Blogs are old news, but you can still find new uses for them. Like today, when the White House used its official account to release Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate, along with with correspondence from Hawaii’s state health agency. And like any responsible blogger, the White House used Twitter to promote the post.
Now that Eric Schmidt isn’t running Google anymore, he has time for this kind of stuff: An hour-long interview with Tina Fey, conducted last week at the Googleplex.
He’s good at it, too. Or at least, he’s good in this one, where he’s paired with a great interview subject.
Some good stuff here very early on, as Fey explains some basic rules of improv comedy, all of which seem completely foreign to the engineer interviewing her, and the ones in the audience.
And, if you like getting outraged about location tracking and don’t have a sense of humor, here’s some red meat for you. Check in around the 25 minute-mark, where Fey starts talking about her kid and mimes using an iPhone (later on she admits to using many Apple products).
Schmidt tells her she should be using Android. “We want you to use a more powerful phone,” he says. Then this:
Schmidt: “As your daughter gets older, you can keep track of your daughter with your phone. Trust me. You’re going to want our phones.”
Fey: “Ah. Subdermal chip, that you guys…
Schmidt: “That’s been proposed, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Greycroft, the early-stage fund run by legendary investor Alan Patricof, is overhauling its org chart. The firm has added Paul Bricault and Kirill Sheynkman as venture partners, and Alan Gould as an executive in residence. Meanwhile, former general partner Drew Lipsher has left to head up corporate development at Clear Channel Media. Last year, after much effort, Greycroft raised a second, $130 million fund.
While News.me, the social news service built with the help of the New York Times, gets ready to launch, another big media aggregator is already out the door: The Washington Post has rolled out Trove, a “personalized site that aggregates news across subjects of interest and important headlines of the day.”
Unlike News.me, which will charge $0.99 a week, Trove is free. And while News.me is designed to be consumed on the iPad, Trove is starting out as a Web-based service that also works on Google’s Android and Research In Motion’s BlackBerry. WaPo says iPhone and iPad editions are coming.
The biggest difference: News.me is based entirely on shared Twitter links, but Trove is part personalized search engine–it says it sorts through more than 10,000 sources on the Web–and part traditional publisher, with a four-person team highlighting interesting stories.
Trove also uses Facebook data to set up initial “channels” for users based on their behavior on the social network.
I haven’t played with Trove on the go yet, and my gut is that it’s going to work best in mobile settings, where limited screen real estate makes news curation services more useful. On the Web, though, it seems like a modest evolution from the personalized home pages many of you have already used–interesting, but not crucial.
But take it for a spin yourself, and let me know what you think in comments below. Meanwhile, if you like those cartoons from the Taiwanese Next Media Animation shop, here’s a treat for you.
Every Friday, Mark Coddington sums up the week’s top stories about the future of news.
Putting the Times’ pay plan in place: If you read last week’s review, the first half of this week’s should feel like déjà vu — lots of back-and-forth about the wisdom of The New York Times’ new online pay plan, and some more hand-wringing about getting around that plan. If you want to skip that and get to the best stuff, I recommend Staci Kramer, David Cohn, and Megan Garber.
The Times launched its pay system Monday with a letter to its readers (snarkier version courtesy of Danny Sullivan), along with a 99-cent trial offer for the first four weeks and free access for people who subscribe to the Times on Kindle. Times digital chief Martin Nisenholtz gave a launch-day talk to newspaper execs, highlighted by his assertion that the link economy is not a win-win for content producers and aggregators.
Meanwhile, the discussion about the paywall’s worth rolled on. You can find a good cross-section of opinions in this On Point conversation with Ken Doctor, the Journal Register’s John Paton, The Times’ David Carr, and NYTClean creator David Hayes. The plan continues to draw support from some corners, including The Onion (in its typically ironic style, of course) and PC Magazine’s Lance Ulanoff. Former Financial Times reporter Tom Foremski and Advertising Age columnist Simon Dumenco both made similar arguments about the value of the plan, with Foremski urging us to support the Times as a moral duty to quality journalism and Dumenco ripping the blogosphere’s paywall-bashers for not doing original reporting like the Times.
And though the opposition was expressed much more strongly the past two weeks, there was a smattering of dissent about the plan this week, too — some from the Times’ mobile users. One theme among the criticism was the cost of developing the plan: Philip Greenspun wondered how the heck the Times spent $40 million on planning and implementation, and former Guardian digital head Emily Bell wrote about the opportunity cost of that kind of investment. BNET’s Erik Sherman proposed that the Times should have invested the money in innovation instead.
A few other interesting thoughts about the Times’ pay plan before we get to the wall-jumping debate: Media consultant Judy Sims said the plan might actually make the Times more social by providing an incentive for subscribers to share articles on social networks to their non-subscribing friends. Spot.Us’ David Cohn argued that the plan is much closer to a donation model than a paywall and argued for the Times to offer membership incentives. And Reuters’ Felix Salmon talked about how the proposal is changing blogging at the Times.
PaidContent’s Staci Kramer said the Times is fighting an uphill battle in the realm of public perception, but that struggle is the Times’ own fault, created by its way-too-complicated pay system.
The ethics of paywall jumping: With the Times’ “pay fence” going into effect, all the talk about ways to get around that fence turned into a practical reality. Business Insider compiled seven of the methods that have been suggested: A browser extension, Twitter feeds, using different computers, NYTClean and a User Script’s coding magic, Google (for five articles a day), and browser-switching or cookie-deleting. Mashable came up with an even simpler one: delete “?gwh=numbers” from the Times page’s URL.
Despite such easy workarounds, the Times is still cracking down in other areas: As Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan noted, it blocks links from all Google sites after the five-articles-per-day limit is reached. The Times also quickly (and successfully) requested a shutdown of one of the more brazen free-riding schemes yet concocted — NYT for a Nickel, which charged to access Times articles without paywall restrictions. (It also established a pattern for unauthorized Twitter aggregators and bookmarklets: You’re fine, as long as you don’t use the Times’ name.)
So we all obviously can crawl through the Times’ loopholes, but should we? A few folks made efforts to hack through the ethical thicket of the Times’ intentional and unintentional loopholes: Times media critic James Poniewozik didn’t come down anywhere solid, but said the Times’ leaky strategy “makes the paywall something like a glorified tip jar, on a massive scale—something you choose to contribute to without compulsion because it is the right thing” — except unlike those enterprises, it’s for-profit. In a more philosophical take, the Lab’s Megan Garber said the ethical conundrum shows the difficulty of trying to graft the physical world’s ethical assumptions onto the digital world.
A possible +1 for publishers: Google made a big step in the direction of socially driven search this week with the introduction of +1, a new feature that allows users to vote up certain search results in actions that are visible to their social network. Here are two good explainers of the feature from TechCrunch and Search Engine Land, both of whom note that +1′s gold mine is in allowing Google to personalize ads more closely, and that it’s starting on search results and eventually moving to sites across the web.
The feature was immediately compared to Facebook’s “Like” and Twitter’s retweets, though it functions a bit differently from either. As GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram noted, because it’s Google, it’s intrinsically tied to search, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. As Ingram said, it’s smart to add more of a social component to search, but Google’s search-centricity makes the “social network” aspect of +1 awkward, just as Buzz and Wave were. To paraphrase the argument of Frederic Lardinois of NewsGrange: if your +1′s go into your Google Profile and no one sees them, do they really make a sound?
All this seems to be good news for media sites. Lost Remote’s Cory Bergman said that if they essentially become “improve the SEO of this site” buttons, media companies will be pretty motivated to add them to their sites. Likewise, Poynter’s Damon Kiesow reasoned that +1 could be a great way for media sites to more deeply involve visitors who arrive via Google, who have typically been less engaged than visitors from Facebook and Twitter.
Shrinking innovation to spur it: This month’s Carnival of Journalism focuses on how to drive innovation, specifically through the Knight News Challenge and Reynolds Journalism Institute. Most of the posts rolled in yesterday, and they contain a litany of quick, smart ideas of new directions for news innovation and how to encourage it.
A quick sampling: City University London and Birmingham City University j-prof Paul Bradshaw proposed a much broader, smaller-scale News Challenge fund, with a second fund aimed at making those initiatives scale. J-Lab Jan Schaffer said we need to quit looking at innovation so much solely in terms of tools and more in terms of processes and relationships. British journalist Mary Hamilton and Drury j-prof Jonathan Groves both focused on innovation in training, with Groves proposing “innovation change agents” funded by groups like Knight and the RJI to train and transform newsrooms.
Also, University of British Columbia j-prof Alfred Hermida opined on the role of theory in innovation, Lisa Williams of Placeblogger advocated a small-scale approach to innovation, and the University of Colorado’s Steve Outing had some suggestions for the RJI fellowship program.
The mechanics of Twitter’s information flow: Four researchers from Yahoo and Cornell released a study this week analyzing, as they called it, “who says what to whom on Twitter.” One of their major findings was that half the information consumed on Twitter comes from a group of 20,000 “elite” users — media companies, celebrities, organizations, and bloggers. As Mathew Ingram of GigaOM observed, that indicates that the power law that governs the blogosphere is also in effect on Twitter, and big brands are still important even on a user-directed platform.
The Lab’s Megan Garber noted a few other interesting implications of the study, delving into Twitter’s two-step flow from media to a layer of influential sources to the masses, as well as the social media longevity of multimedia and list-oriented articles. A couple of other research-oriented items about Twitter: a Lab post on Dan Zarrella’s data regarding timing and Twitter posts, and Maryland prof Zeynep Tufekci more theoretical exploration of NPR’s Andy Carvin and the process of news production on Twitter.
Reading roundup: Plenty of other bits and pieces around the future-of-news world this week:
— New York Times editor Bill Keller wrote a second column, and like his anti-aggregation piece a couple of weeks ago, this piece — about the value of the Times’ impartiality and fact-based reporting — didn’t go over well. Reuters’ Felix Salmon called him intellectually dishonest, Scott Rosenberg called him defensive, and the Huffington Post’s Peter Goodman (a former Times reporter) said Keller misrepresented him.
— A few notes on The Daily: Forbes’ Jeff Bercovici said it was downloaded 500,000 times during its trial period and has 70,000 regular users, and a study was conducted finding that it’s more popular with less tech-savvy, less content-concerned users.
— Journal Register Co. CEO John Paton talked about transforming newspapers at the Newspaper Association of America convention; he summarized what he had to say in 10 tweets, and Alan Mutter wrote a post about the panel. The moderator, Ken Doctor, followed up with a Lab post looking at how long, exactly, newspapers have left.
— I’ll send you off with Jonathan Stray’s thoughtful post on rethinking journalism as a system for informing people, rather than just a series of stories. It’s a lot to chew on, but a key piece to add to the future-of-news puzzle.
Image of a fence-jumper by like oh so zen used under a Creative Commons license.
Keith Olbermann made a low-profile return in front of the camera this week, posting three videos on his Foknewschannel.com website. The clips are clearly targeting Olbermann’s old MSNBC TV audience, using common staples of his former show like the “special comment” and the “worst person of the day,” and were immediately were celebrated by fans.
Keith Olbermann abruptly left his job at MSNBC three months ago, and has since signed up with the much smaller Current.tv cable network. Olbermann joined Current as its chief news officer, and he is also going to host a daily news show similar to his show on MSNBC. However, contractual rules prevent Current from launching the show until late spring, and Olbermann made no secret this week that his online videos are meant to tide people over:
Foknewschannel.com, which is billed as an acronym for “friends of Keith,” is an obvious pun at Fox News, but it’s also a stab at MSNBC. Olbermann bills the site as his “official not-for-profit blog,” avoiding any obvious reference to Current.tv, likely to avoid any contractual disputes. Of course, that doesn’t stop Olbermann from telling everyone that there’s going to be more of this on Current.tv soon.
Olbermann isn’t the first celebrity to use online video while absent from the TV screen. Conan O’Brien used YouTube videos and live streams to drum up interest in his TBS show, and Charlie Sheen recently turned to Ustream as an outlet after being fired from his network sitcom. However, there’s a chance Olbermann fans will see more of him online even after his show on Current.tv starts.
Network co-founder Joel Hyatt told Beet.tv earlier this month that Current intends to bring Olbermann to many different platforms. “We are gonna expand the availability of his insights, of his commentary, of his analysis to every other device, every other platform,” said Hyatt, adding that the goal isn’t to repackage his TV show, but provide additional media for “every device you use.”
Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):