Associated Press opens news bureau in North Korea | World news | guardian.co.uk.

…As if the news business wasn’t already Kafkaesque. Well, AP is an appropriate choice for this. 

Having done some critical coverage of several boneheaded AP strategies in digital media over the last few years, I think they see eye to eye with NK regarding the dangers of criticism, and how to respond to it.

I’m not kidding: See the response from Paul Colford, AP’s director of media relations, to a 2010 KDMC story I wrote about the controversial AP News Registry program

See: Three generational gadget trends for news orgs to watch

The trends & implications I saw are:

1. Picture-taking is the most popular non-voice cell activity, even more than texting! So why not do more with community-contributed pictures?
2. Tablets are still a niche market. Right now, there are much bigger mobile fish to fry in terms of potential market size. Consider where your business interest really lie.
3. MP3 players are especially popular with young adults, so consider doing more with podcasts and other audio content.

I discuss the details more over at my article on KDMC.

On Wednesday morning, News Corp. will hold a press event to unveil the first-ever iPad-only newspaper, The Daily. The little that we know about this project raises some pretty big questions, and I suspect that after the announcement most of those questions will remain. Here’s what I’d like to know:

How can this possibly be worth such a massive up-front investment?…

PaidContent reports that News Corp “is investing $30 million in the new tablet effort, which has more than 120 staffers and is based in the company’s Manhattan headquarters.”

That’s a ton of overhead — way too much, I think, for what is essentially an in-house startup.

With all the uncertainties surrounding such a speculative venture, and with the current state of the news business, I’m astounded that News Corp would throw such massive resources toward The Daily. Especially when there are much more likely payoffs with the lower hanging fruit of mobile media — such as doing a better job of delivering existing content for the full range of mobile devices in the field today, and being more creative and aggressive about selling mobile advertising.

The iPad is very popular and trendy right now. But it’s just one device, with several unique considerations of design and technology.

Plus, the iPad has a lot of competition, which grows more fierce by the day. At the recent Consumer Electronics show many Android tablets were on offer, and these devices are now becoming as common as iPads in coffeeshops and households around the US. I’d hope that News Corp is planning an Android edition of The Daily — but I bet Apple would have a big problem with that, which could gum up the works on the subscription front.

News organizations and other content publishers who focus too heavily on delivering to a single proprietary device or platform risk getting trapped in a cul-de-sac. This is not to say that The Daily couldn’t generate a fair amount of revenue. In fact, it may do quite well, at least in the first quarter or two with all the buzz. But enough to sustain a staff of 120? In prime Mahattan office space? For how long?

I applaud innovation — but generally, I think it’s wiser to innovate with smaller teams and budgets first. That gives you more freedom to be responsive and agile in how you develop and position the product.

Starting with too much overhead tends to lock projects in to an unchanging course, for better or worse. Commitment is good; but chaining cement blocks to your feet generally isn’t the most useful way to establish commitment.

Risk-taking is noble, and (in today’s media landscape) necessary. But so far, The Daily sounds, to me, more like wishful thinking from company pining for the days when it was fully in control of distribution — and when it could easily afford to lose huge speculative investments.

In general, this has been a pretty mixed experience…

Most news orgs are doing a great job of publishing the right amount of alerts (no more than 1-2 daily, unless there’s a major breaking local story), with the right kind and amount of information (not just headline shovelware

BUT: The links included in these text alerts are where these services fall short.

Yesterday, on the Knight Digital Media Center site, I wrote a list of tips about how to make links that work for all mobile users, especially keeping feature phone users in mind.

See: Engage your mobile audience with links that work for them

This is a followup to my Jan. 21 post: How missing links hurt online news

I wrote two posts for the Knight Digital Media Center at USC explaining how news organizations can use this information to create more effective ways to engage and grow the audiences for their political coverage — and why they shouldn’t wait for the next election season to do this:

• Jan. 26, 2011: Social media should be part of your political news strategy, Pew research indicates
• Dec. 28, 2010: Political/election news should go mobile, Pew research indicates

For nearly 15 years, the internet has been popular with the general public. So it amazes me that so many online news stories still routinely lack the kind of links that online and mobile users find helpful—and that also enhance the transparency, credibility, and shareability of news.

In a blog post this week, the Google-newsroom conspiracy theory Kevin Sablan of the Orange County Register nailed exactly how bad missing obvious links make news organizations look…

Full story: How missing links hurt online news, part 1 | Knight Digital Media Center.

Here’s a quick rundown of my own changes, and contributing reasons for them. I’d be curious to hear about other people’s personal media evolutions, too. Please share your own experiences in the comments below…

1. More conversation and annotation, less exposition.

I’m an avid user of two social media channels: Twitter and Delicious. Through these, I’ve gotten used to quickly stating what really needs to be shared or communicated. Most of the points I want or need to make don’t require exposition. Generally just a brief statement, or a link with context, will suffice. This is why the vast majority of my posts to this blog have been syndicated from links I’m saving and annotating in Delicious.

Personally, I think this is a gain, not a loss. For most things, I prefer more efficient communication. It allows me to cover more ground — and to learn more.

What’s lost? Not eloquence, since I was never very eloquent. However, continuity and context can suffer. Often it can be difficult for others (or for me) to follow my trail of breadcrumbs, to connect all the dots in order to see a larger picture. Yes, I still want a “me collector“.

2. More text, less voice.

I’ve never been much for talking on the telephone. I even squirm at face-to-face conversations that go on for more than about 20-30 minutes at a stretch.

Instant messaging suits me much better. It’s a key way that I keep in touch with the people who matter most in my life. Every day I text-chat with my current and former intimate partners, close friends, colleagues, and more casual friends. I’ve been able to connect with these people more substantially and meaningfully through instant messaging than by relying primarily on phone or voice.

I like the pace of IM conversations. They’re either very fast and functional (“Got a quick question for ya…”) or they ebb and flow over an hour or more. Depending on the conversation or person involved, I don’t like to feel the constant pressure to respond immediately that exists in phone or face-to-face conversations. In IM chats, pauses generally aren’t awkward, so conversation feels less forced. Even better, my attention is free to wander, as it is prone to do, without me seeming rude or uncaring.

What’s lost? I still see local friends face-to-face quite often, so I don’t feel I’m lacking conversation there. But I do make less effort than I probably should to reach out by phone to people who are important to me but who don’t use IM. So there is some relationship impact there. I do tend to prioritize people who are available via my preferred communication channels.

3. News: Listening up, reading down

It’s been many years since I read much news in print. But in the last couple of years I’ve found myself relying almost entirely on audio news podcasts for my daily fix of what’s happening. I prefer to listen to news while doing things: making breakfast, cleaning up, working out, running errands, strolling the neighborhood, etc. I don’t just sit there and listen to news, and I almost never watch video news podcasts. When I have to sit there for news, whether for reading or watching, I get antsy.

It’s not that I don’t read online news at all. Every day, I read a lot of online news — but rarely any more than headlines and the first few paragraphs of most online news stories. I’m one of those people who’s more likely to glance at the headlines and summaries on Google News (especially on my phone) a few times a day, and to maybe click through to a couple of stories.

There are exceptions: When an article is highly recommended by a friend or colleague, or when it’s extremely relevant to my specific circumstances or interests, I’m likely to read it through to the end. Quite often, for online news I really want to read, I’ll use Instapaper to transfer the content of that web page to my Kindle. I’m not crazy about reading long-format content in my web browser. I prefer an e-book reader. Both the Kindle device and the Kindle iPhone app offer me a great e-reader experience.

What’s especially interesting to me is that through audio news podcasts I feel a very strong loyalty to several mainstream and niche news brands (NPR, Slashdot Review, etc.). However, when reading online news via a web browser, I feel almost no brand loyalty. I have a strong preference for news aggregators over news sites. It’s very rare that I visit the home page of a news site.

What’s lost? For me, nothing. Do habits like mine hurt the news biz? I don’t think so — especially since it’s the only way I feel any loyalty for specific news brands these days.

4. Journaling: Sharp increase

2009 was an emotionally wrenching year for me. I sold my house, ended my marriage, transitioned to a very positive post-marriage relationship with my former spouse, moved from Boulder to Oakland, left my cats behind for now, downsized my possessions to fit into a single room, got knee surgery, dealt with knee surgery rehab, traveled a lot, had a very short and unhappy relationship with an unsuitable partner, began a much more rewarding and happy relationship with a very suitable partner, watched my cousin die from afar, and some other stuff…

Most of this I would never blog about. Some of it I wouldn’t tweet about, either. But I do write about it all, in my paper journal.

Yes, when it comes to working through difficult emotional stuff, journaling tends to work best for me. And this year I filled up three of them. That’s a lot for me. There have been times in my life when I didn’t journal much at all. For the past couple of years I’ve been journaling a lot, and it keeps me sane.

I like doing some writing that is only for me. And I like doing it by hand. I like the feel of a fine-point felt-tip pen on the creamy paper of a Moleskine journal. It feels deeply personal and intimate. I think better about how I feel when I journal. I understand myself and my life better. I forgive myself more, I allow myself more. I don’t worry about covering all bases or responding to critics. And right now, I need all of that.

5. Twitter as antidepressant

I’ve noticed that when I’m feeling low energy or in a down mood, spending a few minutes scanning Twitter tends to engage and energize me. I follow a lot of very interesting people and organizations on Twitter. Any time I dip my toes into that Twitter stream I always find something interesting, amusing, heartfelt, friendly, or useful.

…Yes, there’s some drivel and occasional nastiness. But I tend to unfollow people who get boring or mean there. So I’ve got a pretty high-quality Twitter stream.

I like that Twitter takes so little effort to read. (Similarly, I dislike Facebook because its interface is so chaotic.) I feel no pressure or desire to “catch up,” for me Twitter is all about right now. If I’m feeling lonely or bored or isolated, it’s an easy way to reach out to people I know. I respond often to other’s tweets, both publicly and by private direct message.

In a year of so much personal upheaval, having an instantly available ambient sense of my friends around me, and what they’re into, has helped keep me functional, balanced, and happier than I would have been otherwise.

The downside? Yes, sometimes Twitter can be too distracting. When I was having some especially hard times in my life earlier this year, I definitely used Twitter to procrastinate and distract myself. But that seems, for me, to be more a function of how I’m doing, rather than anything inherent to Twitter.

…Anyway, those are the changes I’ve notices in my own reading/writing patterns. What about you? Please comment below.

The Chicago Tribune recently reported that it has halted a “short-lived research project in which the Chicago Tribune solicited responses from current and former subscribers to descriptions of Tribune stories before they had been published.”

The project — a collaboration between the paper’s editorial and marketing departments — was stopped because reporters raised journalistic concerns. Originally it had only surveyed selected “would-be readers” about general topics and previous Tribune coverage. But in the last two weeks, participants had begun being surveyed about their preferences on synopses of stories currently in the works.

In all, 55 reporters and editors voiced their complaint in a letter to Tribune editor Gerould Kern and managing editor Jane Hirt. The letter “expressed concern that providing story information to those outside the newsroom prior to publication seemed ‘to break the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way.’”

Here’s more detail about how the research was conducted: “Surveys were sent by e-mail to around 9,000 would-be readers on two occasions. About 500 responded to each, indicating which of 10 story ideas they preferred. Kern said the stories ‘tended to be news features,’ and the results never made it to him or had any impact in how stories were handled.”

I can understand the reporters’ complaint if their story ideas were shared outside the newsroom without their prior knowledge and consent. However, if that consent can be obtained, I personally think this type of research could be surprisingly useful. Especially if the people being surveyed truly represent younger people (i.e., the news organization’s future market) as well as demographics that historically have not been well served by the news organization…

I’d even take it farther — rather than just vote on a packaged list of story ideas, I’d survey them about which angles on those stories would most interest them. And I’d give them room to critique the story ideas, and get new story ideas. A combination of qualitative and quantitative data could shed light on how news organizations can make their news more relevant by being willing to step outside their comfort zone.

Chicago Reader sees it differently, however. There, Michael Miner wrote:

“Tell any self-respecting reporter that the subject of his or her latest work in progress just laid an egg with a focus group, and the reporter will reply, ‘Maybe so, but wait till they see what I do with it!’ (While thinking, ‘What in God’s name has happened to our business?’)”

…I don’t doubt that many longtime newspaper reporters would feel that way. But I don’t think it has as much to do with “self respect” as it does with pride and fear. It seems to me that many journalists prefer to only present their perfect, finished work to the public in order to pretend that their reporting is more independent and infallible than is actually the case. They’re easily threatened by the thought that someone might witness their messy sausage-making process. It used to be that this pretense of perfection was assumed to support the veneer of credibility. In fact, these days being aloof from your community and pretending you’re perfect only undermines credibility.

When Jim Romenesko noted this news a few days ago, Poynter reader Gary McCardle commented: “Marketing people do what marketing people always do. Aside from special themed sections, don’t let marketing people know about stories in advance of publication.”

That comment lays bare the distrust of marketing — and perhaps indirectly of efforts to involve community members up front in journalistic processes — so deeply ingrained in traditional mainstream newsroom culture. And I’d dare say that it’s a big reason why news organizations are struggling for relevance and revenue these days. It’s hard to update your business model when an important part of your organization is inherently wary of market research.

NOTE: This is an expanded version of an article I originally published in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.

Fundamentally, journalism is a community service. That mission, and the values associated with it, typically are what make journalists passionate about journalism — and also often wary of the business side of news (advertising, market research, etc.). And as smart as most journalists are, most of them also don’t really seem to have the mindset or skills to manage the business side of a news operation.

So why not figure out a new way to conduct the business of news? Especially, new ways to handle the money?

Last Friday, at the Journalism Innovations II conference (held at the University of San Francisco), I learned about an interesting effort to create a new kind of business structure that could provide a way to support journalism and news.

In the morning plenary, Hollie Kernan (news director of San Francisco public radio KALW-FM) mentioned that she’s been taking a close look at the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) model proposed by Robert Lang, CEO of the Mary Elizabeth and Gordon B. Mannweiler Foundation…

Americans for Community Development, a key resource for this effort, explains: “The L3C is a new form of limited liability company which combines the best features of a for-profit LLC with the socially beneficial aspects of a nonprofit. It is the for-profit with a nonprofit soul. …It will be a brand new tool in the foundation toolbox designed to expand the use of PRIs (Program Related Investments) and to create a vehicle which brings together government, for profit, nonprofit, individuals and corporations under one umbrella. It will attract investment capital not just charitable dollars and operate as a for profit with the benefits of for profit assessment metrics.”

The Nonprofit Law Blog further explains: “Unlike a standard LLC, the L3C has an explicit primary charitable mission and only a secondary profit concern. But unlike a charity, the L3C is free to distribute the profits, after taxes, to owners or investors. A principal advantage of the L3C is its qualification as a program related investment (PRI), an investment with a socially beneficial purpose that is consistent with and furthers a foundation’s mission. Because foundations can only directly invest in for-profit ventures qualified as PRIs, many foundations refrain from investing in for-profit ventures due to the uncertainty of whether they would qualify as PRIs.”

It seems to me that, if the L3C model gets the nod from the IRS and more state governments, this might be especially appealing to online and mobile news efforts. Venture capitalists are accustomed to supporting online and mobile media projects. Several foundations and grant programs support news and media, especially at the community level. But so far it hasn’t been easy to mix these funding sources. This new model might make new partnerships possible.

Currently, Americans for Community Development is a working to introduce L3C bills in state legislatures across the country. As of February, the Council of Michigan Foundations noted that: “only Michigan and Vermont have legally adopted L3Cs as law, as well as the Crow (Indian) Nation. Other states introducing similar legislation, said Lang, are North Carolina, Montana and Wyoming and proposed laws are now being written in Illinois, Oregon and Washington.” Google News and Google Blog Search are easy ways to follow L3C developments.

The Peoria, Ill. Newspaper Guild reportedly is pushing for the Journal-Star newspaper to become an L3C. The Minnesota Newspaper Guild is advocating the same for the Star Tribune.

Brian Burnham Jones, who recently created a L3C company in Vermont, noted in TriplePundit on Apr. 9: “I was warned: before I raise start-up capital and kick up my socially beneficial operations I should wait to hear what the IRS will say about the tax implications of the new legal entity. The IRS ruling will be momentous because it will determine the ultimate fate of my L3C and others which have recently been formed across the country. …Hopefully, the IRS will readily accept Foundation investments in L3Cs as valid PRIs (Program Related Investments). If not, then L3Cs will not be able to receive tax deductible charity funds from large foundations, and will go the way of the Dodo.”

kutcher

Actor Ashton Kutcher challenges CNN to a Twitter race. He reached the 1 million follower mark first.

Just after midnight mountain time on April 17 actor Ashton Kutcher became the first Twitter user to accumulate more than 1 million followers — winning the race he challenged CNN to by video on Apr. 14.

As Kutcher cross the 1 million follower mark, CCNbrk, which posts current headlines (but not links) from CNN breaking news stories, had just over 998,000 followers.

So what? Is this a publicity stunt and a popularity contest, and mostly trivial? Yes — even though Kutcher did agree to donate $100,000 to the charity Malaria No More when he reach 1 million followers. (However, Ethan Zuckerman pointed out that this charity’s initiative to donate bednet to Africans may be misguided.)

However, there’s an interesting backstory: The CNNbrk account was only recently acquired by CNN.

A Web developer named James Cox independently created CNNbrk in 2006 because he wanted to get news headlines by text message on his cell phone.

As noted in a new Nieman Labs article, How a CNN user propelled the network into Twitter’s top slot — or why CNN headlines are so short, in 2006, “…if you can remember that distant age, getting the latest headlines on your mobile device wasn’t yet trivially easy.”

The advent of Twitter, which allows users to elect to receive tweets from certain accounts via SMS text messaging, made this technically easy. Cox set up the CNNbrk account, wrote a five-line script in the Ruby programming language to convert CNN’s popular e-mail headline service into tweets, and that was the genesis of this now hugely popular service. (Note: CNN now offers its own breaking news text message service.)

On Apr. 16, April 16 Silicon Alley Insider reported:

“CNN confirms that it has has taken control of the @cnnbrk account — and its [at the time] 944,000 followers. CNN didn’t disclose any financial details, but said it’s been working with previous owner James Cox on the account for more than two years.

This is no-brainer for CNN, and we hope they paid Cox a lot of money for the account he’s nurtured. By adding more stories to the feed — and links to CNN’s site — CNN.com could generate hundreds of thousands of extra pageviews per day. (CNN isn’t sure if it’s going to add links in the near-term.)

Did Cox violate CNN’s copyright and trademark by launching the CNNbrk service without authorization? Quite probably. Does CNN stand to benefit amply from this effort? Also yes, quite probably. CNNbrk’s audience vastly dwarfs that of CNN’s official Twitter account, which as of last night had just over 67,000 followers.

CNN seems to be considering Twitter important to its online strategy. Cox noted to Nieman Labs that recently CNN now edits its headlines to conform with Twitter (140 characters max). Also CNN was apparently willing to pay Cox for the CNNbrk account. Nieman Labs’ Zach Seward confirmed with CNN that “Cox had entered into a consulting agreement with [CNN] and that CNN now owned @CNNbrk, so you can put it together.”

…Which just goes to show that when fans of your news take initiative to amplify your brand, this should neither be automatically dismissed, feared, or quashed. Figuring out a way to work with such independent efforts sooner rather than later might be more efficient and effective for everyone in the long run.

(NOTE: CNET speculated that Twitter might have been gaming the competition by making it difficult for people to unfollow the AplusK or CNNbrk accounts. I didn’t have that experience, and I don’t know whether it’s true, but I’d be curious to learn whether other people had this experience. Also, this is an expanded version of a story I originally posted on Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)