Just because a company and an industry thrived off of legacy media, doesn’t mean the Web owes them anything.

The Web doesn’t owe us money. It doesn’t owe us market share. And we can’t force consumers to not enjoy the Web and want to get products and services over it.

That’s not how things work. We have to court the Web, not the other way around.

If you want to make money off the Web, make something cool and useful. Make something that people really want. You know, like what people did back in the day.

Andy Dickinson put it well:

It (the Web) doesn’t care that you have been doing this for years, you have to earn your eyeballs like everyone else. Telling us that you deserve special treatment sounds a bit like a multinational bank saying it needs a handout because of the credit crunch. Cause and effect.

Obviously, this applies to the journalism/newspaper industry, where many journalists openly yearn for the “Good old days.” Those might have been the good old days for some people (technologically challenged journalists and publishers), but they certainly weren’t for our readers and our audience. People love getting news on their computers and mobile devices.

I’m tired of hearing about crippled Web products that are designed to get people to buy the print version. We should be able to make money off of our Web products, without a print tie in.

But this isn’t some journalism-specific phenomenon. Just about every major media industry believes the Web owes it something.

The recording industry and the idiotic RIAA are trying to get Congress to subsidized their last-century business model with a tax on everyone’s Internet service. As if Americans should be forced to pay a tax to prop up an industry that refuses to adapt and adjust. That’s not our problem. That’s ridiculous.

The movie industry and the MPAA has been fighting joining the digital revolution even more fiercely than the RIAA. Yes, some movies are finally available to download or digitally rent, but the MPAA makes new releases wait a month after their DVD release before they can show up on the Web.

Why? Because the MPAA can’t give up on DVD sales. The MPAA is hoping people will want to see a new release so badly that they’ll buy the DVD in that month time frame. You know that month when a new release is ridiculously overpriced, sometimes well over $20 for a single movie.

The television industry also has had a tough time embracing the Web. In fact, CW has to be the poster child for not getting the Web. CW’s premier show, Gossip Girl, was a huge hit on the Web. Such a big hit, that CW is hoping that by no longer offering it on the Web it will boost TV ratings.

I couldn’t make that up if I wanted to. You have a large, loyal following (most of which are young and tech savvy), but they aren’t following the medium you prefer, so you are going to risk alienating them in order to force them onto a legacy medium? That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

In fact, looking back on things, the journalism industry might be the least backwards. We’ve got some great Web products in the journalism industry. Heck, we’ve even got some newspapers going online only.

Maybe our new goal should be to do the opposite of whatever the RIAA and MPAA do. That means giving our customers exactly what they want. That should always be our goal.

Rob Curley has had an unofficial mission statement at the newspapers he has worked at: Build cool shit.

That’s the only way we are going to turn around the journalism industry. With that in mind, here is some cool Web journalism shit to check out:

1. Lawrence Journal-World - Anything this paper and its parent company spits out is worth checking out.
2. Las Vegas Sun: Flight Delay Calculator - It’s a great idea and implementation. I’d like to see print do this. Oh wait, print can’t.
3. onBeing - Spend 10 minutes on this WashingtonPost.com feature and you’ll be convinced just how cool this feature is.
4. EveryBlock - Get information (news, crime statistics, real estate listings, etc, etc, etc) about your city and neighborhood down to the block level. It’s a great concept that only works on the Web. Too bad it is only in three cities so far.
5. The New York Times: The Met’s New Greek and Roman Galleries - This feature allows us to actually experience the Met’s galleries. We have 3D steerable photos, audio narration and more. It’s the next best thing to actually getting to see the galleries in person. It would also make a fine companion piece for someone who attends the galleries and wants to learn more.

The inverted pyramid might still have a place in journalism, but it doesn’t make sense as the dominant writing style on the Web.

In fact, the beauty of the Web is that each story can have a different writing style. And story lengths are no longer dictated by arbitrary space constraints in print publications. The Web has liberated journalism writing.

Blogs have flourished because they don’t have any legacy writing ideals to uphold. Bloggers just write, and they write in the formats that make sense for each individual post. Bloggers also aren’t afraid to make short posts every time new information comes in — instead of collecting all the information for one long, inverted pyramid story.

It’s time for publications that haven’t started rethinking written content on the Web to do so. There are some mainstream journalists already mixing things up, and a great place to look for inspiration is the world of sports journalism.

Most sports journalists become journalists because they love and want to cover sports. Many news and features reporters become reporters because they love to write. That’s a large disconnect that explains why most of the more innovative written content on the Web comes from sports journalists.

That’s why places like ESPN.com don’t have problems breaking standard journalism conventions. The people who work for ESPN.com love sports. And while many of them might love writing, sports is their real passion.

Ultimately, we are in the reporting business. Our job is to report in the most concise and appropriate form possible. Even now that we have a myriad of tools like video, audio, multimedia, databases, etc to work with, written content still makes the sense for the majority of stories (I often won’t click on stories at CNN.com that don’t have a written version. Sometimes I just don’t want to watch a 3-5 minute video report.).

When we talk about writing on the Web, however, we shouldn’t look to print as an inspiration. Writing for print, especially newspapers, has several limitations. Space being a major one.

Many reporters are told they need to write a 15-inch story, for example. Not because the story should be 15 inches, but because that much space must be filled in the newspaper. So, the story might be stretched a bit, or simply cut short, often leaving out important details.

Thats the kind of pitfall we can avoid on the Web. Sometimes a story only needs a few paragraphs, other times it needs more. That’s a fact that bloggers have been exploiting for years.

The inverted pyramid makes sense for publications that have to worry about space. When someone writes a story in that format (most important information first, least important last), it makes cutting words, sentences and paragraphs for space really easy. But space (in that sense) is not a consideration.

But that’s just the tip of how we can rewrite and rethink written content on the Web. One of the most useful ways to write on the Web is completely unlike the inverted pyramid or the standard five-paragraph essay we wrote in school — writing with vignettes or bullet points.

ESPN.com is filled with a ton of written content. Much of, however, is not like standard journalism writing. Mel Kiper Jr., for instance, graded every NFL teams’ draft today, but he didn’t write it like a standard story. He broke it down in 32 individual vignettes that fit together into a total package. It allows users to easily find which teams they care about, while also not making this written piece seem as long as it is (it’s about 4,500 words, but it feels like a breeze).

ESPN.com also had a fantastic draft blog by Pat Yasinskas. Some posts are more than 600 words, while others are two sentences. Other posts are mostly bullet points.

One things you’ll surely notice is how each post is clear, concise and to the point. The posts are not written in the standard inverted pyramid style. They are just written in a logical way that makes sense.

In our Army/Navy special feature from last fall, I compiled some key statistics about the game. I could have written it like a standard story with complete sentences and paragraphs, but it made much more sense to break it down with bullet points. I wrote another piece for that feature where I created four vignettes of key players.

CNN.com instituted a great feature last year where they put bullet points at the top of each of their written stories that give people the major points of the story. Some journalists would probably hate to see their hard work distilled down to four bullet points, but it’s an incredible feature for users. A person can now read the headline, the lede (I hate this archaic term) and the bullet points and get the general gist of the story in about 30 seconds.

CNN.com’s way of handling written content makes sense in a world where people read stories in RSS readers, on the go and in general consume a lot of content very quickly. When journalists don’t concern themselves with trying to collect clips or win awards, they can begin to create written content that really works for users in the 21st century.

Ultimately, journalists need to understand how users use news on the Web. It’s vastly different than how people use dead tree publications. This means a lot less feature ledes (I often will close out of stories I find on the Web that have feature ledes when it’s a hard news story), getting away from the inverted pyramid and embracing more immediate and less encumbered forms of writing.

This is my April post for the Carnival of Journalism. It is currently hosted by Yoni Greenbaum over at Editor on the Verge.

I don’t believe print is dead.

Far from it. I just believe, however, that most print products are trying to compete with online products. The fundamental problem with most print products is that they are trying to do it all (especially breaking news), instead of concentrating on what they do best — analysis pieces and enterprise stories.

Print can be a great medium when it concentrates on its strengths. The Economist does a fantastic job of this. It is not trying to break news — print can no longer do that — but rather it is trying to take a look back at the news and provide context.

Too many print products want to be a recap of yesterday’s news. Anyone who truly follows the news has already seen and heard the big news. Smart print products don’t try to outdo the Internet and mobile — that’s a losing proposition.

I subscribe to National Geographic, and it works really well as a print product because it is filled with in-depth enterprise and analysis pieces (and much of what I read in NG I don’t regularly come across in other news outlets). It’s the very kind of content that makes perfect sense in print. I don’t like reading long stories on my computer (let alone mobile device), and it’s those pieces that National Geographic does best.

I also subscribe to the Sunday Washington Post. It’s a good product. It’s not great, and it’s not an Economist or National Geographic-class print product.

I enjoy sitting down with the Sunday Post and reading the enterprise and feature stories in it, but it’s a still a product predicated on the other six days of the Post. There just aren’t that many analysis pieces, and it’s not the most serious piece of journalism.

That’s why I have a proposal. The Post (and all dailies) should make a second Sunday paper. Instead of being like the Sunday Post or Times, it should be like the Economist. This is an edition for people who get their news online, Monday-Saturday.

This edition’s mission is to provide analysis and context. It’s not going to be filled with light-weight feature stories. It’s not about the Sunday Comics or all those circulars.

This edition is about giving people a different level of news that they don’t get on a daily basis. It’s a serious edition. In fact, most Sunday editions are rather light and fluffy when it comes to news, and a lot of the stories really aren’t that important.

I firmly believe, however, this new, second Sunday edition is the future of printed products for newspaper organizations. It’s an edition that recognizes that people primarily get news online and know what is going on in the world. This edition is not a recap of old news — it’s providing depth, context and new information that gets missed in a rapid-fire news world.

I do think much like the Economist, this new edition would work better in magazine form. It’s a radical idea, but it’s the kind of idea that makes sense in an online world, and it’s the kind of product that would grow — not shrink — circulation.

One day this will be the future for smart newspapers, and eventually it replace the original Sunday paper. And then eventually it will be the only print product produced by newspapers.

I’m never going to subscribe to a daily newspaper again, but I would be the first to subscribe to a product like this. It’s a product that recognizes the reality on the ground and embraces change.

The Internet is the greatest thing to ever happen to journalism. When more journalists and publishers recognize that, we’ll start making print products that really matter and work for people.

People shouldn’t have to read the print edition to get the best, most in-depth coverage.

In fact, logic would dictate that a newspaper’s Web site would have more coverage due to the limitless nature of its medium and its ability to display so many different kinds of news and content. That’s what logic would tell you. That’s what 2008 would tell you.

And that’s what people want. They want Web products that kick ass. They want to get news on their computers and mobile devices — and they want it now.

And far be it for us to tell them, “No! You need to read the print edition to get all the news, because we haven’t figured out how to properly monetize our online content.” That’s the business staff’s problem, not editorials.

If that’s how we’re going to act, people are going to leave our Web sites and find new ones. Every day new competitors pop up. The Web makes it possible for anyone to join in the conversation.

Recently a managing editor of a small daily wrote a blog post that ended with:

So… to those local folks who only read us online, I have this to say: I’m sorry. Boy, are you missing out.

As you can imagine I commented on it. I said that people in her coverage area should be able to read her paper’s Web site and get all the information they need. In fact, the Web can be home to many projects — especially databases, multimedia, blogs, etc — that the print edition never could be.

I told her it was up to her paper to find a way to monetize their Web site. What spurred this post, however, wasn’t that exchange. It was the fact that my comment was deleted.

I’m not Sam Zell. I don’t go buccaneering around the Internet swearing up a storm. My comment was civil, thoughtful but it was critical to a point.

I strongly feel that Web products cannot be left behind. In fact, they should probably be the epicenter of news operation. Because I know that’s what people want, and I’m in the business of making products that people want.

In a comment to another poster the editor left this:

Our core product, the print edition, is obviously currently at the center of what we do.

Is that really what your readers want? But here’s the real moral of this story: You can’t control the conversation. This editor clearly thought she could.

My comment originally went up and another person commented on it, but my comment was later deleted. Many in the old-guard media are used to a time when they control the conversation — they get to select which letters to the editor get printed, who gets covered, etc.

But here’s the thing, this is 2008. I have a blog, I have Twitter and I’m not going to roll over every time some old-guard media person thinks they can silence my voice.

Because they can’t. They can’t silence any of us. That’s what the power of the Web is.

It’s a revolution.

And you can either join the social, two-way conversation that is the Web or you can be left behind. That’s your choice. But don’t try to force your old rules on our revolution.

Everyone finally has a voice. That’s a beautiful thing.

The Politico wrote a story today originally stating that Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points, but has since downgraded that number to 9.

Why you might ask? Because of reader backlash. Numerous commenters on the story noted that Clinton did not win by 10 points. She has in fact won by a little more than 9 points, and if one wants to round that number, it should be rounded down, not up like most media outlets have been doing (as I noted yesterday).

Good for the Politico. It’s good to see that A) writers at the Politico actually read comments on their stories (I don’t think the MSM can say the same) and B) that readers comments/suggestions are actually taken to heart.

I can understand how someone might be confused into thinking that Clinton won by 10 points when the majority of the mainstream media and pundents have been trumpeting her double-digit, 10-point victory. That supposed “double-digit” victory only comes when one uses creative math. But it’s refreshing to see the Politico realize that it made a mistake and correct itself.

This whole affair shows how shallow and corporate much of the MSM is. The difference between a 9 or 10 point victory doesn’t mean much when it comes to delegates, which are ultimately what matter. But that 1 point difference is the difference between a single digit and a double digit victory. Many media members are trying to up sell this story so they can make more money.

Many people have noted that Clinton mathematically doesn’t have much a chance of beating Barack Obama. But that doesn’t sell papers and grab viewers, now does it?

Many journalists and pundents are proclaiming that Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points (AKA “double digits”).

Maybe they have some new way of doing math that I am not aware of, but Hillary received 54.6 of the vote, while Obama received 45.4. And for those of us who attended grade school, 54.6 - 45.4 does not equal 10. But in the world of media spin — and perhaps poor math skills — it apparently does.

For those of you without mental or physical calculators, that comes out to 9.2. Typically when rounding, 9.2 would be rounded down to 9. And if you don’t know how to round properly, 9.2 will suffice.

Now, I’m not sure if the discrepancy is simply due to arithmetic errors or due to certain media members wanting to make Hillary’s win seem bigger (they all said she needed a “double digit” win to soldier on) and thus making the race go on further, which will certainly lead to better ratings and more papers sold.

Frankly, I don’t know which is worse: not possessing basic mathematical skills or deliberately misleading the public for personal (financial) gain.

Even the supposed guardian of American journalism The New York Times couldn’t get the math right. No wonder people don’t trust journalists, especially mainstream media members. They’re always trying to sell you something, and it’s not always the facts.

At least the public has bloggers (notice that 9.2 in the second paragraph?), who apparently aren’t trying to sell the public anything but the truth.

Sometimes you can be your own worst enemy when interviewing for job, even if you are otherwise qualified.

Yoni Greenbaum made a post about “How not to get that journalism-related job.” All of the mistakes he lists can easily be avoided by just being a savvy job seeker. And if you’re a college student who hasn’t been given career advice, head over to career services ASAP to get resume, cover letter, interviewing and other career advice.

Here is Greenbaum’s list (head over to his site to get the full descriptions):

1. No one is perfect - Don’t claim to be perfect because no one is.
2. I’ll do anything for you - Don’t be desperate (or just plain creepy).
3. Listen to yourself - Be careful what you say during an interview.
4. Done it all - Focus your experience to fit the job you are applying for.
5. Ban the smileys and hearts - Don’t write thank you letters like you’re on IM or in 5th grade.

One of the best nuggets of advice he gives is No. 4. Many people have wide-skill sets, which is good, but most jobs are looking for a specific skill set. This mean tailoring a resume and cover letter for a specific job. It also means highlighting experience that fits in with the job you’re applying for.

Remember you’re selling yourself when you apply and interview for a job. Highlight the parts they are interested in. And never, ever (see No. 5) send a thank-you letter with smileys and hearts.

Many journalism bloggers, industry commentators and people who read my blog work for big publications, and they often do not hear or see some of the ridiculous things their smaller brethren are doing.

The average daily newspaper in the U.S. has a weekday circulation around 36,500. Newspapers like that are a world away from The New York Times and its resources.

Frankly, many large newspapers and other large journalism publications are putting out fine online products. And even some enlightened smaller companies like The World Company (home to fantastic Lawrence Journal-World) have great online products. But the average American newspaper is not producing a quality online product, and few have employees willing to embrace the Web as their future.

I hear stories all the time about the frustration of getting entrenched employees to embrace the Web: “It’s a pain because the people who have worked there for 30 years basically don’t give a crap about the Internet and just aren’t updating it.”

I hear tales of woefully understaffed papers, without real online editors. These Web sites are often still under the control of the business and advertising staffs. These are staffs without managing and assistant managing editors for their Web sites, and these papers lack a clear vision for the future.

We’re talking about papers with no direction, and few employees really care about their papers’ future. We have got to figure out a way to get that 36,500 circulation newspaper up to code. It’s the average U.S. newspaper that is most vulnerable right now, because the big dailies still have a lot of resources to play with and are willing to innovate, while weeklies have a niche market that few have begun to challenge.

The kind of employees the average paper has (from the publishers on down to the lowest staffers) aren’t the same caliber as papers like The Washington Post or USA Today. Obviously, smaller papers lack the financial resources of their bigger brethren, and many smaller papers are owned by large media conglomerates that often only care about the companies’ marquee newspapers. How will the average U.S. newspaper turn itself around?

Will it?

Angryjournalist.com started off as a small side project of sorts for Kiyoshi Martinez.

Even that might be a little generous. The site is just a WordPress Blog with a theme installed, and Martinez already had server space. All of this could be set up within in a few hours.

Martinez thought there would be a market for angry journalists who wanted to vent their frustrations. It turns out that market is a little bigger than he originally anticipated. Like any good entrepreneur, Martinez is growing his brand.

He has started selling t-shirts with phrases like “Print is dead,” “Angry journalist,” “Journalists get laid(off)” and others. He is planning on adding coffee mugs and other products soon to his online store. He also wants to add a job board as well.

I don’t think Martinez ever intended for the site to become this big or to have a revenue stream. But that’s just the thing. Instead of panicking when the site got bigger, Martinez harnessed his growing audience to expand his brand.

Of course the irony of the situation is that Martinez is no longer a journalist. And he’s happy about it. Maybe leaving journalism behind freed up his entrepreneurial spirit.

Either way, journalism needs more of this spirit. All we need are good ideas that serve a market need. There was a large, untapped market for angry journalists, and Martinez is tapping into that.

To learn more about AngryJournalist.com and Martinez, listen to our Conversation in Media.