CNN is now poised to put its broadcast — and online — muscle behind an experiment in crowdsourcing as MediaWeek reports:

“Time Warner’s CNN this week will enter YouTube territory with the launch of iReport.com, a new Web site built entirely on user-produced news. And unlike CNN’s own properties—where only iReport submissions that have been handpicked by editors and checked for accuracy ever make it online or on air—the new site will be wide open, allowing users to post whatever content they choose, CNN said.”

Susan Grant, executive vp of CNN News Services told MediaWeek the site would not rush to look for advertising opportunities in part perhaps because advertisers may be leery of putting their brands into this content mosh pit.

This is not an isolated development. It is my sense that broadcasters have embraced user-participation far more aggressively than print media perhaps because the new-found ease of video production and uploading strikes that industry as a novelty. It used to be difficult to freelance as a videographer. It’s getting less so.

As another example along these lines MTV got a grant from the Knight Foundation to create an election-site drawing on citizen contributors. (details).

I’ve blogged in the past (but can’t find the reference now) about how local broadcasters have been beefing up their web sites and gaining traffic at the expense of local newspaper sites. Print had an early advantage in getting web traffic because it was easier to repost words and photos than it was to either contribute or distribute video. That is changing. And fast. (Get a whiff of this in a post titled “TV & Radio facing news revolution“ from Ken Kaplan.

As communication migrates from the literal to the audiovisual broadcast websites could easily leapfrog print websites as magnets for attention. Broadcasters have a great medium for pushing people to their web sites. And once viewers get to the web it’s easier to downland and watch a video than to wrap one’s mind around words.

So here CNN throws open its doors. ““This is an opportunity to create a relationship with a global audience,” said the CNN exec behind the project.

It’s an interesting experiment. I’m not aware of anything of a similar scale being conducted by a newspaper.

• You should also visit the conference blog for the record.
•  I got a few ideas simply by reading through the schedule: such as the panel discussion on using “serious games” to engage the audience. “After all, people learn better from doing stuff than from having stuff explained to them.”
• And here’s something to look into later: “The Innovation Incubator Project, a collaboration among seven journalism schools around the country designed to harness the creative energies of college students to produce original, affordable, and executable new applications for and approaches to community news . . . under a grant from the Knight Foundation . . . Michigan State, University of Kansas, Kansas State, Western Kentucky University, Ithaca College, University of Nevada-Las Vegas and St. Michael’s College.”

There’s nothing like a deadline to focus the mind and as I sit down this Saturday morning to put in my bid for a piece of this pie, let me pass on one last reminder from  Knight Foundation communications director Marc Fest:

“The Knight News Challenge contest awards $5 million for innovative media ideas, however the October 15 application deadline is quickly approaching. The streamlined application takes less than 20 minutes. Anybody worldwide has a chance to win. For more information and to apply visit www.newschallenge.org.”

Be sure to read the rules. This opportunuty is wide open to individuals, non-profits and even startups that one day hope to make profit. The catch: when these guys say they want to fund local media innovations they mean it. So think locally, act digitally.

Good luck to us all!

Charles Lewis is a news-mensch, okay. Let’s get that out of the way. But despite is the passion, there is a fatal flaw in his Columbia Journalism Review article on the the failures of mainstream media and the prospect that foundation-supported journalism could help the public learn what it needs to know.

The problem is what if the people don’t care, and that is where America stands today.

I’ll elaborate momentarily but first let me acknowledge the insights and hope Lewis puts across in his CJR piece. he reminds us that nonprofit journalism has a track record as old as the Associated Press, a news cooperative founded in 1846 and still going strong today (in fact, it struck me that the AP, with 4,000 staffers, including 3,000 journalists, in 121 countries, serving news to 5,000 broadcast outlets and 1,700 newspapers, is the beating heart of journalism and my sense from the outside, is that while the heart is getting stressed these days, it’s still strong; do you disagree?).

Lewis left 60 Minutes to co-found the Center for Public Integrity, which he describes as ”the largest nonprofit investigative reporting organization in the world.” So he knows of whence he speaks and I wish Lewis and the other non-profiteers success in finding money. (In fact, provided I can muster the time, I will apply for some of the $5 million that will be handed out this year by the Knight Foundation through its 21st Century News Challenge.  Check out the press release. The deadline is October 15. Read the rules. See last year’s winners for clues.)

But even if all the foundations in all the world wrote great fat checks to journalists (proper spelling in my case is T-O-M   A-B-A-T-E) it would not solve the larger problem, which is not a lack of information but a lack of citizen interest and a diminishing sense of political effiicacy.

I cannot offer empirical evidence of such, unless you ask yourself why one third of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.  This struck close to home the other day. My wife and I home-school our kids and the other day I gave my 14-year-old son a writing assignment about the Middle East. We talked about what I wanted and my son revealed some of what he already knew about the situation: that Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11 attacks.  I set the record straight but I have no reason to believe my son less well informed than his peers, despite his unfortunate parentage.

How could so many Americans be so greatly misinformed? Well, it could be that they get bad information such as a lazy mainstream media passed on by repeating the deliberate lies of ”persons speaking under condition of anonymity” without the professional due diligence of checking out the rumors for themselves. (I remember reading one Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker early on in this mess in which he recounts how a reporter for an Italian newsmagazine went to Nigeria and wrote an article debunking the yellowcake lie — something no U.S. pub did, for shame!)

Of course we have since exposed the lie. So why do one in three Americans, including my son, still believe the falsehood? Because in our media-saturated world we look for sensation and entertainment, not information and reason. Sure some fraction of the audience looks for and finds a little of the latter. But the mass of the market looks to media for music, diversion, directions when lost, or in keeping with the times, as a way to share experiences with peer groups.

 That’s why social media like Twitter explode virally. They allow people to connect. That’s the novelty nowadays. The ease and ubiquity of creating media merely devalues good information by drowning it out with dreck. Think of a Gresham’s Law for Media. If you are not already familiar with the term, “Attention Economy,” look it up. For then it becomes clear why nonprofit journalism is not the solution to the problem of America’s declining faith in and ability toward self-governance — people don’t make or have the time for public affairs.

During a recent panel discussion at Yahoo organized by Media Bistro, I blurted out the term “digital idiots” to describe the state of the audience. It was an off-the-cuff utterance but I think it captures the irony of an always-connected populace whose members are so focused on their own realities that they haven’t the interest or empathy to engage in some activity beyond themselves. I am reminded of the line from Julius Caesar: “The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves.”

That’s why I want to keep journalism in the marketplace, which provides some immediate feedback as to whether or not the audience is consuming the knowledge. To “preserve” journalism in a foundation setting would be to consign it to irrelevancy. It would not learn the skill of engaging with its time-strapped, short-attention-span audience. Journalism would become the tree that fell in the forest but went unheard.

My alternative? Well, I wish I had clearer evidence then I am about to propose but I suggest we look at what works on the Web, where stupidities like, “Ask a Ninja” thrive. What is that? Some guys in black hoods who make stuff up. And people watch it. How does this relate to journalism? Well, obviously I don’t want to make stuff up. But if putting on a black hood, or tapdancing naked, gets the public to focus on a matter of great concern, I would gladly do it (however, I might wear a figleaf were I to do so, as I have a tiny pecker and would hate to see it exposed for the fraud it is).

But mostly I would say that if journalists are not prepared to engage with the audience on its terms, to create truthful and meaningful  messages no longer than can be printed on a bumper sticker, then we might as well take foundation money and go off to some lofty place to create white papers and fulminate about the digital idiots below.

Or journalists can take a lesson from Bill Shakespeare, who wrote some fascinating stuff not long after the last big revoltion in media, when the printing press was shaking up everything from religion to the nation state. And he did it the “Ask a Ninja” way.

This is something I learned at a homeschooling conference of all places, and blogged once before, after finding a credible reference to substantiate the point that Shakespeare, who survives today as the exemplar of haute culture, had in his own day to compete with such entertainments as fights between humans and bears. How did Bill find an audience for plays like Julius Caeser when right next door the viewer could see a bear rip the head off some drunken lout? He took his history and philosophy and larded it up with sword-fighting, treachery, unrequited love, sex, and murder most foul. All the ills, we might say, to which the mortal flesh is heir. He did not, it appears, rely on foundations to support his muse.  

From Minneapolis comes news that Joel Kramer, former publisher of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has lined up $1.1. million ($850K from four Twin Cities’ families plus $250K in Knight Foundation support) to launch a five-day, web-based daily called MinnPost.com.

Industry zine Paid Content says the new site ”will feature traditional-style front page stories as well as blog posts based on original reporting by more than 20 professional journalists from around Minnesota.” Two former Star-Tribune staffers former deputy managing editor Roger Buoen and former online managing editorCorey Anderson, will join Kramer at the core of a network of regular freelance contributors. (Buoen will be managing editor and Anderson will be web editor; see list of other staffers and contributors.)

Knight’s financial backing represents an endorsement by the nation’s leading journalism support foundation, one focused on the preservation and expansion of local coverage in real or geographic communities. (Click here to read about their Oct. 15 deadline for $5 million in local media support fund.)

In June 2007 interview on Minnesota Public Radio, Kramer hinted at his intention to launch MinnPost.com and said “It remains to be seen if we can develop a sustainable business model and an exciting journalism model” and said he would want his new site to avoid the ”pontificating” that seems to predominate on the blogosphere.

“I’m more interested in informed commentary as well as hard-hitting news gathering,” Kramer said. 

Poynter Institute business commentator Rick Edmonds has written a lengthy but insightful and sympathetic essay that gets to the heart of what is importand — and worrisome — about the MinnPost.com experiment. Kramer does not propose to create what Edmonds calls a “hyperlocal chatter and photo site” but rather a place to create:

“. . . an alternative model, zigging to professionalism when so many think they can organize the collective force of volunteered content into something significant. There is room enough for both, but success for Kramer’s venture might get the pendulum swinging back to news for people who care about news . . .” 

In the Poynter essay Kramer says he hopes get about 15- to 20 percent of the one-million person Twin Cities audience, presumably the high-brow, engaged-citizen, public broadcasting segment of the audience that would appreciate professional journalism.

We’ll see. This is an imporant experiment. Kramer has freed newspaper journalism from two of its current constraints, corporate ownership and print production. We’re about to find out what happens when you remove those shackles and let motivated journalists create a public forum in a metropolis with a Scandihoovian ethic of civic involvement — and long winters that offer few leisure options between ice fishing and reading public policy white papers.

Okay well perhaps that’s a bit harsh. It isn’t fair to poke fun at people simply because their geography tends toward pale skin and mosquito and fish jokes. But then the humor isn’t accidental on my part nor will I apologize because the web is, above all, an irreverent medium much closer to bombastic and hyperbolic styles of, say, the Mark Twain era. Will print journalists, freed from the normal constraints, suffer under its own seriousness or ignite the sort of public discussion that would make the web the forum it is designed to be as opposed to merely the newspaper-killer.

So no pressure Kramer and company just because everybody’s watching.

The booklet, which is free in PDF format, is the work of Mark Briggs, an interactive news editor at The Tacoma News-Tribune, introduces all the terms and concepts of web publishing, and most helpfully provides examples of their use by working reporters (i.e. page 58, how Seattle sports guy Mike Sando uploads source material from games to his blogs and lets avid fans help feast on the material, presumably harvesting some of their comments or quips for his paper story that comes later). Other sections show how to shoot video for story telling or which recording device to buy for inexpensive but quality audio capture.

I’m just noting here a few points of interest to me, rather than attempting to review the book, but being a newsroom guy I did give some thought to how it might be most effectively used as in training.

First the wrong way. The Powers that Be decree that all the department heads should read the Bible according to Briggs. They would probably do so and might even get excited about the possibilities (for instance the uses of “crowdsourcing” described on page 47, that is getting a bunch of readers to supply observations or research to feed stories). The department heads could turn around and tell assigning editors to read the blessed text. Compliance would be spotty and implementation sporadic. Assigning editors could also tell reporters to read the book, which a few would do but most would disdain and the entire exercise would be wasted.

The better strategy for making use of Briggs’ work would be, I think, for someone in the hierwith a knowledge of the staff and who has what strengths or interests, or what the newsroom most needs in the way of new media technique, to target some individuals for training. And not the whole booklet necessarily. Choose a few manageable things. For instance I have not gotten the habit of using an RSS newsreader to aggregate blog feeds and other background to one place where I could scan the subject lines. Of course make the whole book available to anyone who cares to go further, but I suspect that helping individuals pick up or expand skills is a more fruitful approach then dedicating a whole bunch of time to a structured and required training session that would be mercilessly mocked in true newsroom fashion. 

In short be subversive in how you use this manual and the techniques it describes.  My observation after 15 years in newspapering is that there’s nothing more difficult to do than to bring a new idea into a newsroom. These are important new ideas and new tools that will challenge our notions of how to put out the news, and require professionals with varying degrees of experience to either learn or unlearn habits. That is a huge hurdle.

One last thought. The introduction to the training manual was written by Philip Meyer, a former editor turned journalism professor and one of the gurus of the Knight Foundation, the main money-spigot in the world of news philanthropy. After suggesting that platform (i.e. print versus broadcast) specialization is passe, Meyer writes:

“As technology and media economics push us toward platform convergence (print & audiovisual news on the web), a new model  emerges: The journalist who is a jack of all trades and master of none, a person who can write, shoot, edit, talk and look good on camera with a competence that might not be great but is good enough. A good reporter would be redefined as one who is good enough in any medium.”

(Postscript: Meyer goes on to note that journalism schools should adjust curricula to prepare students for this new versatility requirement by “focus(ing) less on the craft and concentrat(ing) on basic theory of mass communications.” I will soon be taking part in a curriculum revision discussion for a college in Northern California, so if anyone has examples or templates of recent similar discussions elsewhere links would be helpful.)

I’ve just returned home from four days in the redwoods of Humboldt County. On the six hour drive from Eureka to the Bay Area I stopped at a roadside rest just before the Avenue of the Giants, the scenic drive that parallels Highway 101. The sign called the local redwoods remnants of the greatest forest that had ever been. Partisans of the Amazon might argue. But not me. I own a tiny piece of the redwood forest.

The drive up and down the coast offers plenty of thinking time and this drive the concept of mapping was on my mind. Adrian Holovaty (his home page) has shown the way with chicagocrime.org and other projects. He recently won a grant award from the Knight Foundation; here is the synopsis:

Project: To create, test and release open-source software that links databases to allow citizens of a large city to learn (and act on) civic information about their neighborhood or block.

Goals: “To create an easy way to answer the question, ‘What’s happening around me?’”

Sounds like mapping. In a related project, Unmediated.org points to a new mapping routine by Outside.in (click here for a prior posting that has background on that site). Here is the Outside.in announcement of the mapping feature. Blogger Jason Kottke was one of their first test subjects and it was his note on the mapping feature that was posted on Unmediated.

In any event I think that mapping will be the critical link that allows economically viable local media to arise from the web. We’re going to have to show geographic relevance to readers, advertisers and opinion leaders. I am anxious to see what Holovaty creates. His project will be open source.

Amateur corner: A recent posting on the prevalence of amateur programming efforts mentioned an academic group at Oregon State University that helps end users make better use of software. After writing that post I contacted the team leader proposing some ideas in the publishing realm. I heard back the other day to the effect that the program in low gear for the summer. But when students return in the fall there is some interest in considering the ideas I had advanced. I consider that progress.

Like the Center for Open Source Radio, which is running a fund drive after rather suddenly losing its core university support. Its appeal says:

“We’re an independent, non-profit production company, and it has been no small challenge to try to replace half a million dollars a year in six months. We’ve made some progress — a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, not least . . . We need your help to keep this community alive.”

Here is an introduction to the group, and a place to go to help.

Some people are giving it away . . .

Like the Knight Brothers Foundation, perhaps the premier philanthropic group in media or at least in the slice thereof that is mutating out of the newspaper industry. The group is gearing up to give away another $5 million through its 21st Century News Challenge and will begin accepting applications July 1. Read an interview with Gary Kebbel, the Knight official in charge of the contest. I have written a half-dozen posts that mention aspects of the contest, and the first entry, The (Good) Knight Challenge makes the essential point about the sort of ideas they want to fund: they are locally oriented and use new technologies to involve the audience. Good luck!

And other people give away less money, but we’d love some anyway . . .

J-Lab.org, a new media instigation and training outfit at the University of Maryland that is itself funded by the Knight Foundation, is giving away smaller grants in the $10,000 to $15,000 range through the Knight-Batten Awards for Innovation in Journalism. That link will take you to the entry rules — deadline is June 13!

“We are moving to a Fifth Estate where everyone is able to pool their knowledge, share experience and expertise, and speak truth to power,” said Chris Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced Cheek-sent-me-hi), director of MIT’s Computing Culture Research Group.

He will lead a $5 million effort to “to test and investigate civic media in local communities.” Funding will be provided by the Knight Foundation, which recently announced a series of grant winners in its 21st Century News Challenge.

The first set of grants were designed to support efforts to bring journalism to local, geographic communities (as opposed to virtual communities). The foundation begins accepting a new round of grant applications on July 1. (Details).

Other first round winners include Adrian Holovaty, creator of the news-mapping mashup chicagocrime.org.

Holovaty blogged that he’ll use the $1.1 million Knight grant to found “a Web startup, EveryBlock, that focuses on making local news and information useful.” An under construction sign on the site says: “EveryBlock will be a hyperlocal Web site that aggregates an unprecedented depth and breadth of public records, mainstream news sources, photographs, blogs and user-contributed information.

On his bio Holovaty says::

“I enjoy using and contributing open-source software. I’m lead developer of Django, an open-source programming framework that makes Web development fun and fast while maintaining high standards and adhering to best practices. Python is my favorite programming language.”

Overwhelming mind share — Be glad that you’re not trying to draw traffic to an off-brand search engine. A Center for Media Research summary says that Google and Yahoo accounted for 86 percent of searches in April. Forty-seven other search engines amassed 1.86 percent of searches. Such is the power of habit when off-brands challenge incumbents.

Web ads up but not enough: Online Media Daily reports that ad revenues on newspaper websites are up as a percentage of total advertising revenues, but mainly due to the fact that print ad revenues are so down. In a synopsis of Newspaper Association of America data, the publication said:

“Web advertising made up 7.1% of total newspaper ad spending, compared to 5.5% for the same period a year ago . . . still, total advertising expenditures at newspapers and their Web sites were down for the period, totaling $10.6 billion for the first quarter of 2007, a 4.8% decrease from the same period a year earlier. Spending for print ads in newspapers totaled $9.8 billion, down 6.4% from the year-ago period.”

Over breakfast with a Silicon Valley software guy the other day I heard this lament: “Everybody thinks they’re a product manager,” he said, holding up one arm. “I’ve got a list of product ideas this long.”

Perhaps its a regional thing. In Los Angeles everybody has a screenplay. In New York everybody has a novel. In the Valley everybody thinks they can build a product. And when the definition of product is applied to Web 2.0 communities, the result is one large and chaotic realm of ideas.

With that caveat, here’s one of my product ideas: to create an e-zine and community portal that would help people who express themselves through web pages, blogs or comment forums elevate the quality of their postings, and perhaps turn these passionate pastimes into self-sustaining organizations or income-earning hobbies.

The idea would be to create the Web 2.0 version of a trade publication, one aimed at what I call “mini media” – individuals or startups that could grow into organizations or small businesses

Here’s the gist of the idea.

Newspapers have spent decades becoming expert at news gathering, presentation, printing, sales and distribution. Local radio and television stations are similar in that they combine many skills behind their call letters. In theory local web publications can challenge incumbent media, offering words, pictures and sounds, without the need to throw a paper on the doorstep or use the public airwaves.

But how will mini media publishers acquire the varied business skills they need to become influential local players? Startups driven by tech-savvy publishers may be weak on journalism. Former mass media journalists may need to learn that, in the web publishing context, Ajax is not a scouring cleanser. And local publishers will have to learn how to sell advertising because Google ads won’t pay all the bills. Speaking of bills, do citizen startups know how to do the books, find group health insurance, and so on?

Here we are in an e-publishing gold rush and where is the trusted source that helps prospectors hit pay dirt? Where will wannabe publishers get advice from the more experienced? Where will open source media software developers disseminate their tools?

Right, the answer to all these questions is lots of places. So here’s a different question: is there a business to be made in aggregating the best new media “publishing” experience in one place and trying to create a community around it?

In December when I asked the Knight Foundation to support this idea through its 21st Century News Challenge, the answer was quick and negative (the contest was designed to fund startups or non-profits that were designed to foster local, geographic media).

Oh, well, the Foundation is giving away $5 million once again in a new contest that begins accepting applications in July. Does that give anyone any ideas?