I’m sad to report that funding for BeatBlogging.Org will run out on Sept. 1 of this year.

Being the editor of BeatBlogging.Org has been a great ride. I’ve learned a lot about how beat reporters are adapting to the Web, how social media is changing journalism and where journalism is heading.

Working with NYU’s Jay Rosen has been a great learning experience. It’s very invigorating to work with someone who is interested in answering, “what’s next?” And in journalism, that’s the No. 1 question we all must answer.

What’s next for me? I don’t know yet. I hope to be able to contribute to the search for journalism next.

I’m interested in pushing journalism forward, in finding new ways to deliver content to people, in making journalism work on the Internet. We need journalism now more than ever, but journalism must adapt to fit new mediums, new paradigms and new ways of consumption.

I’m interested in working with people who want to move forward, not fixate on the past. I’m interested in working with people who believe that the Internet can offer incredible possibilities for journalism. I’m interested in working with people who want to fight to make journalism better, even in this dark hour.

I believe in journalism. I believe in the power of the Internet. And I believe that the Internet and journalism can work together to make incredible content and products for the world.

The fate of BeatBlogging.Org is undecided for now. I can at least assure you that the site will not be going away, as it is too strong of a new media brand to let die or even languish.

BeatBlogging.Org has certainly made me a better journalist and more prepared to fight the battles that lie ahead. I know that we travel a perilous road in journalism, but it’s a journey worth taking. The world needs good journalism.

Microsoft gets a lot of grief for many of the things that it does, but we should at least give Microsoft credit for being willing to reinvest profits into research and development.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he is willing to invest up to $11 billion in search over the next five years. I have a much better idea for Ballmer. Instead of investing in the future, why doesn’t Microsoft consider buying yesterday’s companies — with yesterday’s business models — instead?

That model has been a rousing success for the newspaper industry. The supposed high-minded, civic-minded Fourth Estate has been mostly about profits the last few decades (with some exceptions), while supposed money-grubbing companies like Microsoft take nothing for granted.

Imagine that, a company with robust profits using those profits to invest in the future? Get out. Unheard of.

“When I was in college, a professor said, ‘Beware of the Internet.’ Everyone and anyone is a ‘journalist’ or ‘writer’ because of it. Six years later, I owe the Internet a big hug, because before my memoir Rattled! there was Storked! on glamour.com. But I do consider myself a real writer, and my stories are genuine.”

That quote comes from well-known blogger Christine Coppa. She has been making a living off of her blog and now has a book out based on her blog. She’s very fortunate that she didn’t listen to her professor.

I can’t help but wonder how many aspiring journalists received sage advice like that only a few years ago. Imagine how much that has impacted the journalism industry? Worse still, many journalism professors still don’t get the power of the Internet and openly believe it will be (or has been) the downfall of journalism.

That’s a shame. So what if everyone is a journalist because of the Internet? As we are seeing right now in Iran, the revolution will be tweeted.

Bloggers like Andrew Sullivan are helping to make sense of it all. In fact, the mainstream media has been woefully inadequate when it comes to covering Iran and the recent election. Thank God for Twitter, blogging and social media.

When everyone becomes a journalist, we’ll be a more active, engaged and informed citizenry. When everyone is a journalist, corruption will find it tough to incubate; tyranny will have no place to hide.

There is still a place for professional journalists. Citizens can help report what they experience in their lives, but journalists can still put together the trend and analysis pieces. Professionals can also curate citizen content.

The Internet is a win-win for everyone. Well, accept the corrupt, the despotic, the tyrannically, the unethical.

It’s clear, however, that students should avoid the Internet at their own peril.

I have been discussing the idea of starting a new journalism podcast with some people and would appreciate your feedback.

This podcast would be different from диваниthe existing podcast series on BeatBlogging.Org. It would involve multiple hosts and would attempt to be newsy, lively and fun. We would also have guests on and interview interesting people in the news business.

What kinds of topics would you like to see us cover? What kind of focus would you like to see this show have? Would you even be interested in a new journalism podcast?

My model for this podcast would be Buzz Out Loud — something that people can learn from, while also finding it entertaining.

Everything is in very early stages right now, but it’s never too early to get feedback and suggestions from our potential audience and community.

A group of newspaper execs met this week to discuss the best ways to collude; I mean “support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.”

Rather than comment on these legally-challenged meetings, I’m here to offer some suggestions for charging for news. Let’s assume that newspaper leaders have committed to charging for news. Here are my suggestions for what to do and what to avoid:

1. You can’t charge for something that has been free for years without drastically improving it — The idea of putting existing journalism content that has been free for years behind a pay wall is laughable at best. More realistically, it’s suicidal. People simply will not find value in it. After all, it was free for years. What’s changed now? Your balance sheets? People don’t care about that. Unless you are suddenly going to hire all those reporters that you laid off back, don’t even dream about charging for existing content. In fact, most newspapers offer an inferior product today than they did five years ago.
2. People won’t pay for the police blotter – Just because you spend time “reporting” on a subject, doesn’t mean people will pay for it. Consider carefully what you want to charge for and not charge for. I’m not saying to give up the police blotter, I’m just saying to not even dream about charging for it.
3. It’s much easier to charge for a new product or feature that was never freely available — It’s much easier to convince someone of the value of a product or feature that was never available before. It’s new. It can be “premium.” If the feature rocks and adds value to people’s lives, it might just work. This is where news orgs need to concentrate their efforts on. “What can be create new that people will find valuable?” That’s what newspaper execs should have really been discussing.
4. Even if a news org develops products & content worth paying for, it still needs plenty of good, free content – A uniform pay wall with all content behind it is suicide. How will a news org find new users? It won’t. Any news org hoping to survive and thrive long term needs a strategy that caters to current users while also cultivating new users. Even though most people coming from search engines, Twitter, aggregators, etc aren’t loyal users, they all offer the ability to convert random users into loyal users. Even pay wall-hero The Wall Street Journal has a mix of free and premium content. Same with ESPN.com. There must be a free-premium model at work. And the free content should satisfy 90 percent of users.
5. Premium products for premium users — You want to develop premium products for premium users. Premium users are dedicated and loyal. They check a Web site several times a day, not a month. Not all users are created equal. Steve Yelvington points out that news orgs offer a tale of two audiences — one casual, one dedicated. We want free products for the casual, while also developing premium features, products, access and even user interfaces for the dedicated.
6. A pay wall won’t protect print — People who left aren’t coming back to print. This is the worst possible reason for a pay wall, and yet some news orgs are hoping that a pay wall will save print. MediaNews president Jody Lodovic said, ”The whole idea is to stop the erosion from print to online and encourage people to become print subscribers.” Many people simply don’t want to be print subscribers anymore, especially to a daily newspaper. Everyday that goes by another person from a previous generation dies, while several more who will live their whole lives with the Internet are born. I’m 24; I’ve spent most of my life with the Internet. I’m not going back.
7. Think outside the box — I’m not a fan of charging for content. Most newspapers have never done this. We charged for a product — a printed newspaper. People also paid for delivery of said product. I already pay for Internet access and a computer (printing and distribution in the digital world). I’m not also paying for basic content. Instead, newspapers should concentrate on charging for what they always have — platforms and products. That’s really what a newspaper is. Ideas like the Times Reader are a step in the right direction (premium user interfaces and experiences for premium users). Mobile apps present another avenue to charge with. Why not charge for access and community? That’s one thing newspapers should do well.

Getting people to pay for a product isn’t rocket science. It usually starts with understanding what people are willing to pay for.

Dear Sam Zell,

I recently noticed that your company has filled for bankruptcy protection. I think I can help.

Can I turn things around? No, but I think I can run things less poorly. You and your management team managed to sink Tribune into bankruptcy in less than two years.

Those are skills far beyond what I offer. But I offer my skills for less. If you’re going to fail, why not fail cheaply?

I’m confident that I can run any number of businesses into the ground — whether they be newspapers or financial institutions like AIG. Unlike, however, business executives who claim that they deserve their high salaries and bonuses even when they perform poorly, because “it’s the only way to keep ‘top talent,’” I can deliver the same caliber of results, without having a drastically overinflated view of my self worth.

I know I’m not worth millions a year in salary and bonuses, especially when my company is filing for bankruptcy or asking for a federal bailout. I understand that in a real capitalistic society, you get paid based on your performance, not based on what you the little elf in your heads tells you you’re worth.

Would I have foreseen the wisdom of an over-leveraged $8.2 billion buyout for a newspaper company in 2007? No, that level of incompetence is usually reserved for the most incompetent incompetents. I cannot go toe-to-toe with you or the new Tribune executive team.

But I can do it for less. If you’re having financial problems, why not consider somebody just as unlikely to turn around your sinking ship, but who is willing to do it for less? I’ll accept a salary half of what the average top Tribune executive makes and will only accept a bonus if the company does well and isn’t receiving a federal bailout or in bankruptcy.

I also guarantee that I have better ideas how to turn your company around.

To illustrate why I believe I’d make a better CEO for Tribune, I’ve put together this handy pros and cons list.

Pros of Sam Zell:

• Swears a lot.
• Can convince people to help him purchase companies that have little future for a lot of debt.
• Agrees that Tribune executives are overpaid.
• Is at least entertaining to have around.

Cons of Sam Zell:

• Doesn’t have the first clue how to run a newspaper company (at least one with $13 billion in debt).
• Can convince people to help him purchase companies that have little future for a lot of debt.
• Once told employees that “Everyone likes pussy. It’s un-American not to like pussy.” He’s 67-years old. It was creepy.

Pros of Patrick Thornton:

backgammon free casino money free craps game play free black jack craps video poker strategy play black jack online how to win video poker casino game online uk best casino online casino secure online gambling jackpot casino online casino black jack learn to play craps how to win at video poker craps online blackjack casino game online casino betting free on line video poker casino games no download casino online gambling casino play free casino slots video poker machine bonus video poker free on line slots double bonus video poker free video poker games free casinos roulette online craps rules free on line casino rules of craps online casino free money blackjack 21 internet casino how to play craps free casino game download fortunelounge online casino free casino download free casino card game free roulette game free casino play no deposit free money casino internet casino online
• Swears a lot.
• Cannot convince people to help him purchase companies with no future.
• Has actually worked for a newspaper.
• Doesn’t have overinflated view of self worth that will cost company tens of millions.

Cons of Patrick Thornton:

• Doesn’t have the first clue on how to run a newspaper company as poorly as Tribune.
• Tweets too much.

Sam, even if you insist on keeping yourself on staff, why not get rid of all those overpaid motherfucker executives at Tribune and hire me to do their collective jobs. What’s the worst that could happen? Tribune goes bankrupt?

Quality always matters, but with blogging so does quantity.

The more often you blog, the more traffic you’ll get. It’s that simple.

Someone who blogs a few times a month will get a lot less traffic than someone who blogs a few times a week. Both of them will get less traffic than someone who blogs daily. All of them will get less traffic than someone who blogs multiple times a day.

Why?

As the LA Times’s Tony Pierce explained, if you blog too infrequently, people will just occasionally check in on your blog to catch up. If you have good daily content, people will come daily. There is a big difference between a user coming daily to your site, instead of weekly or a few times a month.

A really good blog will have content several times a day. Now, many of your users will come to your site multiple times a day. All the sudden the amount of visitors your blog is getting has exponentially increased.

Now many of you may be saying, “Wait a second, you don’t post daily, let alone multiple times a day.” And that’s because traffic isn’t my main concern on this blog. This is just my personal blog, but if I were blogging professionally (like say BeatBlogging.Org), I’d try to have at least seven pieces of content a week.

Now BeatBlogging.Org serves a really niche audience and is a non-profit that isn’t concerned with driving massive amounts of traffic, so it’s not even the greatest example. If I were a beatblogger about an NFL football team, for example, I’d make sure to have content multiple times a day. Trust me, with a mainstream, popular beat like NFL football, people will check in many times a day, searching for new content.

How to get more quantity without sacrificing quality:

• Breaking posts up — If you’re used to writing long, “definitive” posts for print, stop it. Many posts are better broken up into digestible chunks. Plus all that background you have to throw into many print stories can be tossed out. Links will suffice, and your blog already provides all the background user’s need. On the Web, people are much more likely to read four 500-word blog posts than they are to read one 2,000-word blog post. By breaking posts up into digestible chunks, you can make it easier for your readers to comprehend what they are reading, while also getting more content without sacrificing quality.
• Link journalism — Every blogger should engage in link journalism, the practice of curating links to useful content around the Web on a beat. This is an easy way to create quality content that user’s will love. I have link journalism in the side rail of this blog, and it’s updated several times a day. I might break it out into separate blog posts, but the point is link journalism is a good way to get more content on your blog. Sites/tools like Publish2 make link journalism incredibly easy.
• Don’t be afraid of lists and bullets — A lot of journalists can get overwhelmed by the thought of blogging because they are used to writing inverted pyramid stories that have to flow a certain way, but good blogging doesn’t have to be so formulaic or time consuming. A good blog will sometimes just have posts that are almost entirely a bullet-point list. People love lists because they are so easy to digest. Plus, it’s easier to write a post centered around a bulleted list than it is to write a standard print story. The easier it is to produce content, the more you can produce.

Here are the previous posts in this series:

• How to get people to read your blog
• How to build a community

Well, I haven’t heard from Gannett yet about my application to become their new brand/wealth/good will destroying CEO.

So, I can only assume that either my bid is going really well and they are just figuring out how to break the news to Dubow (my best guess) or they are gearing up for a proxy fight.

Either way, I’m anxiously awaiting my coronation.

15 billion photos have now been uploaded to Facebook:

The latest numbers the company has shared with us include 15 billion photos uploaded in total, an average of 220 million new pictures posted each week, and at its busiest, 550,000 images being loaded each second.

Somehow news organizations lost sight of the fact that people love photos.

Instead they poured money and resources into newer, trendier fads, while neglecting a market they should be owning. What makes this even more inexcusable is how much money news organizations — especially newspapers — spend on cameras. Why give a photographer $10,000-20,000 worth of equipment for just a few shots to appear in the newspaper and online?

Still today most news organizations are only uploading a few photos from events that they take hundreds or even thousands of photos at. Still today news organizations are passing up events like high school proms, even though they are fantastic community and brand building events (and they will generate a ton of traffic and time spent). Still today most news organizations don’t allow users to upload photos to their Web sites.

Instead, people are uploading billions of photos to Facebook, Flickr, TwitPic and other sites. Imagine if those photos (and those eyeballs) were instead on news orgs’ Web sites? Imagine if news orgs tried to aggressively sell photos? Imagine if news orgs sold user-submitted photos and developed a profit-sharing model?

I hear all this talk about videos and databases and iPhone apps and Web ninjas, when news organizations could be making a killing by just utilizing something they have done well for decades: photos. Why have we lost sight of the fact that people love photos?

A few suggestions:

• If you attend a community event like a high school football game and take hundreds of photos (or thousands), upload hundreds of photos.
• Make photos big and beautiful. If my high school can do it, any news organization can too.
• Make buying photos incredibly easy. Again, if my high school can do it, any news organization can too. Check out their awesome photo buying system. Just click on the photos you want (with add to basket button under each photo), go to check out and select the sizes and quantities you want. Really simple.
• Allow users to upload photos. This is especially big for community events like parades, festivals, proms, sporting events, etc. Just check out how many people are at each of these events with digital cameras. We want their photos.
• Forget about captioning every photo. It’s a huge time sink that often delivers zero value (how many original captions could one sporting event really have?). Stop thinking about captions for community events and start thinking about tags.

To whomever it may concern,

I’m writing to apply for the position of CEO of Gannett.

I think I can do the job cheaper, quicker and better-ish than your current CEO Craig Dubow. As I’m sure you’re aware, Gannett lost 79% of its market value in 2008. Now, I can’t guarantee that I can lose that much share holder value in one year, but I sure can try. And I can try, for less.

Check out this chart I’ve put together showing Gannett’s stock price since Craig took over. I will grant that it took a lot of hard work to get it to move this much:

Craig made $3.1 million last year. I’m willing to destroy just as much share holder value and provide just as little vision as Craig but for a fraction of the cost. I am asking for a mere $999,999.99 — less than a third of what Craig makes.

It’s a bargain for sure. You can even tell your shareholders that your new CEO “doesn’t even make a million dollars a year!” This compensation may seem like charity work to some, but for me it’s not about the money. It’s about the expense account, company car, huge corner office and personal secretary to read my e-mail for me (I don’t really do that whole technology thing).

Since we both know that Gannett is not going to do well in 2009, why not save yourselves $2 million+ by going with someone like me? And we could even take that $2 million+ in savings and keep around dozens of lower-level employees (like those reporter people), because it is they that will ultimately create value for this company. But shhh, we’ll keep that on the down low.

I think I can deliver a performance twice as good as Craig’s 2008 performance (or is that twice as bad? Is this a double negative thing?) for a fraction of the cost. Win-win my friends.

Sincerely,

Patrick Thornton