I'm in the afternoon panel, where they're discussing money (simulcast here.)
So far, interesting...David Beers from the The Tyee, Barry Parr from The Coastsider talked about how an adverstiser can potentially shut down a small pub, and that this is a challenge. Someone from The Raw Story is talking about the kinds of ads running...He also mentioned how sensationalism drives traffic to Raw Story. That's very true. Says it's worrisome--very true. Where do you draw the line when controversy sells?
All this kind of plays back to what Tom Rosensteil said to me earlier about "popular" blogs making very big money--but right now, when sensation and celebrity sell, only the sensational celebrities are going to sell. And how many of us who have something to say are the level of sensational celebrity?? Unless they have some sort of authority behind them before they start out, or if they can scoop the Big Boys on the press. "But it's really hard to get those kinds of stories out there, "says Raw Story guy. Big media doesn't necessarily think new media is credible, and he cites Howard Kurtz tearing apart the Terry Schiavo memo a la Rathergate--but then getting a little hamstrung when the guy who wrote the memo said it was credible.
New media's hard business....but eventually partnerships will do better than individual efforts (overall, I think.) Unless you're Jossip and don't care to have a life.
I'm wondering if I should put some ads on either of my blogs. It might generate at least some pocket change...
Who knows, maybe after awhile, like Jeff Jarvis' son, I'll be able to buy an iPod...
The guy from the Twin Cities Daily Planet says they're using the OhMyNews model--having citizens write then use journalists as 'gatekeeprs' (oh, just call them editors!) This model isn't too bad. They've been getting grants, have some ads, and have some contributors, too. Ads haven't been making them alot of money--but that's not a surprise.
Talent's really not a problem in new media. Money is. You can make it, but it right now resources are limited.
But so much of this is so new...there's so much that needs to grow. I keep thinking of Jamie Boyle at Beyond Broadcast kept reiterating how all of internet stuff is in its infancy. And so is the money.
Staci Kramer of PaidContent.org is talking about P.C. When she asked how many people knew about P.C., there were less than 10 of us in the room. They just got some funding (under $1 mil, but still it's not bad) She says she's a journalist and blogging is her style and software. That's very true--a style and a software. P.C. is blogging as journalism. I would never argue that point, and what they do, they do well.
What Staci has been explaining is why I don't believe all blogging is journalism. What P.C. does is different than other kinds of blogging...their efforts are a practice.
The guy from The Center for Public Integrity talks about raising money via foundations--and has done very well. They do a new model of investigative journalism. Non-profit investigative journalism, he says, is a new business model. He used to be a producer for 60 Minutes. "If the media was doing its job, it wouldn't need a Center for Public Integrity..." "Investigative journalism needs to flourish...it costs money....and many companies don't want to go there." "I'm trying to figure out what's possible here..."
Everything that's been said has been important--and all the efforts are so very new. It may be journalism, but it's in a new medium and the funding will come from different places. Maybe the way things are going is that the old models have to die and new models have to rise. Print papers might rise as a practicality out of new web publications.