News-Record.com

Well, we're behind Raleigh again! A report from Scarborough Research about the percentage of people who read or contribute to blogs puts Greensboro at 7% behind Raleigh's 8% but well ahead of Charlotte's 5%. Worse, we're a notch behind the national average of 8%.

Austin, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle are at the top with 13%-15%. The top cities for bloggers have tech savvy and youth in common.

Demographically, bloggers are young and hail from middle class families. They are 66 percent more likely than the national average to be between the ages of 18 and 34. Fifty percent of bloggers are part of a household that has children under 17, as opposed to 41 percent of the total population. Bloggers are 20 percent more likely than the national average to have an annual household income between $50k and $100k per year.

I dunno. Maybe not young, but certainly middle class. With ConvergeSouth, perhaps we've moved into into a more expansive realm of digital use, in which blogging is simply one tool among many.

Sue Polinsky and I have discussed story readability before. Now there's an easier tool. (I say "now" when I really mean "I just stumbled upon.")

Test the readability of your blog. Mine's at high school level, which should not surprise those of you who think that's about the way I think, too.

Margaret Banks wrote today of newly elected city council members Mike Barber, Trudy Wade and Mary Rakestraw: The three leaders -- along with Councilwoman Sandra Anderson Groat, who was re-elected Tuesday -- ran on platforms of increasing transparency in city government. They argued City Hall should bring controversial issues into the open, even if it means not portraying a unified front for the TV cameras.

Regardless of what you think of Sandy Carmany's politics, she is an impressively transparent and accessible council member. She loses her council seat -- let's pray not her blogging voice -- next month.

So, now, with their vows of transparency, who among the new council will start blogging the talk?

Do you think that Sandy's blog is one reason she didn't win?

A reader asked me that, fearing that rather than helping her, the council member's openness and accessibility essentially painted a target on her back.

My answer: No.

Her blog demonstrated to that she is reasonable, kind and cares deeply about Greensboro. It says that she was trying to navigate her role as a politician responsible to the public and a city official bound by commitments to confidentiality on some matters.

You might read her opinions on public matters, decide you disagree and vote for her opponent, but that's the result of her opinions, not her blog. I believe that the blog helps people get a sense of who Sandy is and enable them to connect with her.

Her accessibility did open her to disparagement from some bloggers, who took shots at her far and away more often than the other council members. But I can't imagine it cost her many votes.

In any case, who knows how many people in her district routinely read her blog -- and the others -- and who voted? (Only slightly more than 3,500 people voted in the district.)

I think the biggest contributor to her defeat was that she didn't get the Simkins PAC endorsement.

Other thoughts: Sandy's, David Wharton's, Cara Michele's and Samuel Spagnola's.

Update: I've just read her 10 Plus interview for the Sunday paper. She addresses several of the points above and in the comments.

Maybe a beat reporter could do a way better job if there was a "live" social network connected to the beat, made up of people who know the territory the beat covers, and want the reporting on that beat to be better.

That's Jay Rosen's brilliantly simple idea.

It feels like the future to me.

I wanted us to give it a shot. I'm frustrated and disappointed that we're not on the bus with the 13 participants. We tried. Not surprisingly, Jay was receptive and helpful to us. We just couldn't find the right combination of reporter and beat. We looked at health and medicine, at High Point and at Raleigh, but for various reasons, couldn't make it work by Jay's deadline.

A major issue for us is that we are playing a bit of musical chairs as reporters leave and others move from beat to beat. But that will settle out soon enough.

I'm hopeful that we try this on our own, watching Beatblogging.org from afar and learning as we go. I'm convinced that it would give us an edge in our reporting, improve the reporter and make us a better newspaper. I have in mind a couple other possibilities once the right people get into place. Jay said it's possible that we could join his initiative mid-stream.

So that's two innovation initiatives before us. It should be a busy next several months.

Of all the Happy Thanksgiving greetings I read on blogs yesterday, no one says it better than Seth Godin.

Every time you read something I write here, you're giving me a gift... attention. It's getting more precious all the time, you have more choices every day, and it's harder and harder to find the time. I know. I'm grateful. I'm doing my best to make your attention worth it.

So, have a great Thanksgiving. And thanks.

Wish I had said that.

Some bloggers noted this morning that they received an e-mail from us telling them why their newspapers were late. If you want to receive such information from us, not only about some of our problems, but also about our upcoming stories and events, please leave word in the comments or shoot me an e-mail.

We won't spam you or try to sell you anything. It's just a service, particularly aimed at active bloggers. If you want us to cease at anytime just let me know.

What does it mean when you're the last commenter on a thread?

* Does it mean you quieted the crowd with such powerful wisdom that they are speechless before your inner-Einstein? That once you've spoken nothing else need be said?

* Does it mean that you've killed the conversation? That your comment was so off-point or so mean that everyone stares at you speechlessly as if you've accused the Pope of committing one of the seven deadly sins?

* Does it mean that everyone else has weighed in with everything there is to say that is remotely meaningful and you're late to the party? That you haven't bothered to read the other comments before yours to see what has already been said?

* Does it mean that you don't know when that an argument has reached its point of diminishing returns and you keep repeating the same thing? That the time has come to agree to disagree and move on?

Wouldn't it be helpful if one of these Greensboro City Council members interested in transparency had an active blog? I wonder what that would be like.

While I fear it will get lost in the holiday rush away from the web, Decision 2008, our election blog hosted by the inexhaustable Mark Binker, is up and running.

I ask job applicants if they have a blog. Most of them don't. Then I ask them if they read my blog. About half of them haven't.

The two questions tell me a lot about the candidates. First, if they have a blog, it gives me an indication of their passion for writing and communicating. It also allows me to see how their unedited writing reads. I rarely pay attention to submitted clips; I know how good editing can make a mediocre writer appear positively Halberstamian. Finally, in answering the question, they usually let on what they think of blogging and digital. Believe it, some trash blogs.

Second, if they haven't read my blog, it tells me they haven't done their homework. That makes the candidate a non-starter.

Actually, it helps winnow down the candidates pretty quickly.

A journalism student doing research for a paper asked me why more editors didn't have active blogs. I said more do than she thinks and I mentioned a few around here.

But like a good reporter, she had done her homework. "I haven't read those, but I've read others. They either aren't active or they are thinly veiled newspaper promotions or they don't encourage much give and take. You see more editors writing columns for their newspapers than blogging. Why is that?"

I talked about the amount of time a blog can take and the restrictions that some papers have with publishing platforms. Then I said, "Some editors still think of themselves as newspaper editors rather than as editors."

After all this time, it still surprises me that so many editors consider themselves only as newspaper editors. That may have been what we were 10 years ago, but it can't be what we are now, not if we want to serve our audience and have a future.

The truth is, newspaper columns take more time to write than blog posts. While the columns are read by more people -- at least mine are -- they reach only part of the audience. All newspaper editors know that some people who visit the Web site don't read the newspaper. So why would an editor cut off part of the audience?

Newspaper editors get plenty of feedback over the phone, in letters and in e-mails. But it's one way -- reader to editor -- or it is two way -- editor responds to reader. A blog lets a reader or an editor start the discussion. It's in the open for everyone to see. It's immediate, generally, and it's helpful to the editor. The interactivity can be rough, but it's no rougher than an angry phone call or publishing a letter to the editor that is critical of the paper. So why would an editor not want to join the conversation and get the immediate feedback?

I told her I couldn't answer those questions for her. Well, I could have, but I didn't like the answers. She hung up, on her way to call other editors.

Just in case you think that control of news and opinion is the sole purview of the mainstream media, say hello to the NCAA.To quote Bryan Murley, "You can blog, but within stupid, irrational, idiotic limits." Bryan captures the ill-considered blogging policy pretty well at Innovation in College Media.

It serves no purpose but to highlight inane bureaucracy and heavy-handed greed (because at heart, the NCAA blogging policy is all about $$$$). Of course, I would change my mind if the NCAA could show me one credible scintilla of evidence that liveblogging somehow decreases viewership of their championship events. Or that they actually have something other than $$$$ in mind in crafting this stupid policy.

I don't know that our guys are planning to blog the game. I'm not convinced that blogging a game is worth it, given that if you care enough to read a game blog, you probably are watching the game itself. Of course, you watching at home -- or on computer -- aren't restricted by the blogging restrictions. Pretty crazy, huh?

Boy, I hope this post doesn't get our credentials rejected as if we had driven the lane on Roy Hibbert.

I've always been interested in the inherent conflict between politics and good government. Allen Johnson's interview with political handler Bill Burckley is the latest illustration that good politics doesn't beget good government. Burckley says about blogs:

I enjoy reading them but my advice to any potential candidate is don't ever blog.... People get sloppy when they blog.

The inference I draw is that constituents might be told something that is impolitic. If government is of the people, then shouldn't government and its policy makers be more transparent? Shouldn't they be proud of their actions and decisions and deliberations rather than veiled and quiet? Shouldn't they let their opinions and leanings be known so that constituents can give them feedback and vet their ideas?

Is it harder to get elected when voters know what you really think? I'm not so sure. Granted, it may be harder when political handlers twist what you say, but I'm not ready to restrict freedom of speech. But running government -- and politics -- is a rough business. You aren't going to make everyone happy, ever. So why not say openly what you are thinking?

From an important post by Jeff Jarvis: Why should we be asking for information about and from our government? The government should have to ask to keep things from us. Government information -- every act of government on our behalf -- should be free by default. We must insist on an aggressive ethic of openness. The exceptions should be rare: the personal business of citizens, national security, ongoing criminal investigations and court cases (while they are ongoing), and little else.

Imagine the possibilities.

Jarvis also writes about blogging.

Government officials and agencies should blog. This ethic of openness should go beyond official documents and files. Openness should be part of the work habit of government officials and conversation with constituents should be an ethic of government. The open blog is merely a tool and a symbol for this -- and a more efficient tool, I'll add, than individual letters and phone calls.

We had one city council member who blogged. She was defeated by a candidate handled by Burckley. Now we have no council member or city government official who actively blog. Many of us are awaiting the transparency pledged by candidates during last fall's election campaign to take root. With a few exceptions, closed meetings still seem to be the rule.

That may be good politics, but it's not good government.

Update: Ed's take.

I didn't get my first reporting job because I wasn't tech savvy enough. This was back in the 70s and it meant that I wasn't a fast enough typist. True story.

Laugh if you must, but the same holds true today, only the technology has changed.

That's what I told Ryan Thornburg's brown-bag lunch gathering at UNC today. The more students learn blogging, Twitter, social networking, beat blogging, video, programming and the like, the better prepared they'll be to be on the front end of "if the news is important, it will find me" rather than choking on the dust trying to catch up.

When I ask job candidates if they do any of those things and they give me a befuddled look, that tells me something about them.

I don't want to be the smartest one in the room. (I know; no problem there.) I'm more impressed when someone discovers a useful new tool and adapts it to his/her work or tries to. If, say, a job candidate shows me the value of Twitter as a reporting tool, they have a leg up. It tells me that they're keeping up with what's happening in the field.

Innovation is more effective when it comes bottom up than top down.

Beginning in 2005, I was getting a lot of speaking invitations to newspapers, conferences and journalism classes to talk about digital journalism. By far the two most frequently asked questions were:

* How do you find the time?
* Do you pay extra for blogging/video/filing online updates?

Speaking to students Thursday, I realized that the questions are different. I can't remember the last time I was asked either of those questions. I'm interpreting that as meaning that journalists finally understand that their jobs have changed.

On Friday, I was interviewed by a journalism student working for ASNE Reporter, the newspaper that will cover the upcoming American Society of Newspaper Editors' convention in Washington. His story assignment: Will newspapers survive? What can be done to save them?

This assignment saddened me. Are we really still asking that question?

Yes, newspapers will survive, although not flourish or endure. I'm thinking that newspapers are good until the baby boomers start dying out in 30 years. I base this on Phil Meyer's generational research. Who knows what they'll be like, but it's safe to say that papers will be smaller, more focused and more niched. And many of them won't publish every day. Some options here.

But these are really the wrong questions, I told him. (Even though they are being discussed elsewhere by people smarter than I.) The more interesting question the editors should be thinking about is whether and how professional journalism will survive and flourish.

I'm think it will. Part of that is my heart talking, I admit. But I believe it with my head, too. Our challenge is to make sure that what create has value and that we can get it before the eyeballs of those who value it. And there are a lot of innovators working on that.

James Maroney, publisher of the Dallas Morning News: If you are I the newspaper business, you are in the business of managing decline. If you are in the news and information business, then you have a healthy future.

The news business is undergoing a transformation that's occurring faster than many of us thought. Our mistake is thinking of it as a threat rather than as the greatest opportunity journalism has ever had. There will be a living there if we can figure out how to be the discoverers.

Fortunately, the ASNE conference schedule seems to focus on change and digital journalism. Not that I'm going to be there.

When I was here doing this, I said this.

University of Cal.-Irvine study: Most participants considered reading blogs a form of "chilling out" or "wasting time."

And the participants weren't journalists!

Tom Keller, our new high school sports reporter has started big with today's basketball special and a new blog called the Locker Room about -- what else? -- high school sports.

He interviews his toughest critic in his first post. And then shoots some video of last weekend's basketball showcase for his second.

Pay a visit.

In January, reporter Lex Alexander wrote about his nascent efforts to figure out how to use the principles, practices and tools of social networking to improve covering a topic area. He's been plugging away at that at the same time he's been sizing up the issues and complexities of the health and medical beat.

He writes about his progress with beat blogging.

We aren't one of the 13 official news organizations involved in this effort put together by Jay Rosen and NewAssignment.Net. But we said last year we were going to watch it, learn from it and give it a shot. Thanks to David Cohn for his help, and kudos to Lex for taking the ball and running downfield, even if we're not sure where the goal line is.

And we're open to ideas and suggestions from you.

Mark Binker gets his hand slapped by Clinton press folks for acting like a citizen of the United States -- going to the Clinton fund-raiser along with 700 people yesterday and then writing about it.

I have resisted, until now, pointing out the fact that there were 700 people in that venue, 95 percent of who were toting cell phones with cameras and recorders, a bunch with personal cameras and all, I would think, with decent enough memories to relate the event to friends and neighbors. So since everyone invited to the event was potentially a reporter, that "closed press" thing seemed pretty laughable.

I think it has been suggested before that the Clintons are working under a 20th century media mentality which is no longer operable in the age of citizen journalism. Yesterday was an up-close taste of that.

Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic has an interesting post about what he calls an online mugging by another blogger.

What bothered me about Mr. Haber's post was not its insults (a couple of which were funny) but that he repeated a discredited accusation made by an ethically-challenged journalist about my reporting without having sought my comment. I called Haber to complain. He said: "I just wanted to promote your new blog." ... Then he said that, while the Observer "does reporting," the blog for which he writes "is a looser, more fun kind of way of writing things." Fun, in Haber's view, includes slander.

It has always been a curiosity to me that some bloggers feel no responsibility to ask for information or an explanation before they write something negative about me or the reporters here or the newspaper. The responsibility then falls to me or someone else here to correct the record or at least present an explanation for what we're being accused of. Of course, that requires us to know that the post has been written in the first place. (And for sure, it is not just me or the paper; there are some public figures and other bloggers who get reamed without being contacted for comment. I can only speak for myself.)

Most recently, one blogger headlined a piece saying we had censored his comment. Actually, our spam filter snagged it because it had several links in it. When I read his post, I suspected that had happened and resurrected the comment. I explained what happened on his blog and asked him to change the headline, and he graciously did. That's hardly slanderous and isn't a big deal. But it was factually wrong and could easily have been explained and fixed. I'm not linking to him because in the past he has asked me via e-mail for a comment about an issue he was interested in.

We aren't difficult to reach. Writing a fuller, fairer piece seems a reasonable motivation. It brings the blogger more authority and credibility. It would make the local blogosphere a more inviting, civilized place. Is that just the traditional journalist in me?

Three links to advice:

1. When to post: This isn't the worst time to post items on the blog, but it is close. At least according to one study. According to Connecticut software developer Jake Luciani, "between 1 pm and 3 pm PST (after lunch) or between 5 pm and 7 pm PST (after work) are the best times and Thursday is the best day. The worst time to post? Between 3 and 5 pm PST on the weekends -- nobody cares."

2. Dave Caolo on 5 ways to improve your blog. I need to take his advice. I fall down on each point.

3. Darren Rowse on 9 essential questions to ask yourself before you write. No. 8 -- Could I give this post a little more time before publishing to 'mature'? Would coming back to it tomorrow help me to add depth to it? Good idea. See ya.