News-Record.com

Unlike the other large newspapers in North Carolina, we did not publish the story of Judge Sotomayor on the front page this morning. The story wasn't local -- we couldn't find evidence that she had ever been in Greensboro, although she was famously at Duke. The story had been out since Tuesday morning. What would we add by putting it on the front page?

That was my call. Some disagreement in-house so, second-guessing myself, I asked people on twitter. Some responses:

Nathan Hewitt: I'd say run wire, but definitely not A1.

Ryan Shell: Very GOOD call. I remember bringing this up to you several years ago when you came to speak at Steadmans class. Kudos.

Guy Lucas: Depends on whether you're being consistent. Where did you play Obama's formal acceptance of the Dem. nomination?

Andy Bechtel: Depends on the story selection. I learned a few things from N&O package on SCOTUS this morning; other issues clarified.

Casey Durango: Good call. Don't cover what can be seen in 1,243,263 other places. Cover what won't be found elsewhere.

Chris Colletta: Either decision works. It's an identity thing: are we local or are we a broader paper of record? We know where N&R stands.

Allison Nichols: Most readers won't understand that decision. Even if they've heard it on NPR or tv, they want news analysis on A1 the next day

Erica Perel: I'd be okay with no 1A story if there was a big refer w/ photo to inside story. And if all 1A stories were great reads.

haikuhijinks: A local angle ... Or unique analysis ... Could have made it news.

The most detailed response -- I have combined some tweets -- came from Liz at ascensions:

ascensions: I think it would have encouraged a discussion. I think in a perfect world it wouldn't be news, but this isn't a perfect world. I think this area's primary issue is our inability to get along with one another and suppressing a story continues the trend of "don't ask, don't tell." We wouldn't want to cause any racial tensions in this area, but yet we all know Hispanics are the new blacks for many. Well that, and gays."

As it turned out, the discussion led to a conclusion that our coverage could have been improved by a local reaction to the nomination. I love learning from the conversation.

Update: Bechtel does his own blog post.

Dustin Long, our racing writer, is on Twitter and has 875 followers.

And if you are interested in NASCAR, you ought to be following him. He uses Twitter precisely the way a journalist should. He updates with news and inside insight quickly and in a timely way. For instance, he was the only media person who broke the news that fans were injured last night in the Carl Edwards crash on Twitter. (That got him a bunch of new followers.) This afternoon he covered the NASCAR teleconference on the Carl Edwards crash yesterday.

Some examples of his individual tweets from that teleconference. (Bear in mind that reports are limited to 140 characters):

#NASCAR spokesperson: "We're going 2 take whatever measures we need 2 ensure the races are as safe as possible for everyone.''

#NASCAR officials considering issuing penalties during the race for blocking and aggressive driving ... taking a stronger stance toward this.

#NASCAR Cup director John Darby on flattening Dega: "I don't see that as a viable option.''

#NASCAR official on Dega fence height: "I think the fence was plenty high, but I do believe we'll go back and look at some other things.''

At the same time, he was talking with others and answering their questions. (@Mulator and @fourstringfuror are nicknames of people.)

@Mulator Debris went through the fence.

@fourstringfuror They didn't seem to open to slowing the car down that way when asked by the media.

Lots has been made of Twitter, much of it pejorative and much of it hyped. Dustin's reporting is an example of how a journalist can use it to advance and extend journalism.

**Follow me, too. And the N&R. (We're different!)

Despite news that Apple shipped more iPhones in the March quarter (3.79 million) than expected, people say they are dialing down their view on what is a necessity. Floyd Norris from the New York Times writes:

Overall, 52 percent think a television is a necessity. That is the lowest figure since that question was first asked in 1973.

The television breakdown is interesting. The older you are, the more likely you are to view it as a necessity. Among those over 65, 68 percent think a set is a necessity, compared to 38 percent of those age 18 to 29. But both those figures are down from three years ago.

There's been no significant change in the number deeming a computer for home use to be a necessity (50 percent this year, 51 percent in 2006). But I am surprised it did not grow. The proportion who deem high-speed Internet service to be a necessity also showed no significant change (31 percent this year, 29 percent in 2006).

I share his surprise, and no, newspapers weren't included in the survey.

What do you consider a necessity? In addition to news, of course.

In the scheme of things, two points only make a line, not a pattern. On the other hand, this old '60s radical is probably just behind the curve. In any case, I found these two references interesting as part of the cultural change afoot.

Joe Killian wrote last week of the protest against a Time Warner billing proposal this way: The effort is being organized largely on the Internet. Pages for the event were created Tuesday on Facebook and Craigslist, with more than 300 people invited and invitations being forwarded by e-mail, on blogs and social networks.

Then, in the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman writes about a Tea Party protest in Louisville, Ky., that was organized online.

The event I saw was a genuinely grassroots one, spawned on Facebook by a 23-year-old restaurant worker who managed to draw 1,000 folks on a blustery day.

Now, I'm guessing much of the attention came from television -- some people say it was organized by Fox News. Still ...

I know that I'm vintage. I know that Facebook protest pages pop up at the drop of a Facebook redesign. But actually having them turn into flesh-and-blood protests? I guess the good old days of protests organized through leaflets, posters, word-of-mouth and the promise of free brownies are over.

Much has been made of how the rise of the Internet has changed the way people find information and communicate.

Yesterday I was interviewed by a grad student at NYU for a paper she is writing on the journalistic contributions of Twitter. This isn't uncommon; I've been interviewed by students a dozen or so times over the past few years.

Each time I've been impressed that the students went straight to a primary source. Back in the old days, I would no more have called or written someone to get information. I did research in the library! And it's hard to imagine me getting a response from, say, a newspaper editor had I written him -- usually males -- a letter...certainly not a timely response. (Partly my fault in that I would have started the research 24 hours before the paper was due.)

But, thanks to social networks, I am easy to identify as a source for certain types of research. Thanks to Google, I am easy to find. And thanks to that "Contact me" link over there -->, I am easy to get to.

I don't know that the students are any better informed, but they certainly are better networked.

The NCAA, which has rules that run counter to the direct interest of their audience -- fans! -- is going to have to come into the 21st century sooner rather than later.

The NCAA has "rules" about blogging live sports events. The rules, aside from being anti-fan, are impossible to enforce with any consistency as any fan in the stands can post information about a game -- including photos -- whenever he or she likes.

Now, they are sending cease and desist letters to people on Facebook prohibiting them from exercising their right to free speech.

This time it's a case of an N.C. State student's Facebook page encouraging a Raleigh high school basketball player to come to State.

The NCAA's position seems to be that they are protecting youngsters from the evils of influence. Perhaps they need to tune into a few episodes of Friday Night Lights to see what influences high school athletes need protection from.

With the advances in technology, anyone with the proper tools can publish anything, whether it is "unauthorized" video of a basketball game taken with a camera phone or a Web page exhorting recruits. How is the rule monitored? What, really, will they do to violators? What will they do to them when they number in the hundreds and thousands?

It's time for the NCAA to reconsider its rules.

Allen Johnson notes the topics newspaper letter writers are hot and bothered about. No big surprises, given that there isn't an election campaign going on right now.

Except his #4. that people may be royally upset about Time-Warner’s new metered broadbrand pricing, but they are not writing letters about it. They are burning up the blogs, however.

What does it mean that one group is abuzz and another is quiet? It is a different sort of digital divide. Naturally, bloggers would be upset by TW's tiered pricing plan. It socks them in the digital solar plexis. As Allen says, there is fierce discussion on the blogs and in the comments.

Letter writers to the newspaper? (Warning: This is an assumption, an informed assumption but an assumption nonetheless.) Many letter writers are primarily newspaper readers and seek the forum that the printed editorial page provides. They spend time online -- most of the submitted letters come via e-mail -- but they don't live online. They don't tend to be of the generation that watches video online or builds Web sites from home or measure time in gigabytes.

No big deal, you might say. Different audiences. Different ways to express opinion. Personally, I think that Time Warner's pricing plan should interest everyone who is a customer of the business. And that is most of the people around here. (I admit I was surprised by two council members who said they were not customers of Time Warner. Dish users? Rabbit ears? No TV?)

But it is a big deal. Is the conversation expanding into new places or, rather, splitting into more and different camps? People gravitate to the place where they think they will be heard and where they are comfortable. Yet, if decision makers read the papers and not the blogs, are they getting a fair representation of what their constituents are talking about? If they read blogs, but don't watch television, do they actually know what's going on? If they judge things only by people who call them, are they getting a true picture of the world?

Sometimes I wonder if, back in the 19th century, journalists greeted the newly invented telephone with the same disdain they greet new social media today. "Why, how can this talking device compete with the face-to-face interview?" I imagine them asking. "It's preposterous!"

That's what I think of when I read about journalists belittling blogs, then reader comments on stories, and now Twitter. Everyone who spends any time on Facebook or blogging or Twitter knows that they are valuable informational tools, which makes them valuable journalistic tools. It's not rocket science.

Here are some recent real-life examples right here in River City:

* Yesterday we wrote about an Elon University professor killed while riding his bicycle. The tip that alerted us to the story came from someone I've gotten to know because I'm a blogger and she's a blogger.

* This morning we published a short story about WFU sophomore James Johnson saying that he is going to turn pro. That tip came from someone I'm following on Twitter. He linked to the Cheyenne story. I followed the link, read it and alerted our sports department, which rewrote it for our newspaper.

* Reader comments on this story about Time Warner's new pricing system drove and greatly informed this follow-up story we published in print this a.m.

* Jeff left a comment on my blog about a random acts of kindness that we're going to turn into a newspaper story.

I suppose that a generation ago all of these stories could eventually have made their way to publication somehow. But they wouldn't have been as timely or connected or insightful.

And I'm thinking my examples of the benefit of social media outnumber your examples of the detriment.

UNC journalism prof Andy Bechtel follows up on my post about Web sites charging people to comment.

I'm not alone in questioning its merit. But there aren't any commenters included. Would you pay to comment?

I listened to the UNC basketball seniors make their speeches after Carolina beat Duke today. They were funny and moving. But as I listened on the radio, I thought about how I expected to watch it. You can watch everything, can't you? After all, I missed putting a face with each of the walk-ons and seeing Danny Green do his dance and Tyler Hansbrough crying through his speech.

One more thing to thank the Web for. How long until it hits YouTube?

Monday morning update: The N&O captures some of the fun.

After detailed analysis, the AP has decided to no longer produce podcasts after Feb. 27. Links to AP podcasts on Web sites should continue to go to previously produced podcasts, though they will not be updated with new podcast content.

We got that notice from AP Friday. The news service didn't say what the detail analysis showed, but it's a fair assumption that it indicated the podcasts weren't worth the trouble. That's not saying they were bad; just that the demand from users wasn't there. So why continue?

Now that video is so easy to do, it seems to have eclipsed the audio experience. I know very few people who listen to podcasts; I know many who watch web video. We have done our share of podcasts and will continue when it seems appropriate. While they are fun to do -- and another way for us to distribute information -- we haven't gotten much feedback about them positive or negative. That's not a good sign.

I suspect AP noted the same thing.

One of the first visitors I had as editor of the News & Record was a movie theater owner who practically begged me to hire a film reviewer. We used to have one, but when he retired, he was not replaced. Given that we had reviews from newspapers around the country via our wire services, I saw little sense in hiring a local reviewer.

Now Seth Godin makes the point that It's quite possible that the era of the professional reviewer is over. No longer can a single individual (except maybe Oprah) make a movie, a restaurant or a book into a hit or a dud.

Not only can an influential blogger sell thousands of books, she can spread an idea that reaches others, influencing not just the reader, but the people who read that person's blog or tweets. And so it spreads.

I don't think we're at that stage yet. Yes, a blogger can sell thousands of books, but so can a large newspaper or magazine because many people still read reviews on newsprint. Like everything else in the information age, the audience has become fractured, with people getting their information and opinions from many places, rather than just the newspaper as it was the old days that retired journalists speak so fondly of.

Anyone who was tried to get into a restaurant the week after our restaurant reviewer has written about it knows that his columns are read.

Yet we are finally beginning to understand the value of the link -- that is linking to other related information on other Web sites NOT OUR OWN. For instance, when Nancy McLaughlin wrote about "Fireproof" yesterday, she didn't try to review the movie. Instead, her editor, Eddie Wooten, linked to reviews in Variety, the New York Times, Christianity Today and some blog posts. (Also providing links to maps of the church locations.)

It was simply a way to add value to any visitor interested in finding out more about the film. We're going to be doing much more of it as we find the opportunities and more people are trained.

It is what Jeff Jarvis calls: Cover what you do best. Link to the rest.

And further refined by Scott Karp: The web, after all, isn't really about content. It's about connections between content, people, and ideas.

It may take us awhile, but we're getting it.

Gerald Witt points out what's most interesting about the A-Rod story, aside from yet another star caught.

"They are looking in the wrong places," Canseco said in a text message to The Associated Press. "This is a 25-year cover-up. The true criminals are Gene Orza, (union head) Donald Fehr and (commissioner) Bud (Selig). Investigate them, and you will have all the answers."

WGHP and WXII have started linking out to content from other news sites, including us. FOX has a section well down the page where stories from the Winston-Salem Journal, us, WXII and the Business Journal are featured. XII's list is a bit more obscure -- click on a headline and a popup appears with the first sentence of a story and then a link to the originating site.

In the short time I've watched the site, I haven't been able to discern a rhyme or reason for their news judgment. But people say that about us, too. It doesn't appear as if they are linking to our biggest news stories, though. Honestly, it's too early for me to judge the value...but I understand and embrace the idea.

Linking out was once forbidden out of fear that people wouldn't come back. That idea now is an Edsel of the online news world. We don't do link out enough and are working on a system -- assigning a person -- that would build in many more links of relevance wherever we find them: the goal being, of course, to reward the visitor with information that helps. Links to news stories, blogs, Twitter feeds, what have you.

Soon.

Oh, how far our industry still has to go:

Yesterday I wrote about the N&O picking up on the complaints about press coverage that Gov. Mike Easley made to our Raleigh reporter, Mark Binker. The governor's comments came in a wide-ranging interview, which Mark spliced and diced into topic areas for listeners' convenience. Do I need to mention that we're talking about the audio recording, not the written word?

Both the N&O and the Charlotte Observer wrote about it yesterday, without linking. The N&O editorialized about it today, without linking. Editor & Publisher wrote about the dust-up, too, without linking. And several North Carolina newspapers carried the AP story, without links, although the wire service offered it.

Sure, we want the traffic. But that's small change compared with the convenience, to say nothing of the credibility, that the news organizations could have provided visitors. Making it easy to hear precisely what the governor said, listening to his tone and inflections, is a key benefit to online news. It's an opportunity that we must embrace every chance we get.

To his credit, Jack Betts, an editorial writer at the Charlotte Observer, links to it from his blog.

Update: Scott Karp, CEO of Publish 2, twitters: "Failure to link to original sources should be seen as failure of practice of journalism generally, not just online."

Update II: Two responses from the N&O: Danny Barkin points out a link in the Under the Dome blog. Steve Riley comments that they'll add links to tomorrow's story.

After just a couple weeks, I've become an unabashed user of Twitter. I have met interesting people there, and they have tipped me to interesting stories and given me good ideas and advice. Better yet, it trains me to think and write in short bursts, which is always important for a journalist.

Much has been written about how quickly Twitter delivers the news, and it is true. I learn of news stories and blog posts before my RSS feed delivers them. Faster than Google alerts, too. I have followed Hanna through the tweets of Robyn Tomlin, executive editor of the Wilmington Star-News. We have a general news feed and a political news feed. Follow them.

And follow me.

Sunday update: The NY Times explains some of the Twitter phenomena.

Over the past few days, some Web sites have linked to this post from January.

It's about vetting job candidates based on whether they blog.

Today, I would write about vetting job candidates based on their digital savvy.

What social networks are they active participants in? Do they Twitter? Who are their friends and who do they follow?

And how are you developing your personal brand?

The world of news and information is ever moving. Must keep up, just in case some employer has.

Is it police abuse or is it a proper arrest?

I'm talking about this video.

The citizen video of an arrest at Smith Homes is out there for anyone to watch. When, if ever, does it become news? If it is a proper and justified arrest, should the newspaper bother to write about it? Is it fair to the officers and the victim to publish an article about it, identifying both?Does it take on its own life simply by being recorded and posted on YouTube? Does the newspaper give it more weight than it deserves by writing about it?

Those are some of the questions that come to mind watching it. The police commanders our reporter spoke with had seen the video but noted nothing untoward in the actions of the officers. As of yesterday, no complaints had been filed about the incident.

We have not written about it because, other than the video of the arrest being available online, there doesn't seem to be much real news involved. But as citizen journalism continues to grow, newspapers and TV stations will continue to grapple with these sorts of questions. At least, I think we will.

Fox8's report last night.


Update: They acted appropriately.

In the comments thread of this post, Ted asked: I was wondering if you thought an online only newspaper for Greensboro would work, both editorially and in terms of making money. (Read the whole comment.)

I answered that I thought it would be risky. Then, upon thought, I posed the question on Twitter. Got some good Twittered and e-mailed responses from smart people saying that, yes, an online only news operation can work, serve the community and make money.

Steve Yelvington questioned that there would be many professional journalists -- Ted's idea is to use professional journalists -- who have the skills and business sense to pull it off. I think there are.

I'm just not sure that the Guilford County marketplace is ready to support it yet, and I refer to it that way to include both users and businesses. But that yet is in bold for a reason. I know there have been/are attempts at making a go with news sites in the area. Want to weigh in?

Related: "The core audience for news just isn't that big."

As an indirect footnote to the premature Philadelphia Inquirer hubbub, we don't see much evidence that newspaper readers move to the Web or Web users move to the paper.

Today's example: We published the Edwards story across the top of the front page of the newspaper. (It had been the lead story on the Web site since mid-afternoon Friday.) Included on the front page was a prominent promo encouraging readers to visit a forum on the topic to voice their opinions. So far this morning, only one person has left a comment, and there's no indication he did so after reading the story in the newspaper.

OK, it's Saturday morning and most people, unlike me, have a life so perhaps they haven't had the time to comment yet. Or perhaps they don't care about the topic enough to comment, which is hard to believe, given a dinner party discussion I heard last night.

But this level of response isn't unusual. When we promote specific online content in the newspaper, we don't normally see a huge increase in traffic to the Web site.

Some of it is educational, letting folks know what we have and how to find it. It's still early for some to truly understand how helpful and dynamic the Web is. Some of it is that we're promoting content that is either of marginal interest or narrowly focused interest.

But most of it, I think, is that the audiences for each form are different and simply gravitating to what they know and prefer.

Elon University has announced a one-year master's program in interactive media.

Students in the full-time, one-year program will learn to create and deliver text, graphics, audio, video and other content through a variety of media channels including the Internet and mobile devices. In addition to producing interactive content, students will study theories of communication and audience analysis.

It seems to cover the bases. I like this line in the story on the Elon Web site: During Elon’s four-week Winter Term, students will participate in a domestic or international fly-in to gather content for a special team project designed to serve the public good. (Bold is mine.)

Admission seems to require a 3.0 grade point average as an undergrad. I got my B.A. 30+ years ago. With grade inflation, you think my 2.25 would equal out to a 3.0 in today's environment?

Bam, just like that I got the privilege of paying another $100 to the second person to complete the New Year's digital challenge. Last week, it was Melissa Umbarger. Today it is reporter Gerald Witt.

Gerald is a host of Inside Scoop and is in the midst of planning this.

Down $200 and it's still a great investment.

When I first wrote about Twitter last December, 46 people in Greensboro had Twitter accounts. Today 232 do.

Five-fold growth in eight months. Back in December, I was questioning the tipping point. No more.

Time to dive in and learn. On Monday, I activated my account, have posted 25 tweets and am actively growing the list of people I follow. After reading this, I discovered our news feed was broken. Fixing, fixing.

There is robust, real-time discussion among real and virtual friends and colleagues. Some is inane, but much is informative, provocative and helpful. Depends on who your friends are.

The immediate impact? That's where I learned about this. Another person I was following needed some photo help in Greensboro. How would I have known about either otherwise?

As we learn here, this questionJeff Jarvis suggests news organizations ask fits:"How do we go to where the people are with what they need and how do we enable them to do what they want to do?"

Join me.

I just contributed $25 to help an effort to hire a journalist to fact-check the political advertising in a San Francisco election this November. What's the San Francisco tie? I don't know and don't care.

I donated because I'm interested in how this microphilanthropy in journalism will work. Basically, this is using a social network to generate small donations -- a lot of small donations -- to pay for a piece of journalism. Given the evolution/revolution in journalism and business models, $25 is a small price to pay to see how it works. Consider it an investment in the future.

Donate here. Or, for a better explanation, check out DigiDave.

My wallet is $100 lighter today, and I couldn't be happier about it.

I paid out to the first person who completed my New Year's challenge today. Among other things, designer Mel Umbarger created a copy desk wiki for a style book, schedules and more; created personal profiles on several social networking sites, learned Soundslides and Flash; blogged; and posted all sorts of content to the Web site.

The idea behind the challenge is to embrace all the tools available to extend our journalism. The personal upsides are that the staffers learn new skills and invest in their own future. For us, we get savvier digital journalists. Some of the learning that Mel took on was more useful than others. Everything she did was well-done, though.

For $100, I think I got the good end of the bargain. Thank you for taking it on, Mel.

The American Editor is a magazine published by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, of which I am a member. It is published four times a year and comes with the ASNE membership.

The magazine publishes the sorts of stories you'd think it would. The summer issue has a cover story on the flooding in Cedar Rapids and how the paper published all the news on its Web site. Also in the issue are a column on a winning strategy for newspapers, a piece on the Newseum, a column on Twitter and where the presidential candidates are on a press shield law.

OK, fine.

Now, go to The American Editor Web site. The content of the Fall 2007 edition is still up. The winter and spring editions have come and gone.

Does that say all you need to know about the digital commitment of newspaper editors?

OK, that was a cheap shot. If you wander deeper into the site, it seems as if new content has been added, based on update notations, but it is all one-way.

What if the Web site were a resource for editors? What if it were a place where editors could ask questions of each other and exchange ideas that work? Want to know best practices when cutting TV listings, stocks or sections? Go here and ask. Have an idea for a new feature? Chances are its been done somewhere and there's an experience to learn from. Looking to fill a certain position in the newsroom? Ask: Who out there is good? Wondering about how to use Twitter day-to-day to help people? The answer is out there. What's the best digital recorder to use? You get the idea.

My experience is that editors -- even those at competing papers -- are happy to share knowledge and information when asked.

What if there were a wiki of good story ideas and results? Of new helpful journalism Web sites and how they work? Of specific newspaper content and design evolutions and how they work? Of technological developments that have journalistic adaptations? Editors and site administrators could create and update, contributing to the improvement of our craft. Nationally.

In short, what if instead of just another journalism site of articles and opinions, The American Editor became a place where you could draw on the lessons and strengths of a nation's worth of editors? Hundreds of people gathered every day, exchanging ideas about nourishing journalism.

Exciting to think about.

Sounds like Wired Journalists, doesn't it? But there don't seem to be that many editors there. Maybe that speaks to digital commitment, too.

I don't have any more time than anyone else. I'm not involved with the ASNE hierarchy; I'm not much of a joiner. But someone takes the time to produce a magazine four times a year that may have the readership of the typical newspaper. Maybe. What if that energy were devoted to building the Web site? I would contribute to the site as part of my routine. My guess is that others would, too. And I, of course, would not limit it to editors.

And, instead of reading about a shooting that occurred in October 2006 (!) as is featured on the front page of the Web site or the flood that occurred in June as is on the cover of the magazine -- I've read enough about both on Romenesko soon after they happened -- I might be talking with other editors about, say, what to do with the Edwards story.

Wendy Warren, once a ConvergeSouth presenter and still a cool person, has been named editor of Philly.com. Wendy was an assistant managing editor at the Philadelphia Daily News. More personally, she is the daughter of my friend, Bill Warren, former managing editor of The Roanoke Times.

More on what Wendy is getting into at Recovering Journalist, Mark Potts' blog. Mark knows what he's doing. Wendy knows what she's doing. I have high hopes for the mix.

In the old days, when a tornado spun through the region at midnight or thereabouts, newspapers were a journalistic casualty. Because of deadlines, you can't get much of anything into the next day's paper. Your first real coverage comes 36 hours after the storm strikes. I've lived through those days, and I felt forlorn because of the missed opportunity. Big news happens in your town, and you are dead in the water.

No longer.

Now, the worst timing for a newspaper is the best timing for the newspaper Web site. When the tornado struck Guilford County Friday morning, we didn't get anything in the newspaper, but we posted what we knew until about 2 a.m. Friday and started up again at about 5:45 a.m. Reporters and photographers posted news updates, victims' stories, photos and maps throughout the day and into Friday evening. John Newsom, our main online reporter, Twittered.

Meanwhile, because so much had already been written and posted, we could plan the next day's newspaper with much more information than we usually have. We knew exactly what sort of information and visuals we had. We watched television to determine what people already knew and didn't know. We focused our newspaper coverage on giving them new information, providing perspective on how the storm formed and where it went, and showing photographs.

In the end -- now that we have more than one method of news distribution -- it worked out well for both the newspaper and the Web site. (Putting aside the death and destruction of the storm itself.) Had the storm hit an hour earlier, we would have gotten a story into the Friday newspaper and patted ourselves on the back for our hustle. I wish we could have. But, to be honest, I know it probably would have been out of date the moment it landed on driveways Friday morning.

If there are any journalists left out there who don't understand or appreciate the value of taking your journalism digital -- where people can get it even if the paper isn't scheduled to be delivered for 24 hours -- then our experience Friday should be a lesson to them. Readers seemed to appreciate it, too.

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.

The Society of Professional Journalists is conducting a Citizen Journalism Academy June 7 at at Guilford College's Frank Family Science Center. This looks like a good deal -- a lot of valuable learning.

From the release:

Among the topics this daylong workshop will explore:

* Journalism ethics. The new-media landscape is rife with dilemmas for anyone wanting to report accurately, fairly and outside the bounds of special interests.

* The basics of media law. The same longstanding laws concerning libel, slander and access to people and information apply to 21st-century news-gatherers.

* Access to pubic records and meetings. Public information can add substance and value to every news story. But knowing where to look for it can be tough.

* Standard and responsible reporting practices. With media ethics and law in mind, how else should news-gatherers approach sources.

* Tips on smart writing. SPJ instructors want to help ensure your voice is clearly understood.

* The use of technology. We'll show you an array of tools you could start using -- or continue using even more effectively.

The cost to attend the Citizen Journalism Academy is $25, which includes lunch and course materials. For more information about this program or to register, visit SPJ's Citizen Journalism Academy page. Please note, the registration deadline is May 24 and seating is limited.

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.

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.

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.

Inspired by Howard Owens' list for non-wired journalists, I challenged the staff here to become more wired with a list of our own.

There's now a support group/social network that I hope journalists here and elsewhere check out and join: Wired Journalists. Repeat for emphasis: It's not just for professionals; it's for journalists.

I have. (Note to self: Get new photo. That one large makes you look like a big dork.)

Good explanations here and here.

Thanks to Ryan, Howard and Zac for pulling it all together.

Andy Bechtel noticed the "time stamp" on the elections results on the front page of the paper today. (We published mug shots of the second, third and fourth place finishers with their percentages of the vote totals. Above that the hed says, "Other top finishers, as of 11:53 p.m."

I asked Melissa Umbarger, who designed the front page, about it. She said, "We went with a time stamp because trying to get both the percentage of GOP and Dems precincts reporting was messy and could have been confusing (without a longer explanation) with everything else that was out there. I think it's also because we are reporting, in effect, partial scores, something that sports doesn't do."

In fact, it allows us to tell readers precisely what we knew when we knew it. Because the newspaper slaps onto driveways five or six hours later, it signals to readers that it's possible that the percentages could have changed overnight. (Wish we had done it back on election night in 2000.)

Almost immediate update: Andy writes back: I haven't seen a paper do that before. On the one hand, it's honest, detailed and straightforward, and it /looks/ cool. On the other hand, it exposes how much lag there is between the final touches in the newsroom and delivery to the reader.

I'm guessing most readers understand that.

Rex Hammock refers to the thrill of seeing one's name in print. Actually, he links to the design director of nytimes.com who is thrilled by it.

Newspapers grew up on putting people's names in print. That's why we run honor rolls and achievements and business promotions and the "chicken dinner news." We got away from it in the 70s and 80s when we got drunk on power and thought we were all going to take down a president. We returned to seeing the value of "refrigerator journalism" in the 90's but it may have been too late. In an area our size, it's next to impossible to do it right in print. There's way more community news than we have space for. But we have pushed community stories onto section fronts, often to the dismay of hard-news junkies.

Like so much in media consumption, I think it's generational. I still hear from people in my generation who thrill to see their names in print. But, really, they thrill more by seeing their children's and grandchildren's names.

Yet, as I watch my college-age kids, they are so accustomed to social networking sites, being able to read and be read by thousands or millions of people online, that getting their names on paper doesn't overly jazz them. They glance at it -- even stuff about their friends -- and move on, content in the knowledge that Mom and Dad will clip it and file it away.

The newfound thrill is being linked to. With search, it's easy to find, and it means that you're being noticed. Because it's interactive, it feels electric. You are somebody.

Last week, Howard Owens posted a wonderful list of objectives for today's non-wired journalists. Inspired, our editors pulled together our own challenge to our more-or-less wired journalists. I sent this out yesterday to our staff:

Last week, I sent you all information about Howard Owens' challenge to journalists. We liked Howard's idea so much that we want to offer you a similar challenge that will help you in your career and help us achieve our 2008 top 10 list, which includes:

* Everyone will stretch themselves, improving their work, learning new skills, becoming better.
* We will innovate constantly, experimenting with new forms of journalism and new publishing methods. We will be quick to drop what doesn't work.
* We will publish news digitally -- big and small -- when we verify it and update it as often as necessary to serve the audience. Everyone will get training; everyone will play.

We didn't replicate Howard's challenge entirely. Like Howard, we will give you a $100 gift certificate (to Friendly Shopping Center). Unlike Howard, we only ask that you do eight of the 10, and it is your choice which eight. Also unlike him, we will give it to the first 10 of you who complete and maintain these for three months.

A few of these are geared more to reporters, although we've tried to be inclusive. If you aren't a reporter, go to Howard's list and select from there to fill out your 10. If you're interested in customizing an approach with a few that aren't on either list, let's hear it.

Sound like a lot of work for a small payout? Perhaps, but consider it an investment in your own development. And I'd bet it will be fun. My guess is that your PIP will have some of these as actions, too, so you'll have a head start. Let your editor, Ann and me know you're giving it a shot.

Here they are:

1. If you have a news beat, file at least five updates a week. This isn't hard. If you're working a story, file updates throughout the day. File the briefs you get from news releases. If a story is breaking file every time you have a snippet more of news. Remember, we must publish every chance we get; we are no longer a once-a-day-delivery newspaper. For editors and designers: Learn about types of headlines that grab online readers. Rewrite headlines on our Web site to make them more interesting for online. Do this for at least three stories per week.

2. From Owens: Become a blogger. Start with a favorite topic. For example, if you're a baseball fan, start with baseball. Find all of the baseball-related blogs you can and become a regular reader of five or six of the best of these blogs. Participate -- leave comments; follow links. After three months of blog reading, start your own blog on that topic. Try to post daily for at least six months. For blog topics, avoid anything related to your beat or politics. First, you need to blog about something you are passionate about; second, there are too many political bloggers already (except maybe for local politics, if you see that need in your community and it won't conflict with your day job).

From me: We have plenty of blogs you can contribute to. If you don't want to blog for us, start one on your own.

3. Learn to post and edit online. And do it often enough to keep the skill up-to-date. In addition to stories, learn how to post any type of file -- maps, charts, photos, PDFs. For editors: Post online at least once a week, and edit at least 10 stories per week online (that's only two per shift). For designers: Learn how to create photo galleries. Create at least one per month. Learn how to add extra features. The Mikes can help with training.

4. Use the digital camera. Shoot the neighborhood sign or street when you are doing a story on a rezoning fight. Shoot people you interview. Shoot a crime scene or a new store. Take photos of spot news if you see it or of anything interesting going on around you. Look for ways we can use your work -- an online gallery, blog, etc. The photos will help us online, and they will help you become comfortable shooting for publication. Do it at least once a week; more often is better. The Mikes can upload the photos.

And Owens is worth adding: Buy a small digital camera that can take both stills and video. Open an account with a photo sharing site such as Flickr or Buzznet. Take photos and post them. If necessary, use some online tutorials for digital photography.

5. Use the audio recorder. We want the three-minute interviews that you do more than the 60-minute conversation. A few snippets so that people can hear the interviewee in person will help bring your story to life. Do it twice a month. The Mikes can help with the upload. For non-reporters, learn about audio. Work with a reporter or videographer to see how it's done. Help edit and post at least one audio project.

6. Subscribe:
* To an RSS feed. Use RSS to keep up with the news of the day and the blogs you are now reading every day. Make sure your blog has an RSS feed. Here's Marc Glaser's guide to RSS. (From Owens)
* To our free products: daily news updates via e-mail and breaking news alerts. Text alerts on your phone. Find them on the home page.
* To our competitor's alerts. A decent number of stories that go online each week originated from an e-mail alert from someone else.

7. From Owens: Join a social networking site. Every professional should have a profile on LinkedIn, so make sure you do, also. Facebook has been hot in 2007, but I think you'l get more out of MySpace, which still remains popular with your future readers. You will get more DIY (the backbone of modern media) experience with MySpace, if you take full advantage of the site features (which, admittedly, I have not). Do Facebook, too, but don' neglect MySpace.

8. Understand and learn video. You don' need to shoot it, although it would be a nice complement to your skills. Learn from Andy Dickinson and Mindy McAdams. Learn from other news sites -- not just newspapers -- that feature video. Then hook up with videographer Michael McQueen at least once to create video for a story. For designers: Team up with a reporter and/or videographer to produce an online project. Even better: Think of a project yourself and then do it. For editors: Team up with a reporter, photographer or videographer to edit the script for an online project. Even better: Write the script yourself.

9. From Owens: Learn to twitter. I'm not a big Twitter user myself, but Ryan Sholin and Jack Lail swear by it. I think there is something to be said for learning how this technology may change information dissemination. Another view is Matthew Ingram's.

10. Innovate. Become a beatblogger. Take an issue on your beat and create a give-and-take online with experts. Create a new form of journalism. You're smart enough. Do it.

I know that all the cool kids are atwitter over Twitter. I want to be a cool kid, too, so I've been checking it out. At this writing, 46 people with a Greensboro, N.C., location come up in a Twitter search, including some online friends.

The potential value of a Twitter network for journalists is clear and striking. The ability to shoot out information to a network -- and to get information from the network-- during hot and heavy breaking news is a powerful incentive.

It will be a simple, even essential, tool for an experiment like this. Surely there are enough people interested in getting immediate, real-time updates on what the state legislators are doing and who would want to be able to talk back. Same with people interested in local government and business.

But given the speed with which new technology is adopted, are we ready yet? Have the Twitter people reached a tipping point, even for experimentation? Of the 46 people from Greensboro, the most recent updates range from an hour ago to 8 months ago. I asked my college-age daughters, who know their way around technology and use their phones for everything, about Twitter, and they looked at me blankly. (I'm used to that look; it is right next to the look of condescension I get when I show my ignorance. Had they known about Twitter that's the look I'd have gotten. The third look, by the way, is the one of shame, like when they discovered I have a Facebook account.)

I know from experience on our blogs that asking for help with a topic or judgment or interview subject gets spotty response at best. But Twitter is certainly more mobile and more immediate than blogging so it could be more successful. I've certainly watched enough people text during driving to know that if so inspired you can read and write anywhere.

More than a year ago, writing about something else, Jeff Jarvis said: The question is not, 'How do we get enough stuff to get people to come to us?' That is their old-media model. I think the question is, 'How do we go to where the people are with what they need and how do we enable them to do what they want to do?'

I believe that's exactly right. What I don't know is whether enough people are gathered at Twitter right now to make it much more than being a cool kid engaging with a cool new thing. Help.

Time was, newspapers in markets our size would lose reporters to larger newspapers looking for tenacious reporters and/or wonderfully talented writers. Now, there's been a shift in the marketplace. It's not seismic yet, but it soon will be.

Oh, the big news orgs still look for talented reporters and writers, and while those folks aren't a dime a dozen, there are a lot of them around. But that's no longer enough. Reporters with digital skills have the edge. My evidence:

Amy Dominello, our multi-media reporter since April, moves to a higher paying, bigger market in D.C. to be a multi-media reporter.

Katie Reetz, a features writer and multi-media star, goes to develop multi-media connections with students at Elon. OK, not a larger news org, but still.

Michelle Jarboe, a business writer, moves to the Plain Dealer to write business there. I don't know for a fact that her digital skills were a factor, but if they weren't -- she developed and contributed to two blogs here -- they should have been. (And clearly the PD could use some help.)

When we began emphasizing digital training here, we anticipated just such a talent drain. While I regret losing these folks, I'm proud that we've been able to prepare them for the future. Because the future is here. Anyone still out there -- and the group must be dwindling by now -- who doesn't see the value of learning to post, to link, to record audio and video and to join in the greater conversation is a stegosaurus in trouble.

Every journalist I know is a gossip. We might not call ourselves gossips, but that's one of the things we do. Every good journalist I know is also curious. Curious about all sorts of topics -- what they're working on and what everyone else is working on. Every good journalist wants to ask that one additional question and possibly get that special piece of information that will make his story better.

That's why I like Ryan Sholin's ReportingOn idea.

In short, ReportingOn.com would be a social network for reporters looking for others on the same beat (in different towns).

Make it easy for everyone reporting on "sea lions" to find each other, perhaps as part of a larger group of people reporting on "science."

One more thing: Every good journalist I know is always looking for the next good story idea. This coudl be a place they can find it. We aren't above theft.

Ryan also links to a Facebook group on the idea.