muggings went up almost 40% in 2005! The object of the thieves' desire was the iPod.

This has become such a problem that Reece Myers, a 22-year-old invented invisible headphones for the iPod after witnessing a man being mugged at knifepoint for his MP3 player.

This whole mugging business makes me kind of nervous. I'll take a mental note and continue to wear my iPod where I've always worn it, only at the gym.

I've never downloaded a podcast, but that doesn't mean I would automatically cast off the medium. Hell, the term "podcasting" only surfaced in 2004 (pdf). (But don't say the word too loudly.)

Six million out of 22 million American adults who own mp3 players have tried downloading a podcast to their players, according to a 2005 Pew Internet and American Life Project report (pdf). The numbers look better for the younger generations. Half of adults between 18-28 who owned an mp3 player downloaded podcasts.

So podcasting seems to put up decent numbers, though I would like to see a better study before I write that with conviction. Does podcasting have the content? Maybe. If you want to listen to a podcast but can't decide on a subject, explore this site. Or check out NPR's podcast directory.

If you're still not convinced, wait until educational podcasting explodes. Podcasts featuring college lectures are anything but passé, especially if you're a student at Missouri or Berkeley.

Now what if online producers planted digital recorders in Budig lecture halls, recorded Sociology 101 and then posted the content on tv.ku.edu? That would increase site traffic.

Ever since I can remember, I have always lived by the philosophy of being "old school." That's means tucking in your shirt at all times – (yes, even while I workout in the gym), or carrying a briefcase – (I gave up on the whole backpack thing), or even listening to my AM/FM stereo cassette player with the side tuner!

I'm talking about the Walkman, man.

For every Saturday college football road contest, I prefer to use my walkman so I can listen to Bob Davis and David Lawrence provide the play-by-play and color of KU football games.

I'm of the generation where if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But that's not how the world works, unfortunately for me. Norman Lebrecht points out how the I-pod has replaced the walkman, not only changing the way people listen to music but also ruining the art of music itself.

With the recent I-pod boom, Sony got a clue about adjusting to the new times, recently giving birth to the NEW WALKMAN in Europe. Who knows? The birth of this WALKMAN could figure to become the next greatest accomplishment in the way people listen to music.

That's not to say that the I-pod is losing any sort of edge. Michael Gartner found out that the I-pod boom will continue for the next year and a half. And even despite any major changes, the I-pod still sells at a rapid rate. I-pod sticks to the claim that no competitors appear to pose any serious threat at this point.

However, don't tell that to Sony. The Japanese corporation looks to take a swing at the I-pod within the next fiscal year in the U.S. Now, Sony better be patient in the batter's box. If not, I don't see I-pod moving past its prime. But one thing is for sure, I will continue to live in the past.

This morning, I had to drive from my apartment in Lawrence to a diner in Kansas City.

As usual, I tuned the radio to NPR, my favorite station. After listening to stories on politics and cave exploration, the announcer warned me that Click and Clack were next on deck.

No offense to Click and Clack, but I really don't care how my car works. I know how to check the fluids and change the tires. That's all I need – or want – to know.

If this were 10 years ago, I could have been trapped in that moment, stuck listening to music I don't like or, even worse, Click and Clack.

Lucky for me, I had my trusty iPod in the passenger seat and it was packed with podcasts of the NPR programs I prefer: Driveway Moments, Story of the Day, Sunday Puzzle, Slice of Life Radio Essays. If NPR didn't fit the bill, I also had the BusinessWeek cover story, Lime and Violet, CraftyPod, CraftSanity …

I could go on … and on, because I LOVE podcasts. And so do a lot of other people (Warning: PDF). Podcasts are perfect for me, a child of the ‘80s who used to record radio shows for later listening using the cassette recorder on her boom box (for you youngsters out there).

Podcasting takes this process a step further, because I don't even have to do the recording. I just pick out the programs, plug in my pod and I'm on my way. It's timeshifting for radio and really, who wouldn't love that?

When it comes to sports journalism, if you're selling it, I'll probably buy it.

I'm one of those guys who just scowers the web, the newspapers and watches Channel 6 sports every night. I need to for my work.

So, if I have to pay eight bucks a month for jayhawkslant.com, I'll do it. If I have to buy ESPNEWS extra, I'll do it. But, listening to four local sports personalities talk about sports through my iPod, no thanks.

Call me crazy, but my iPod is for my music. It's not for sports, it's not for television shows, it's for my music. I am intensely passionate about sports, and am also extremely passionate about my music.

Specifically, about the southern rock group Widespread Panic. I'll download podcasts with their live music all day. To me, that's what podcasts are all about. Not, listening to four sports personalities talk about sports topics that have already been talked about on television, radio and in the newspapers.

I think podcasts are great for people who can't listen to their favorite radio program because of time constraints and more power to those people. I think it can be very helpful to them.

However, with the boat I'm in, I don't have time to wait around. I want my news and information as soon as it's available, and then that's it. I don't need personalities breaking it down for me, I'll do that on my own.

For music, it's another story though. That's why Ipods were created. If there is some live music that I can't get anywhere else, and I can have it on my iPod through a podcast, I'm all for it. I'm a weekly downloader of the Everyday Companion Podcast, for Widespread Panic.

But for news and sports, I'll pass and stick to the hundreds of other media outlets there already are.

The first time I downloaded and listened to a podcast I didn't know what I was doing ... or that the file I was listening to was a podcast ... or that the term podcast had even been invented. I know what you're thinking -- spare me, please.

And now, here I sit -- almost a year removed from that infamous day -- and I can't believe what I'm seeing. The revolutionary podcast -- that top-of-the-line, taking-the-world-by-storm craze that corrupted so much of our country -- seems to be heading towards the annals of history. Towards extinction. Done. No more. Thanks for playing.

Where was I when this memo was released? It seems like once I finally start getting into a new medium online, once I finally feel comfortable using the damn things, the next one is already coming out. Except in this case, I don't know what that "next one" is.

Do you know how I know? That is, do you know why I think podcasts are on the way out? Because iPods are on their way out, and you can't have one without the other. It's a rule; or maybe just a Man Law. Yes sir, once iPods are available integrated into tailored suits, it's game over. That's too far -- iPods and podcasts alike are losing some of their appeal. For serious!

As for me, I'll be sitting, waiting even, for the next technological "advancement" to appear. And when it does, I probably won't be ready. That's just the truth. And that's all I got.

While there are people that would like me to eat my words on podcasting, I'm not ready to concede defeat just yet.

Two years ago, when I was first introduced to the concept, I called it stupid, and said it would never catch on.

The principle is that people will download updated content, transfer it to their iPod, and then listen to it within a very short timeframe. I guess this a cool idea, but its no more than that, a toy in the window of a store that looks fun but is boring after about 15 minutes.

What problem does podcasting solve? What feature does it bring me that I find useful in my daily life? I just don't see it.

Now, it's taken off. Big time. But I can't see a long-term future in podcasting, and certainly not in podcasting-for-profit. The whole thing still has that appealing new-car smell to it, but in a few years, the audience will taper off and what's left of podcasting will return to normal mp3 files, like the rest of the world is using.

Another thing I find misleading is the projection that there is significant growth still to be found in the podcasting market. The statistic on the left shows that as the number of people using iPods increases, podcast listeners will grow with it. I think that podcasting is the sort of thing that only appeals to the early-adopter crowd, and when the late adopters come around on purchasing iPods, they will not become curious and check out podcasting.

Perhaps I'm just extremely cynical, but I see no future in podcasting. My iPod is now five years old, and I still find it useful without hooking it up to the latest podcast content.

Too many times I've had to type in "Lawrence" for the location of a story. And that's fine -- I guess. I mean, I don't know what else you would say: "Downtown," "West Campus," etc. But maybe we could use a GPS-type system to plot and archive all the stories we cover as a news organization and keep track of where breaking news hits.

Picture this: You are a multimedia reporter and you have the capability to log on to KUJH-TV news and find out how many stories have taken place in that location, or in that neighborhood, and how recently. You could also find the best way to get there, as other reporters would surely have instructed followers of their recommendations.

We could start keeping track of where news happens ... and on a larger scale, try and figure out why news happens there. It would be neat. Taking a page from a chicago Web site we could track where our reporters have been, what they reported on, and how long they were there. It would be easy to do follow up stories. Heck, we could even link to the exact location the story took place.

Implementation on the Web site would be easy. When a story happens at a certain location, the Web producer would enter it into the GPS database. When viewers read the story online, they could get information regarding what else has taken place there as well. We could link stories by location, not just date or reporter name. I think that would be helpful. You know, kind of like a, "Here's all the news that's happened in your neighborhood in the past month."

The next time I'm out on assignment, I could already be prepared. Is there a crazy neighbor who lives next door? Let's check the database. How many times has this particular person been interviewed by an overzealous 415 reporter? Four times? Let's find someone else. And it can all happen with a few easy clicks of a button.

After sitting and thinking about how I can incorporate GPS technology into tv.ku.edu, I sat looking at a blank screen with a blinking line. Alas, it came to me! We could monitor the bus system on campus. Of course our model would be chicagocrime.org, where you can check where what crimes happened in Chicago. The basis of our model would be the same, but I have a vision of a real-time gps system.

The information people would want would be displayed on the product's Web site and the actual tracking unit, the Trim TracXSwould be used to monitor the buses on campus. In order for this dream to become a reality we would use information from the Ku on Wheels route maps. Information such as what routes buses will run and their arrival and departure times are key.

The concept is an easy and efficient one to implement. If you were ever on campus and needed a ride, it would be beneficial to just look on a Web site to see where the nearest bus was and how long it would take to be where you needed to be. The only problem with this design is the cost. One site has the product listed as $469.95 plus a monthly fee to track your vehicles. The monthly plans range from $8-$1,000.

With that said, I believe it would be good a good idea and would bring traffic through tv.ku.edu, but the cost effectiveness of this idea might still be up for debate.

Okay, so I won't lie…I'm just biding my time until later this week, when I get a chance to rip into podcasting.

But for this week, I do have a cool idea. A sortable restaurant map.

Here's my vision: type your address into the map, and you'll get a Google map with pinpoints on the 20 or so restaurants closest to you. You can then sort them by:

-What's open at that time -What places serve food in your price range -Whether they have a drive-thru or offer delivery -What kind of food is served -Their rating (from a critic or other users) -Other exciting things I haven't thought of yet

Since such a database does not exist yet (although Lawrence.com is pretty close), the main challenge would be inputting all the data. Once it was in, there would be a fairly low level of maintenance, because restaurants don't change names or hours very frequently.

While this concept may not be as "newsworthy" as some of the others, I think it would be a valuable addition to the tv.ku.edu site, and would be relevant to the station's target audience. After all, there is a new group of freshmen coming in every year who don't know the town.

I may not have the most ambitious idea, but I think it is a solid, workable proposal. Thoughts?

Some want game scores and stats texted to their cell phones — I want crime stats. Why? Besides feeding my morbid curiousity, crime updates via cell phone would keep me safer.

I would want to know when and where reported crime occured nearby. Cell phones have GPS devices implanted; it's about time someone put them to use.

Say I'm driving on I-70 near Lawrence, and a high-speed car chase ensues behind me. I would have no way of knowing this, except if a radio DJ monitoring a police scanner announced the chase on the air. An old Camarro enters my rearview mirror with police cruisers in tow. I don't have time to react; the speeding vehicle slams into mine.

A simple text message might have saved me.

How would KUJH-TV news do this? Chicagocrime.org uses "Citizen ICAM" (Information Collection for Automated Mapping). This allows the public to query crimes reported to the Chicago Police Department.

But if chicagocrime.org only displays crime reported seven days ago, a major shortcoming of the site, how could we deliver up-to-the-minute crime reported in, say, a five-mile radius of a client's cell phone?

Why, work with the police, of course. In "Black Dahlia Avenger," Steve Odell writes that newspapers used to work with police departments closely. Elizabeth Short's (a.ka. the Black Dahlia) body was first identified when a Los Angeles newspaper collaborated with the Los Angeles Police Department by sending Short's fingerprints to the paper's Washington bureau, where newspaper employees forwarded the prints to the F.B.I. Adversarial relationships between the two today would prevent such collaboration.

Police may cringe at providing cell phone text messages for blotter. But what if Lawrence police and KUJH-TV could issue an amber alert through a cell phone text message? Everyone would benefit.

Coda: I'm not surprised that some cities have already implemented this system. But the question is this: How can the media contribute?

Apparently, I'm paying too much rent.

My checkbook register could have told me that, but, well, it's an unreliable resource, what with me in charge of balancing it and all.

No, it's not my meager checkbook balance that has me questioning my accommodations and how much I pay for them. It's the Rentometer, one of the newest mashups on the Internet.

What's a mashup? I'm so glad you asked. A mashup is a conglomeration of different Internet items all mashed together to create something new. Rentometer, for example, combines a map with a rent database.

Mashups got their start in the music industry and have taken on a life of their own since then. Programmableweb, for example, offers a list of the 1,143 most popular mashups. Yes, that does say 1,143. It said 1,122 two days ago.

And there are so many more mashups still out there, waiting to be discovered. I've even come up with a few of my own:

• BikeHike: Bike thefts are pretty common at KU, but where are you most likely to be robbed of your ride? Find out with this mashup that combines campus crime stats with a map of KU.

• ParkingProject: You're not a true Jayhawk unless you've gotten at least one parking ticket. And well, one really is enough, isn't it? This mashup starts with a map of KU and then pinpoints the places (and times) you're most likely to get a ticket, using information from the Parking Department.

• SportsShorts: Combine KU sports statistics from all teams (both revenue-producing and non-) with a map of U.S. colleges and universities and you'll be able to find out how likely it is that the Jayhawks will win while on the road.

• SmashMash: Plot the Lawrence bars on a map and then plot the crimes that occur at them. Combine that with a database of drink deals (courtesy of The Kansan) and you've got quite the mixed drink mashup. Cheers!

Disclaimer: Mashups can be addictive. Mash at your own risk.

After much debate and examining the things close to me, video is the key to the online business model. I recently purchased a Sony Ericsson w810i cell phone and it does all sorts of great things. One of the most intriguing things is that I can watch streaming Internet television via mobiTV. This service is a subscription-based service, where you pay a free to see the content you want, but I knew way before most of my friends about Cory Lidle's tragedy because I watched it happen on my cell phone.

The power of video is at an all-time high, but its stock can only getting higher. Amazon is starting to push the envelope with its Amazon Unbox. Amazon is currently using the merchant model of business online, but the Unbox is using a form of subscription-based services as well. NBC is also toeing the line into the unknown by offering the current episodes of their programming online each week for free. This is done through a form of the intromercial business model, which puts ads in front of video content. I used this last week to view episodes of Heroes and Studio 60.

Finally Apple is trying to blur the lines of convergence with the advent of iTV. This new product will allow people to watch streaming content on their TV. With the future of the online business model up in the air one thing is for certain, video will line the golden brick road.

Chances are, I can do something you can't.

That's right. In the ever-changing world of online journalism, I am a cut above the rest. I have access to Web sites that you don't ... that is, unless you are also a subscriber to Sports Illustrated online or Rivals.com.

How many times have you tried to read a story online only to be told to enter your username and password, or to sign up for a free 7-day trial? The answer is probably at least once. If that's the case, then you know what I'm talking about when I say that not all content is free. Just because something is out there in cyberspace doesn't mean Joe Schmoe can access it.

True, revenue generating Web sites can be frustrating, but can you blame them? Why not charge a fee to access content when millions of people worldwide will pay? The answer is, "You had better, especially if you want to be a major competitor in the dog-eat-dog world of online journalism.

My Rivals.com account is a must. Many would argue that my only advantage by having such an account is knowing about breaking news merely days, or in some cases hours, before the rest of the world. I usually can't hear those critics because I'm too busy reading breaking sports news that they can't get access to. I win!

On the other hand, my SI.com account came free with my subscription to the Sports Illustrated magazine -- sort of an added advantage to joining the popular SI world. Regardless, I am still paying for access to certain information to readily available to the majority of the public.

In the future, I predict that many more Web sites will more towards a pay-to-read system. Not because it is the right thing to do, but rather because it will be the popular thing to do. And I plan to be on board when it happens.

I was watching an old episode of Futurama the other day. The beginning of the episode focused on Fry's most recent dream, which actually turned out to be an extremely effective advertisement for Lightspeed Briefs, the underpants of the future.

While technology may not be to the point of beaming ads directly into our brains, it often seems like that's the direction things are going. The most recent technology, AdSense, is getting there. The future will be all about customizable ads that change depending on who's looking. While AdSense may not be that tricky just yet, it can choose an ad depending on the content of the Web site or the keywords in a Google search, and that ought to frighten us.

This technology is increasing the likelihood that consumers will pay attention. The great thing about traditional media is if I don't want to pay attention to ads, I really don't have to. I can flip the page in a magazine, I can change the channel on the TV and I can tune into a different radio program. It's harder to write off banner ads on Web sites because they're on the same page as the content. In that sense, there's not much difference between an AdSense ad and a 1/3-page ad on a magazine except now the ads have the ability to change, which appeals more to viewers.

AdSense isn't perfect, and maybe it never will be. It's just interesting to think about the crazy things advertisers are coming up with to sell us crap we don't need. I fear we will soon miss the days when ads were easy to ignore. The new era of advertising is on the horizon, I just hope I get something more exciting than Lightspeed Briefs in my first dream ad.

I've always thought of the internet as being something free for my entertainment. Only now do I realize that the internet might not be as free as I thought it was.

Many of the good sports recruiting web sites I liked to visit, such as Rivals.com were free, but now you have to pay to get all the good info. I'm sorry, I can't afford $9.95 a month or $99.95 annually, just to get the inside scoop on KU athletics. That price is too much for me to handle considering I'm not a psycho fan. Stats and figures of high school juniors considering KU as one of their top six schools is not worth paying to view.

Apparently though, paying for content is something that many people don't have a problem with. In 2002, the Online Publishers Association conducted a survey and found that 12.4 million Americans paid for some type of content in the first quarter of 2002, compared with 7 million in the first quarter of 2001. This doesn't even include people paying to visit pornography sites! The survey showed people were paying to visit news sites, financial/business sites, even online greeting card sites.

More recently, consumer content spending in 2003 grew to nearly $1.6 billion, which was an 18.8 percent increase over 2002. The three most popular categories were personals/dating, business/investment and entertainment/lifestyles. The personals/dating sites generated the most revenue. The numbers just keep rising every year. If you're a company, why not make your content pay to view. People will apparently pay for it.

I guess they don't seem to have a problem with paying to view what they want. I personally, will not pay for any content. It might have to do with the fact that I'm a poor college student, but if you search hard enough, you can get what you're looking for for free. Just a few more clicks to find what you want is worth saving $9.95 a month.