Google Wave closing down

Goodbye Google Wave. It seems so long ago that we were all selling our grannies for invites...

***********************************************************

From: Google Wave <wave-noreply@google.com>
Subject: Google Wave Sunsetting in 2012

To: alisongow
Dear Wavers,

More than a year ago, we announced that Google Wave would no longer be developed as a separate product. At the time, we committed to maintaining the site at least through to the end of 2010. Today, we are sharing the specific dates for ending this maintenance period and shutting down Wave. As of January 31, 2012, all waves will be read-only, and the Wave service will be turned off on April 30, 2012. You will be able to continue exporting individual waves using the existing PDF export feature until the Google Wave service is turned off. We encourage you to export any important data before April 30, 2012.
If you would like to continue using Wave, there are a number of open source projects, including Apache Wave. There is also an open source project called Walkaround that includes an experimental feature that lets you import all your Waves from Google. This feature will also work until the Wave service is turned off on April 30, 2012.
For more details, please see our help center.
Yours sincerely,
The Wave Team
© 2011 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google Wave account.

My Interesting Reads (weekly)

• Newsroom Insider: Hating on Chelsea Clinton
  Despite the title, this isn't a rant about nepotism - it's an excellent read about what it means to be a journalist, with some great anecdotes and observations on a long career. Having said that, it's difficult to disagree with the point that "Clinton is not the first unqualified silver spoon from the professional political class to be handed a plum news job...The current crop of media silver spoons includes Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain, who is a contributor to MSNBC; Chris Cuomo, son of former New York State Gov. Mario Cuomo and a correspondent at ABC; and Jenna Bush Hager (left), daughter of President George W. Bush and a correspondent for NBC's "Today" show. Hager's professional qujennaalifications? Your guess is as good as mine. Either she was hired on the strength of her status as a teacher's aide and reading coordinator, or she was hired because her daddy is the former head of the Republican political machine. Curiously, her first big accomplishment was landing an interview with Bill Clinton, the former head of the Democratic political machine. How much do you want to bet that one of Chelsea's first big "gets" will be a similar interview with George W. Bush?"...
  tags: newsroom chelsea+clinton nepotism
  • It was Sept. 6, 2005, and Ray Couture and I had just about finished the gruesome body count inside St. Rita's Nursing Home in hard-hit Chalmette, La. We'd found the corpses of 15 elderly Americans in various states of decay.
    
    It was a horrendous experience. The worst bodies looked like they'd been carved from butter after floating in the floodwaters for eight summer days. Some still had catheters hanging out of them.  It took us an hour to perform the room-to-room search in the dark and flooded facility. The wooden doors had expanded in their jambs and we had to shoulder them open without slipping and falling into the stew of decomposing tissue, feces and swamp mud that covered the floor. Yellow streams emanated from the bodies - a characteristic I would later learn is typical of decomposing fat.
    
    Ray and I were in the lobby, where a few beams of sunlight illuminated the brown high water mark all around the big room. An indignant voice broke the silence.
    
    "This ain't right," the voice said, dripping venom. "These guys never had a fucking chance and that ain't right."
    
    Ray was staring back at me in slack-jawed amazement when I suddenly realized the outraged voice was my own. The "me" I keep penned up inside. The "me" that isn't a detached, professional observer of the human condition. The real "me" who has opinions and knows each corpse inside St. Rita's was someone's grandmother or grandfather.
    
    It was also the me that knows that leadership is done by example and that elites are expected to get down in the muck with the rest of us when there's hard work to be done. Chelsea Clinton and her fellow silver spoons haven't done that.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

My Interesting Reads

• I'm a Lean Machine - Your Idea is a Liability, Not an Asset
  ..."Whatever your idea is, however brilliant, it is a consumer of resources, not a creator. The creation of value comes from the execution of the idea, not the idea itself. Your idea is a liability. You, as the entrepreneur, are paying the expense of creating an entity that converts that idea into a valuable executor, a valuable business. The valuation of that business through investment is the indicator that your turned that liability into an asset."...
  tags: innovation idea liability business

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

How to (not) kill journalism

I read this a while ago but I had a broken wrist and, while I could have potentially used all sorts of free online tools to get my point across, I really couldn't face it. I was in pain, and I disagreed with this post so fundamentally, that the best thing to do was simply put it in the bottom drawer for a while. 

It's been a while. I'm still disagreeing with this post but the beauty of time passing is that more commenters have arrived to give their point of view too. And what a disheartened bunch they are, in the main 

I'm not sure what I should expect from a post that's titled How To Kill Journalism, but here are a couple of pars that struck me. Let's start with the patronising: 

First, it needs to be said is that the author, a young widow in her early 40s, is extremely earnest, well-intentioned and one of the hardest-working administrators I know.

Bless! A young widow! Possibly facing the prospect of picking coal with her bare hands if she doesn't toe the company line!

And then there's the 'slave labour' kicker 

Unfortunately, she now works for a division of the Journal-Register Company, which is to journalism what a Soviet slave labor camp was to the union movement. In the process, she seems to have lost sight completely of what journalism is supposed to be.

JRC = Gulag. That's not hyperbole in any way, is it? It's the sort of rational thinking that, after just three paragraphs, tells me I'm going to get a reasonable argued, considered, piece of critical analysis. I guess Jack Lessenberry is deliberately courting controversy and doing what a good columnist should - stirring things up. But he's got a lot of 'hear hear' responses from people, who obviously think slave labour is what digital journalism is about. 

I wrote this three years ago because I wanted to explore the different ways a reporter could tell and share a story using online tools; it's now as antique as a Stylophone. I got some angry reaction too, mostly from Twitter and discussion boards, from journalists ex and present who thought I'd written a prescription for what they should be doing, rather than what they could do. 
And they were wrong, as well. As a reporter I always found time for the things I wanted to do; it was the boring, complicated or trivial that would slip down the to-do list.

In her memo to staff, the editor asks her JRC staff if they had...

• Crowdsourced so they could ask more relevant questions of local officials

• Uploaded the City Council's agenda to the paper's website using Scribd.com before the meeting and share it on social media so that readers would know that city leaders were considering raising their own salaries despite a general fund deficit 

• Checked in to the meeting on social media and then Tweet and posted on Facebook some of the discussion points during the meeting?

• Shot video of local residents during the meeting protesting the decision, processed it during the meeting, and posted it on the paper's website before the meeting ended?

• Posted a paragraph on the website under Breaking News about the vote during the meeting and wrote the full story after, posted it online, and then pushed it out using social media, SMS text, or breaking news alert via e-newsletter subscriber list?

• Followed up on the issue by hosting a live chat the next day with local leaders and residents?

For suggesting the above, she's condemned as naive and over-demanding, and of failing to understand just how busy her team are. 
This is more bullshit than I'm prepared to accept. 
Let's consider the evidence...
Did you crowdsource so you can ask more relevant questions? - You did, didn't you? After all, it only takes a "Off to Oxdown council meeting for #oxdowncuts debate - what do you think?" you crowdsourced the issue. If you were a smart journalist interested in writing relevant copy and asking the questions people care about, that is.

Did you upload the doc to Scribd? - This is one of the most labour-saving sites around; most national and regional titles I know of are using it to upload pdfs, reports and more. And they're not alone - the Government Docs section of Scribd has everything from the Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Accident logs to the a guide to UK Crowdfunding. Uploading the agenda of your local council meeting so people can see it is a no-brainer; it's your job as a journalist to share information - especially public realm information that others may struggle to access. 

Did yyo use social media to check in and then update during the meeting? - Journalists regularly and accurately live-tweet evidence in court hearings without keeling over exhausted; tweeting "Labour has failed to win over independents on council over library cuts" and posting it via sms to Twitter during a boring stretch of debate is the work of seconds. 

Did you shoot video before the meeting? - Possibly you did, if you got there early enough. Did you edit and upload it during the meeting? - This one depends on your phone and some in-office co-operation really. I could edit and upload to YouTube (not my employer's cms, but the code could then be copied by a co-worker) from my smartphone in a couple of minutes. It would be rough and ready but it would be a snatched moment-in-time, something the audience could experience only because I shot that video. 

Posted updates on the vote [etc] - Journalists have been filing copy over the phone for years, or in my case handing sheaves of written copy it to the passing bus driver to drop off at head office. Emailing something from your phone or ringing it to newsdesk is not unusual, nor is then tweeting to say it's online.  I wouldn't expect that same journalist to write the e-bulletin; I would expect a colleague on the digital team to push it out. 

Hosted a live chat the following day? - Happens all the time. If it's a big enough issue, why wouldn't you? One popular web chat we hosted brought the Media Wales sports editor and the Liverpool Daily Post&Echo chief sports writer together on a liveblog for a chat about transfers. A. Chat. But it was one readers could be a part of, by posting questions and comments. Thirty minutes flew by, everyone enjoyed themselves and the audience broadly thought our two sports guys were awesome for doing it. Not bad. 

What I don't know - and what I suspect the writer of How To Kill Journalism doesn't know, is whether that memo was sent as a round robin, or to an individual. If it's an individual, I can see why they would feel concerned - without a manager sitting down and taking you through that sort of list and showing you how easy and fast these tools are - it would be daunting. If it's a round robin then everyone involved in that article has responsibility: 

• The news editor sending the reporter out is responsible for ensuring their workload is reasonable
• The reporter is responsible for covering the meeting in the way specified (and that includes following the company strategy, which in JRC is digital-first, as well as the line manager's briefing)  
• The web team is responsible for offering support, curation and unique content to support the reporter
• The editor, ultimately, is responsible for ensuring people have the adequate tools and training to meet her requirements

On the editor's blog - I can't link because Jack Lessenbury doesn't link or reference her newspaper - one woman apparently posted "Is a reporter going to spend literally days covering one event?" 

To which I hope the Unknown Editor replied "yes, sometimes they do. Sometimes they sit in a court all day without filing anything other than a few pars, and sometimes they spend days on a story for it to collapse because the subject has had a change of heart. And if the event is important enough (and one might suggest a debate involving city leaders who were considering raising their own salaries despite a general fund deficit was important enough) then they would spend as much time as necessary covering it."

Look how long the Middlesbrough Gazette spent on this story outing their local MP as less-than-dedicated - "The Gazette has been making daily calls to Sir Stuart’s Westminster office and Middlesbrough home over the course of several months. Despite making a total of 100 calls, no one ever answered." Often, playing the long game is what garners the greatest rewards in journalism. 

Anyway, it might not mean much but I wholeheartedly support that Young Widowed Editor, whomever she may be. It's not memos exhorting staff to engage more and ask the questions that matter to their audiences that will kill journalism - nothing, I suspect, is going to kill journalism; it's just that some people won't recognise what it's becoming. 

I've been reading... 10/14/2011

• Coding Horror: Suspension, Ban or Hellban?
  ..."every community is different. I've personally talked to people in charge of large online communities – ones you probably participate in every day – and part of the reason those communities haven't broken down into utter chaos by now is because they secretly hellban and slowban their most problematic users. These solutions do neatly solve the problem of getting troublesome users to "voluntarily" decide to leave a community with a minimum of drama. It's hard to argue with techniques that are proven to work2...
  tags: hellban hellbanning comments community
  • I'm not quite sure how I feel about these sorts of reality-altering tricks that are impossible in the world of atoms. On some level, they feel disingenuous to me. And it's a bit like wishing users into the cornfield with superhuman powers far beyond the ken of normal people. But I've also spent many painful hours trapped in public dialog about users who were, at best, just wasting everyone's time. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but efficient, it ain't.
     That said, every community is different. I've personally talked to people in charge of large online communities – ones you probably participate in every day – and part of the reason those communities haven't broken down into utter chaos by now is because they secretly hellban and slowban their most problematic users. These solutions do neatly solve the problem of getting troublesome users to "voluntarily" decide to leave a community with a minimum of drama. It's hard to argue with techniques that are proven to work.
     I think everyone has a right to know what sort of jail their community uses, even these secret, invisible ones. But keep in mind that whether it's timed suspensions, traditional bans, or exotic hellbans and beyond, the goal is the same: civil, sane, and safe online communities for everyone.
    

    • Enders: 40 per cent regional press jobs cut in five years - Press Gazette
      Enders said: “There has been a substantial decline in advertising revenue in the regional press. They have been the worst effected by the pressures of the digital age. It has lost 40 per cent of its workforce in the last five years.”
      tags: regional+ press future+of+news enders
      • Media analyst Claire Enders has estimated that 40 per cent of jobs in the UK regional press have gone over the last five years.
    • The Future of Journalism: Good for You, Scary for Us - Chicago Ideas Week 2011: Intelligence Squared - TIME
      RT @JulieWestfall: "Journalists are confused and scared." Speak for yourself. Can't disagree http://t.co/Ncir14lM

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Future of Journalism conference plenary speaker Robert W McChesney

The Future of Journalism conference (day 2) Plenary speaker was Robert W McChesney, Gutgsell Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
He had some l issues with the points made by the previous day's Emily Bell. His talk was lively and authorative but, while he might have considered Emily as one-eyed over the futrue of journalism, I think he was too.

So, these are my notes of his session: 

1. The Guardian operation is not representative

The Guardian is a non profit organisation - take that and the other publicly funded media in this country out of the equation and there is not a whole lot left.
"If you don't have funding then it is not journalism. I don't know what it is. The world is filled with young peple who want to do journalism and there is no lack of talent or enthusiasm but there is a lack of support and funding. That is where I disagree with Emily Bell."
He also warned there was nothing on the horizon to suggest the labour Market in the US was going to improve and the critical situation US media found itself in was not going to get better.

2. The future from the past?

Professional journalism in the US at its best had deep flaws and these have grown more pronounced with commercial pressure. There are great journalists and great work being done but you cannot romanticise the professional system; it is so flawed it made it easy for the system to collapse. 

Professional journalism was mandated in the constitution a hundred years ago to protect media owners' monopoly powers in their local areas.
This crucial period defined journalism. It replaced sensationalism and lack of commitment to accuracy, but it had flaws.
Reliance on people in power set up the range of legitimate debate in a paper; so if a journalist raised an issue outside that they were seen as ideological. 

He have the example of investigative reporting into wars, saying the more certainty you hear about the reasons for US involvement in a conflict "the more it is likely to be bullshit pushed by people in power".
James Madison, the fourth ppresident of US, was a believer in free press; his argument rested on the schools he received he had as a classical scholar - that Athens and Rome became military empires and it led to their downfall. "Government cannot survive militarism."

Madison said the people of a country could only stop leaders from militaristic regimes is if they knew about it through a free press.

3. The economy, stupid, and other problems

There has been a huge increase in business news, he said, with newspapers employing multiple business writers and carrying sometimes two business sectinos. 

"Most of this journalism is utterly pathetic"  [and sucks up spin or extols CEOs] "and lets the top one per cent of society control debate on the economy."

He said journalism had missed entirely the scandals and housing, economy and other bubbles of the economy in recent years, showing there is a crisis in the Journalism industry. 

He added the lack of coverage of the growth of inequality was shocking, given the scale of the problem.
Thomas Jefferson said unless people without property had access to information democracy would not work.
Voting in the US shows the very wealthiest vote in presidential elections - 75%. About 20% of the poorest sections vote.
"Journalism's role is not to reinforce that but to reverse it and draw people into public life.
Professional journalism does not have to be this way. Reporting what is said accurately is not Journalism. Great journalists do not have different criteria for political parties. That is where we need to point towards."

5. Funding

Referring to Emily Bell's "dismissal of public money to support journalism" he described the concept as preposterous - "if all the philanthropists do eveything they can to make it work it will be a piss in the ocean". It is not enough, he said, adding a young person working for free trying to coax an ad from a micro company would not replace the existing model. 
ournalism is a public good. If all funding was removed from education what would you have? Good education for the wealthy, altruistic projects run by philanthropists, but it would be insufficient.

When advertising came into newspapers 50 -80% of revenue came from advertising and gave the lie that journalism was a profitable business but it was never going to be a sustainable model.
Advertising has always been a mixed blessing and advertisers have much more leverage than ever if you want their money.
"The pressure to compromise is greater  than ever. If you get something for free online you are not the customer, you are the product. And that shapes journalism and it does not shape it favourably."

6. Does state funding mean state-controlled press?
In the US, $1bn is spent in total on media in a nation of 310m people. If it spent per captia on public media as other nations it would be vastly more - eg. in the UK £25bn. Other countries spend much more on public media. These countries are not police states, the evidence is overwhelming for supporting media.
The five or six countries which have the largest public subsidies of journalism are the countries that are most democratic according to ratings by the Economist - that means the most free press exist in countries which have the most government support; increasing subsidies can lead to more aggressive press towards the government, not less.

Subsidies can work. America needs subsidies to increase money for public and community outlets and competing newsrooms in communities.
And, as part of the exercise, he said: "Let's take kids out of college for a year and teach them journalism."


Massive government subsidies were used to indiretly set up free press in the US in the 1700s. The government spend millions ensuring the establishing of a Post Office - the distribution outlet for a newspaper - and subsidising the cost, especially for local newspapers.

If the US today spent the same on subsidising papers today as it did in the 1840s it would cost $35bn plus.

7. The importance of journalism to a nation
You need institutions to protect journalists; people are beginning to accept this. They see there is no other option but subsidies - the debate should be how you make it work, not whether it is right.
The crisis in newspapers is part of the wider US crisis. We are looking at an ecological crisis too. Our political  system is off the rails - "dollarocracy". Public opinion in the US has not changed much on core government issue since the 1970.  The two political parties, however, have shifted dramatically and there is a huge gap between what people believe and what people in power believe.
The corporate crowds is happy with a journalism free environment.
He warned public broadcasting was in a precarious position and the news media diet of Americans was appalling. "At a  local level it is mind boggling what has happened."
Working conditions for paid journalists are much worse. The era of the "digital sweatshop" - working for Huffington Post or Yahoo.

The three biggest political scandals in Washington in recent years all came about through three reporters and all three are now unemployed.
"Volunteer dudes" do not expose corruption, he said, adding: "If I'm not getting paid I'm going to cover the basketball game not spent months investigating corruption."

The future of journalism?

Pew Centre has been researching Baltimore news for the past 25 years to see how many completely original news stories were being done in Baltimore -including tweets - and it is down 70% since 1991. " There still seems plenty of news and we will always have news but not much journalism."
Pew looked at what made something news - 86 per cent came from PR or official sources. It is cheap to do, but it is wrong. Ratio of PR people to journalists in the US IN 1960 was 1-1 in 1980 2-1 and now 4-1
A crucial part of PR is to influence the news. "We will have a lot of news but it will be largely propaganda and spin - much of it extraordinary right wing propaganda."

He finished by warning we don't have the luxury to wait twenty years for journalism to be saved we need it now. "We always talk as scholars about how democracy needs journalism but you can't have journalism without democracy. It thrives at it's best in a democratic society."
Pessimism is self fulfilling, he said.
In the US we are in a very different place to what we have previously experienced. Scholars are often said to be fighting 'last year's war' and that doesn't work any more. We are entering terra incognita.

The BBC
It is an much better resources version of our NPR but the code of journalism it has adopted allows people in power far too much power in what is being discussed.
The solution in the US is that you have to have more than one form of publicly funded media outlet.
His suggestion to fund digital journalism: Give everyone a vouchers to give go any news medium of their choice, and those outlets must put everything in the public domain. Nothing is protected by copyright.
If everyone had a $200 voucher and banded together with others you could hire a reporter to work for you. "Of course a handful would dominate and it would crystallise over the years."
Digital makes a mockery of the current model. We can't set up barbed wire and charge people to get in. Let them pay in advance through a system that gives them choice.

And he finished by warning: "Investigative journalism in US now boils down to someone leaking something to a journalist. The people who own our media aren't keen on pissing off people in power by investigating what they are doing."

Related articles

• Future of Journalism conf: notes from plenary speaker Emily Bell #foj11 (alisongow.com)
• Getting More Bang For Our Bucks (mondaynote.com)
• Time to review public subsidies for media, say study authors (guardian.co.uk)
• Is Vanishing Profit Good For Online Media? (paidcontent.org)
• Whither journalism: round two (roughtype.com)
• No, licensing journalists isn't the answer (gigaom.com)

Future of Journalism conf: notes from plenary speaker Emily Bell #foj11

I spent a couple of hours this morning at the Future of Journalism conference in Cardiff, where the plenary speaker was Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia's
Graduate School of Journalism and former director of digital content for the Guardian.
Her talk was titled The (Many) Future(s) of Journalism, and my notes are below, if you missed the live stream of the event...

1. The 'stop talking start doing' complaint about conferences

"I'm glad to be here talking about the future of journalism because in 1987 the only discussion we had about. Future of journalism was to do with printing strikes, it was nothing to do with the newsroom."
She said that at one stage academia existed to put people into jobs that were heavily templated.
It was accepted that the best way to do journalism was the way it had always been done, and answers were not easy: "There are no silver bullets because journalism is less defined by the business that
supports it. We are left with a shapeshifting proposition that dodges definition."

The whole 'citizen journalist' and pro/am debate is a cul de sac:
"Arguing over who may or may not be a journalist is futile. I [cannot be arrested] for pretending to be a journalist.
"We can stretch the metaphor and say in the future everyone will be a journalist for 15 mins. The pro and the am are increasingly indistinguishable able so go pick one future is hard because it has a future as a process, business and profession."

2. Future of 'good' journalism and future of 'bad' journalism

The argument of five years ago was that the future would be good for bad journalism because there would be fewer journalists doing good journalism.
It would open the opportunity of journalism to anyone who wanted to pretend to be a journalist and 'peddle lies'.
"It would strap us to a hamster wheel of live reporting, sacrificing analysis in-depth complex journalism for a torrent of live stream information. It would be dominated by technologists. We saw this as a bad thing."
But actually, she continued, these elements favour good journalism and will help render bad journalism all but irrelevant.

The idea that journalism would be picked apart by others - such as search engines, aggregators etc - is actually a benefit to journalism.
It allows journalism to learn from other fields and bring it back to improve itself. It has been in defence mode for a long time and is starting to break out of it's boundaries.
The future of journalism lies beyond its borders.
It is about having to understand tech and platforms that deliver it. Columbia University has journalism courses that run in tandem alongside computer sciences.
"These students are asking if there are better ways to do things, and to innovate how to deliver journalism well. You see lots and lots of solutions coming out of technology minded people in newsrooms and that
is no longer the preserve of technology companies."
She outlined using Storify to liveblog an event, and how exciting they found it. Soundcloud Document Cloud, Twitter etc are the students' new toolkit.

The inclusion of non journalists has been beneficial, contrary to what may have been though. Eg wikileaks cables collaboration with mainstream media, also the Japan earthquake saw a pop up blog set up
and run by students who explained what the data and metrics from the quake monitoring site meant, and it was part of the system of journalism aggregated and pointed to by other news organisations,
Core skills will be how to make the best of collaboration. Eg NYT  linking up with a local radio station.

Guardian coverage of the England riots was a social activity - relying on crowdsourcing.
There is almost no evidence to show whether David Camereon was right to say social media was behind the riots. The Guardian collected and analysed tweets and is now using its' Twitter analysis to work with Rowntree Foundation and LSE to see if that is the case.

3. "Instant journalism is bad journalism"
The most galvanising thing to happen to journalism is social web and mobile devices.
Journalists felt challenged by this. [quick observation from me: I don't think we all did!]
She used Andy Carvin as an example of working beyond platforms. Also the Watershed Post, set up by two people in the Catskills who felt they had toolittle media representation.
The livestream of journalism, the involvement people who are not journalists In the traditional sense and the technological tools we use benefit good journalism.

4. "The lack of money is good for journalism"... "Or it's the reality we live in."

There is not going to be the same level of revenue coming in to digital journalism as there was in legacy media and we will be working in reduced means.
Journalism as a working business model is fetishised. The most profitable journalism can be the worst journalism - so bad it closes a newspaper. It shows the problem when the primary focus becomes
profit. Now it is sustainability and profit is not the defining factor of why journalist go into the business.

She used the Journal Register as an example of how sustainability and a rethink has caused such a dramatic change. "We don't know how this will work or if it will, but we know that if we don't try it how the
story ends".
Propublica model has Pulitzer prizes, is one of the most advanced in data use in the world.
"Data, mobile, cms, all of these and the benefits they bring to good journalism could be discussed at length. There is a huge amount of this that is not properly understood."

5. There is no clear answer to what journalism will look like in five years time but there are clues

The future is there to be defined. We have a collective capacity to make this work but it can only be done by looking out and upwards.
Digital costs a lot less to do. It doesn't have the legacy costs. The Guardian has money to spend because it gets money from Autotrader, a purely digital product. If you understand the cost of what you are doing it helps - a lot of good journalism comes out of things that don't make money.

Updated: Robert Andrews' Paid Content article on Emily Bell's presentation is here

Related articles

• Digital Journal Offers Editorial Blueprint for Newsroom Success (prweb.com)
• Digital First, indeed (buzzmachine.com)
• The Huffington Post, 'over-aggregation' and the attention economy (charman-anderson.com)