Comments for Old Forest, New Trees

Comment on Relevance is mandatory, so pick a niche by dann e. bloom

dann e. bloom — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:17:28 +0000

Michael, came here via your comment at CJR, good! you left your link, good idea! ever heard of this new term i coined for print newspapers — snailpapers — and used as a term of endearment on my part. I love print, i hate “screening” another new word I coined last year to mean “screen-reading” which is not really readying per se but a new kind of reading mode, so i call it “screening.” they are two diff animals, reading vs screening. agree or disagee? and can you blog one day on this idea and the snailpapers term, pro or con. Just to get a discussion going? – cheeers, Danny in (tawian, yes!)

Comment on Why this isn’t a media revolution by Bret Bernhoft

Bret Bernhoft — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:48:40 +0000

Points well conceived.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Comment on Why this isn’t a media revolution by Tweets that mention Old Forest, New Trees » Blog Archive » Why this isn’t a media revolution -- Topsy.com

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:51:03 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by doc normal and Bill Lascher, Michael Andersen. Michael Andersen said: Something I learned at #wmtm: high expectations kill. http://bit.ly/6jNWai [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (208.74.66.43) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (74.112.128.10) and so is spam.

Comment on Nonprofiteers are capitalists, too by Michael

Michael — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:02:42 +0000

Thanks a lot for the response, Jeff. I’ll take your CUNY study over Downie and Schudson’s any day of the week.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Comment on Nonprofiteers are capitalists, too by Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:51:06 +0000

I agree on the value of a role for nonprofits (we included it in our projections of new business models for news at newsinnovation.com). But I see news people being lazy about being of the market thinking they’ll get charities and foundations to just give them money and that’s that: no need to worry about the market. I think we’d agree that that’s not sustainable.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Comment on Nonprofiteers are capitalists, too by Michael

Michael — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:32:25 +0000

By the way, I don’t think much of government subsidies, either. And I’ve been trying to push against the nonprofit assumption a bit in conversations about my local would-be nonprofit news startup. News entrepreneurs should never let “let’s make it nonprofit!” become code for “let’s worry about revenue some other time!”

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Comment on Four principles, four commandments by Old Forest, New Trees » Blog Archive » Relevance is mandatory, so pick a niche

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:01:05 +0000

[...] Forest, New TreesEntrepreneurial local journalism « Four principles, four commandments Talk is cheap, so be useful » [...]

Comment on The four kinds of non-catastrophic breaking news, and why social media aren’t changing them by Jeff Fobes

Jeff Fobes — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:57:05 +0000

Thanks, Michael for the props. Here’s my line of thought, slightly amplified:

The press earns its protection only because the Constitution says it has a role in U.S. citizens’ freedom of speech. And until recently to speak of the “press” was to speak of the media, because the media had the exclusive role of transmitting news and information.

But now that the tools of publication have left the building, the constitutionally protected role of the “press” no longer only applies to just the media. Arguably, the constitutional term “press” needs to be extended to every citizen who uses social media tools.

In other words: The media used to control the “press” pipeline for free speech; but the Internet puts the tools of publication in EVERYONE’s hands.

So, what privileged roles are left for the media, in terms of freedom of speech? As long as media operations have some revenue stream, they can pay professional reporters and editors, and will likely continue those are historic roles.

But the media is now challenged by the Internet and its social media applications to see itself working with citizens and their groups — who themselves are taking on many of the roles of the traditional “press.”

The media, in its new role, should recognize that the press corps now contains important new (and constitutionally protected) members — the citizens — and work to promote, enhance and protect the activities of these citizen-journalists and their networks. While the media will remain an important PURVEYOR of free speech, it must now work alongside its new partners, the citizens and their diverse groups, to ORGANIZE, FILTER and CURATE the free speech that citizens generate and publish through their own means.

Comment on The four kinds of non-catastrophic breaking news, and why social media aren’t changing them by Twitted by joshhalliday

Twitted by joshhalliday — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:41:24 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by joshhalliday [...]

Comment on The four kinds of non-catastrophic breaking news, and why social media aren’t changing them by Michael

Michael — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:09:24 +0000

I should add that Jeff Fobes offers a neat summary of a theme that runs through several of your comments: “news” is less important than newsosaurs think, and “conversation” is more important than newsosaurs think.

I find it very persuasive.