Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Two-thirds of “prominent members of the national news media” believe the Internet is hurting journalism more than it is helping, according to a poll conducted by The Atlantic and National Journal, which surveyed 43 media insiders.

The survey asked whether, “on balance, journalism has been helped more or hurt more by the rise of news consumption online.” Sixty-five percent said journalism has been hurt more, while 34% said it has been helped more.

* The Question: On balance, has journalism been helped or hurt more by the rise of news consumption online? Explain.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 5:53 am

Comments

Hurt, then help. There are a lot of people out there without Internet skills, let alone basic computer skills. This will only expand the “Digital Divide.” However, the natural genesis of writing, evolving from stone tablets to binary interfaces, means we will continue to advance this form of communication in a form that we cannot even conceive of today.

Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 6:12 am
The problem is that the Internet has given rise to the notion that news should be “free”. So, skipping past the recent AP actions, most people simply believe that should be able to go to X news organizations website and get the news.

The problem is, of course, that leaves only one real paying entity, advertisers. Advertisers care about people paying attention, not news per se. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so we get lots of “flat” articles, low cost fluff off the AP wire, and some sensational stuff to get people picking up copy.

If no one wants to pay for news, there really isn’t anyone left to pay for good reporting.

Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 6:43 am
Journalism has been almost completed supplanted by the internet. The term “journalism” implies some set of rules and standards. There are none when it comes to the internet. The only rule on the internet is that there are no rules. Write what you wish with anonymity and impunity. Many internet users will believe what they read on the internet no matter who posted it without ever questioning the source. As a matter of fact, unlike the profession of journalism, you don’t even need a source to publish anything you wish on the internet.
The newspapers are crumbling as more and more people choose to get their news and information from perhaps the least reliable source ever devised. It is unlikely you will see the best and the brightest strive to attend J school when you can’t find a job and do not need to abide by any code to be widely published.
Journalism is in extremis.

Comment by Rocketman Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 7:14 am
Based on the number of times your posts have been plagerized, I would say that Rich Miller’s online contribution alone has helped. newspapers are like unions in this situation. When placed alongside a younger, smarter, faster competitor, they try to fight it rather than using it as an opportunity to improve themselves. Rather than feeling hurt by the internet, the newspapers should learn from them and make themselves relevant again.

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 7:18 am
Helped. There are crappy internet news sites just like there are crappy newspapers and magazines. As a general rule, faster delivery of information to the news consumer from more sources is good for the consumer. Good writing and good journalism will win out over the crap regardless of the method of delivery. Readers will find it.

Comment by SAP Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 7:37 am
Helped. More information is always helpful. What you do with that information is up to you. As an internet user, it is up to you to check claims that you see, just as if you were reading a newspaper, listening to a radio story or watching a TV report.

Comment by tubbfan Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 7:50 am
Free content is expected by today’s generation of journalism, video and music connosieurs, and there is a certain detriment to that. But let’s take a look at 2 of the legs of that 3-legged stool.

Movies still get big budgets and the best of Hollywood writers and actors are not starving by any means. Broadcast satellite and cable services have allowed the narrow-casting of specialty channels and a multitude of broadcast career opportunities where once there were relatively few. By the time everything is you-tubed, most everyone’s been paid.

In the music business, managers and record companies used to get paid and most artists shafted with unfavorable contracts. However, today’s American Idol-generation talent are well compensated from all the cross-marketing even as the record companies struggle with the transition from paid hardware to pirated digital copies.

Journalism needs to learn the best lessons from other forms of communication, and invent its own paradigms, in order to prosper in a new era. There is no apparent shortage of consumers.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:24 am
I suppose its all how you look at the question. I mean, how can a distribution method affect good journalism? Whether the distribution is by radio, television, newspaper, magazine or the Internet, news stories produced by solid reporters shouldn’t be affected. The consumer must decide which Internet sources are credible, and if past history is any guide, the audience will figure it out. After all, most consumers can tell the difference between the National Enquirer and the New York Times. We need to quit getting our panties all twisted in a wad by the Internet thing and learn what it is and how to use it. Geez…its only been around for a decade, what’s taking so long?

Comment by Deep South Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:32 am
Both

Hurt - rumor mills, sensationalism, people going to the internet rather than the evening news (revenue)

Help - A source for many stories, the internet brings up topics that they wouldn’t normally do, allows good stories to bubble up through readership rather than what an editor deems “newsworthy”

On balance, I would say “hurt” just because a large chunk of revenue has slid away from them.

Comment by trafficmatt Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:33 am
adapt, evolve, or die

gee why not just ask the question…. has the ability to send a message to someone via the telegraph been impacted by the development of the telephone.

Not a real good time to be in the newsprint manufacturing business

Comment by The Horse Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:47 am
It probably been hurt as far as business model. How do they make money in print or how do they make money online.

Comment by Levois Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:55 am
Mr. Miller, your business model is pretty amazing and well-timed with the electronic issuance of the subscriber service (whether by fax, email or login) as well as the free blog articles that are still substantive, but also entice readers to go get your paid stuff. You’ve probably even built in to your model as “free adverstisement” the fact that alot of folks hand your paid articles around to their friends and colleagues. Has anyone else that you know of tried your model?

Comment by Business 101 Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:58 am
The internet has helped disseminate information that might have only stayed local or that the local print press might not decide to cover.The best recent example is the Blago/Chicago Mob bookmaking allegations.The Trib and the Sun-Times didn’t cover the story.But,WLS-TV Chicago did.The story then went over the internet with Drudge picking up the story.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559104

Comment by Steve Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:16 am
This question is really a proxy question for “what is journalism?”

If you think journalism is a bunch of CEOs based in NYC pushing around reporters with access to important people, then the Internet hurts journalism more than it helps.

If you think journalism is the outrage mustered about fonts of the probably forged documents in the probably true story about George W. Bush shirking his Air National Guard duties then you probably think the Internet has made journalism more accountable.

If you think journalism is questioning the government’s case for invading Iraq you probably think the Internet has filled the void left open by corporate journalism.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:27 am
Another good example is Twitter.Both the Trib and the Sun-Times court reporters had both put up a tweet before the Blago indictment hit the papers’ websites.So,more information outlets seems to be better.

Comment by Steve Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:33 am
Helped. Good grief, it’s been two years since my local rag published anything the least bit investigative and I can’t even remember when was the last time it helped me understand any issue in depth. Give me a good citizen journlist who doesn’t have to worry about guvmint ad revenue, I’ll show you news you can use. Speaking of revenue, it’s out there for anybody willing to invest the time to build a credible site and intent on making it pay. I’ve seen it done.

Comment by yinn Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:42 am
The 43 “media insiders” are representative of a group that predominantly sees the cribbing of their work as an automatically negative action. When this attitude is adjusted, they (or their replacements) will go back to realizing they have the ability to advance the informing of the public.

One subtle result of this may be that the media aren’t trying as hard (or refuse) to get their product right–staff cuts, smaller/weaker versions of their main product, less effort to find the stories, etc. So this really is hurting journalism.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:44 am
I mean, besides CapFax: http://www.dekalbcountyonline.com/news.php

Comment by yinn Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:45 am
The Internet has been an amazing gift to journalism that newspapers have booted worse than Alex Gonzalez in Game 6 of the 2003 NCLS.

Newspaper content is now available instantly to anyone in the world. Newspapers don’t have to harvest trees, make newsprint, print, truck and deliver papers.

So newspapers are able to expand their potential market to the entire world while slashing their production costs virtually to nothing. Yet they’re all losing money and going out of business.

The problem of newspapers isn’t the Internet. It’s the brain-dead newspaper executives who, in most cases, had local monopolies and blew them through shoddy, irrelevant product and buggy-whip business sense.

Twenty-five years ago, I had a guest lecturer for a semester named Frank Breese. He was the Technology VP for Dow Jones, and was developing their newswire at the time. He flatly told us then that the printed newspaper was on its way out and that everyone in the future would receive their daily newspaper on their computer.

That’s a lot of lead time. Radio and TV stations give their content away and make money. The print barons were too busy counting their money to plan for the future.

Good content is and will remain king.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:48 am
What Nyberg said.

Also:
Thing is, you can’t blame the internet for a loss of revenue. You can blame the industry for not reacting and failing to monetize. As a matter of fact, blaming the internet for their loss of cash is a little bit like blaming the customers.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:49 am
1. People without Internet access: how engaged were they before the Internet? Does a shrinking Trib or Sun-Times really affect people who either can’t or don’t access the Internet?

2. The Internet makes reporting more deferential to advertisers? What evidence is there that corporate media outlets weren’t already biasing coverage with advertiser sensibilities in mind? Are there more diverse viewpoints before or after the Internet? If there’s more diversity isn’t this evidence that advertisers have less control post-Internet?

3. How well do traditional media outlets do at meeting the standards of good and ethical journalism? Did you hear about the WMD in Iraq? Traditional journalism has sucked for awhile. Faulting an unpaid blogger for failing to meet standards that weren’t met by multi-million dollar corporations seems a flawed argument.

4. The Internet grist for rumors and sensationalism? The Right Wing was able to use the corporate media to drive the Monica Lewinsky story. And the Tribune chose to publish weakly sourced rumors of John Kerry having an affair.

Again, the Internet isn’t competing with the idealized journalism of junior high school social studies, it’s competing with the highly flawed media companies that are whining because they aren’t turning 15-20% profits every year.

5. Where is it in the Bible, Constitution or the law that media companies are supposed to be highly profitable, irrespective of competition? Remember when NAFTA was debated? Most editorial boards said more competition is a good thing because it drives down costs for consumers. Workers and businesses that suffered would just have to make adjustments.

Of course, back then the editorial boards didn’t foresee competition forcing them to adjust. Now that they have to adjust, they whine, whine, whine.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:53 am
On balance, has transportation been helped or hurt more by the rise of the internal combustion engine?

Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:58 am
Probably hurt in the long run. The idea that the Internet will make things “free” will eventually lose unless a reasonable business model develops that brings in large number of paying customers. Someone has to write those “free” stories on the right hand side the the CapFax screen, do the research, maintain delivery system, and pay all the costs to make it work. Right now it is still a new, cool concept that has wonderful feel. The execution on a large scale fits no existing model.

CapFax is a very good example of how it could work, but how many people without a political interest even know it exists? When talking about it with friends the usual response is “Never heard of that”. Rich may have 1,000 or 5,000 subscribers. Great for his personal business, but those numbers are isolated slivers of the mass needed to get to the numbers that many newspapers currently have.

Techology is changing assumptions faster than models can keep up. The freedom to say anything, make it seems reasonable without supporting proofs, and present yourself as a self proclaimed expert is a terrible path. Opinion differences and editorial fact checking are unbelievably important. Too many people believe that everything they see on the Internet must be true or it would not be there. Huge problems coming.

Comment by zatoichi Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:58 am
Journalism is fine. The business of journalism, however, is in transition. The old model isn’t going to survive in its current form for much longer, with a few exceptions.

The demand for solid journalism is and will remain very high. The market hasn’t yet figured out how best to capitalize on the new world order so we’re seeing all of these “the sky is falling” stories.

Should it be hyperlocal, or national? Original reporting or aggregators? Ads or subscriptions? Who should pay and how much? These are business questions, not journalism questions.

Write well, cover the news, provide compelling content, maintain your ethics and you will find readers. You might not get rich doing it, but whoever promised you wealth in J-school?

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:05 am
The idea that the Internet will make things “free” will eventually lose unless a reasonable business model develops that brings in large number of paying customers.

Newspapers may need to come up with some value added service but it has to be something unique and useful to consumers that they’re willing to pay for. But even at that, what can they charge me for that I can’t get for free elsewhere?

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:06 am
Observation: the people who lean to the Right tend to think that less journalism following from powerful corporations is a bad thing; people who lean to the Left tend to think that corporate reporting that becomes unprofitable will be replaced with other models and are OK with this.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:09 am
Journalism — the practice of reporters/writers gathering a balanced set of facts and distributing the information is just about over.
Now everything is based on speed with little regard to balance, completeness. No longer there a deadline every minute. Now the deadline is dead.
The trade off is more information more often, but so much of it is slop or mountains of data that is very hard to understand.
The future will require the quality information gathers to regroup and find those who wish to pay for the quality.
The Wall Street Journal has managed to make money on line. They give a lot of archive access too.

Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:29 am
Newspapers are trying all sorts of methods to push readers to their Internet sites. But if newspaper execs want to keep their sacred print editions alive, they need to use the ‘net to push readers to the print editions. Maybe they drop to only a few print editions per week, perhaps just a Sunday edition. Whatever, they need to stop trying to use a 19th Century business model and changed to a 21st Century model. It ain’t hard, but changing deeply entrenched thinking and practices can be very hard.

Comment by Deep South Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:31 am
It has “hurt” journalism in that journalists no longer live in their little ivory towers and decide what is news and what isn’t anymore. What is interesting about who claims media bias. The right of course claims the media is too liberal. The left claims the media is too conservative.

The internet has made us more aware of additional news, but also slowly dividing us up into partisans, many of us who refuse to read blog and web sites that carry contrary views.

Case in point. The video of President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. Totally ignored by the MSM but circulated wildly through the internet until it could no longer be ignored by MSM.

The internet has expanded the amount of “news” we receive daily for those of us willing to read it on-line and for those of us who not only gravitate to sites that post things we agree with, but read the stuff posted on “contrary” sites that we disagree with. I can actually find more in-depth news, articles and op-ed pieces on line than the Chicago Sun-Times or Tribune. The Sun-Times and Tribune have spilled more ink about what type of doggie the Obamas will get for their daughters than the recent trip to Europe and Asia Minor, or the stimulus packages.

So they are “hurting” themselves. The newspapers are a little late to the scene in converting to internet editions.

Capitol Fax in my opinion is “journalism” that digs for stories. Huffington Post is an example of “left leaning” postings and Drudge Report would be an example of “right leaning” postings.

Read them both and try to get a flavor from all sides.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:36 am
On balance, have the culinary arts been helped or hurt more by the domestication of fire?

Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:41 am
Depends on what you mean by journalism.”

If by jjournalism you mean the collecting and reporting of information in a truthful manner, it likely hasn’t hurt much.

If by journalism you mean the profitability of traditional news sources, then it has hurt a lot.

Our ideas of what news/journalism should be have been skewed so badly over the past 2-3 decades that people don’t really understand good reporting any longer. Most people don’t understand the difference between news and opinion. Most don’t see bias in an article when it is clearly present. Many see Limbaugh, Olbermann, Colbert, and Stewart as news sources.

One of the reasons I appreciate this site so much is the journalistic integrity Rich brings to the blog. While I don’t always agree with his opinions, I appreciate the time and effort he takes to bring us solid news in the old sense of the word.

Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:42 am
Not to change the subject but I watched the “Fugitive” last night (The Movie) on cable.

I nearly fell out of my chair at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade scene. At the front with his sash and huge grin waiving at the movie camera as Harrison Ford slipped by him eluding the Feds? ROLAND BURRIS!

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:50 am
The internet has massively improved journalism. Print journalism - newspapers, mostly - were failing to perform their vital social functions years ago.

The whole idea that newspapers are some kind of guardians of democracy, rather than profit-making business, is silly. Journalists and journalism may be a guardian of democracy, but they don’t need the newspaper to accomplish this function. Newspapers could have taken advantage of the internet and become strong, viable organizations for years to come. Instead, they insisted on remaining as they’ve always been, and are becoming outdated.

Journalism shall march on, and the bad journalists who have been propped up by their newspapers for so long shall be dropped by the wayside as people seek out quality.

Good journalism doesn’t appear because you have a degree from some fancy school, it comes from being knowledgable about what you’re writing and then doing a good job writing about it.

The web is quickly creating substitutes for newspapers as newspapers shed the things that make them most valuable in order to print what’s easiest and cheapest.

The front page headlines on the Trib and Sun-Times today were both about the container ship Captain’s rescue.

Both old stories that have been exhaustively covered at MSNBC and CNN and many other websites.

The Trib and SunTimes would be most valuable at covering the local news of the day - Chicago and suburban news. News in Springfield. Local sports news (real sports news, not the inane crap that substitutes for sports news in many cases). Even local entertainment news. Local columnists.

The internet is full of bloggers who are vastly superior op-ed columnists to the national columnists who appear in so many papers and waste so much newspaper money.

The national and international news of the day is well covered by dozens of outlets on the internet - CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Time.com, The Economist, and far more.

Want State news? This website has you covered. Want local news - local TV stations are filling the gap covering the basics, with streaming video and written stories. And blogs are helping fill the gaps left by the tv stations.

In Chicago, the chi-town daily news website features local coverage ten times better than the Trib and the sun-times, and you don’t have to dig through the dreck and the ap filler that comprise 98% of newspaper offerings to find it.

Newspapers chose their fate.

And we’re getting better news coverage because of it.

These new efforts by newspapers to try to create a cartel to control the news will only hasten their end. People won’t pay the Tribune to read some AP dreck when they can get it free at CNN and at local sites like the daily news and the capitol fax.

The WSJ is able to maintain a pay site firewall because of corporate subscriptions. That makes them an exception, not a business model.

If you’ve set up a website with good reporting, people will find you. People found amazon over all the other online retailers because it offered the best product. People found google over other search engines because it provides the best product.

Real journalism will easily survive the fall of the newspapers. Good reporting will always have a market.

Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:53 am
Both. It helped for people wanting a different perspective. But is also helped as there are a lot of nutcases posing as real news sites (MSNBC).

Comment by Wumpus Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:02 am
I love/hate news. I love news articles that actually answer the who, what, where, when and why. I abhor new stories that are promos disguised as news or written by those too ignorant, uncaring or lazy to follow the basics of journalism. I prefer to follow the news via newspapers, magazines, the internet or my neighbor next door as long as it is not garbage.

Comment by Chanson Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:03 am
The question is inaccurate.
The issue is not competition from news consumption online… the issue is advertising competition from online ad sites like vehix.com, craigslist.org, ebay.com, etc. Those sites — ad specific and devoid of news — are what destroyed the newspaper business model and compete with radio and TV news, gutting funding for news ventures as a whole.
Competition on news in the industry is good. Destroying the newspaper business model and taking away profit from news ventures is very bad.

Comment by newsguy Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:05 am
the wheel - progress or scourge? Explain.

Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:07 am
Destroying the newspaper business model and taking away profit from news ventures is very bad.

Naaaaaa. The newspapers failure to read and react to changes in their industry is what got them. It’s not the consumer’s fault that the newspaper execs suck at their job.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:15 am
I think the internet has HURT the journalism business. So many rumors, personal opinions, etc written as if they were legitimate news stories make it hard to distinguish fact from fiction.

Comment by Stones Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:23 am
Reader expectations are now higher. News that’s 24 hours old (newspapers and magazines) is considered “stale”.

I gave up my subscription to the Chicago Tribune because their downstate edition was pretty dated copared to their online offering.

Every morning I scan the NY Times, SUn Times, Tribune, Forbes and Wall Street Journal via my PDA before even getting out of bed. All are accesssed for free.

The Wall Street Journal (only subsciption that I get) provides insight in a targeted interest area for me, that I will always get the hard copy or online edition (which requires a suscription). They didn’t “let the horse out of the barn” and are now less vulnerable.

The next generation is even less inclined to read their news from a paper.

Comment by Downstater Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:23 am
On balance, journalism, the profession and its purpose, has been hurt by online consumption.

However, my guess is that if you are an idealogue (right or left) and wish to read things that reinforce your world view, you feel otherwise.

There are faults for this throughout the system. The powers that be in journalism were slow to recognize the power of this new medium, but they were hardly unique in that failure. Many outlets ran, as fast as they could, to disseminate free content online, thereby robbing themselves of valuable revenue.

Online advertising for news outlets does not today, and likely never will, match the revenue generated by now-obolsete classified advertising and display ads.

As a result, the journalism of the past, specifically journalism that is balanced in its reportage, is on the decline.

In addition, resources for investigative journalism, perhaps the highest “purpose” of the profession, have been winnowed to the point of being inconsequential.

Editorial staffs at most major newspapers have been cut 20-50% (for the uninformed, editorial staff = reporters, not editorial writers). Most of these cuts have been in investigative areas — Washington correspondents, foreign correspondents, and local investigative reporters (along with many feature writers as well). The focus for many papers has become “hyper-local” and immediate, with the idea that people want news that affects them directly, now.

The effect of all this is that in the near and probably long-term future, it is unlikely that stories like the Pentagon Papers and Watergate will be broken in traditional outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

These stories, to a certain degree, will still be disseminated. The problem becomes that they will likely be disseminated by idealogue bloggers and others who will not have the credibility, or the real investigative resources, to back up the claims. We will dip further and further into an area where stories are either discredited completely or held up as gospel, depending on the ideology of the writer and the reader. This is obviously bad.

As a former journalist and as the spouse of a journalist, I have seen firsthand the effect that this has on the legitimate news gathering business. To suggest that blogs and their ilk can fill the void created by the loss of investigative journalism is folly.

This is not to suggest that newspaper publishers are not at fault for this — to a large degree, they are. As I said, they failed to recognize the power of the medium, they rushed to give free content thereby reducing the value of their publication, and they allowed bloat when there should be none. For instance, I know of an anniversary party thrown for an investigative reporter because that reporter hadn’t had a byline in two years. Obviously that’s ridiculous.

At the same time, there has been a sense of entitlement that has come with the internet - that everything should be free. That mindset betrays the fact that published journalism is not a passive medium like television.

Journalism is active and serves a purpose to society. In the past, it has provided a check as a legitimate watchdog on government and business.

My fear is that this important role will be lost to future generations unless the revenue paradigm changes. When I was in J school 20 years ago, there was pride in the profession and it was an honor to be in that school. Today that pride is largely gone and those schools fail to attract the best and the brightest.

People worried about corruption should be the most concerned. While there are more “outlets” online for information, they tend to regurgitate information and again, with notable exceptions, fail to provide the engaged, investigative analysis the is beneficial to an open democracy.

One last note — I reject out of hand the notion that if you’re conservative or lean right, you wish for more corporate journalism and if you’re conservative or lean left, you should be ok with the decline of institutional journalism. The people on the right find their solace online in Drudge and his band of brothers, the people on the left find it in Kos and his. Either way, the outlets reinforce their view. Without balance, neither side receives a challenge to their views. Maybe that’s how people want it, maybe they don’t want to be challenged, but we’re a better world when they are, whether right or left.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:30 am
—-
At the same time, there has been a sense of entitlement that has come with the internet - that everything should be free. That mindset betrays the fact that published journalism is not a passive medium like television.
—–

Sorry.

Internet Rule #2: Somebody will come up with a way to make it free.

Nobody ever stopped newspapers from having a pay model, except for those pesky customers who didn’t need to pay because somebody else was doing it for free. If you think that paradigm is ever going to change, see Internet Rule #1: Don’t fight with the tubez, they always win.

One of the things I really don’t get in this, is that there are a lot of folks admitting that the real mistake here occurred somewhere in the 90’s when we all wanted our free news from AOL. I think that alone shows a certain amount of ignorance to the medium. The ‘internet’ has been through numerous iterations, each with it’s own opportunities to monetize and many of the papers have failed time and again to capitalize. This isn’t just one mistake. It’s 20 years of mistakes and failures.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Both. The biggest problem is the revenue the newspapers lost but, in some ways, they brought it on themselves. Part of it was poor or sloppy reporting, part was cost.

On the reporting side, in the hard news stories I want objective facts, not adjective laden opinions disguised as a news story. Even the NYTimes these days has an agenda and uses descriptive adjectives to slant a story. If it is someone’s opinion, say so. Subjective stuff and opinions have a place on the op-ed page. If you want to publish more op-ed, then expand the number of pages for it and label it accordingly. Otherwise, “Just the facts, madam …”

On the revenue side, taking the SJ-R as an example, their response to falling ad revenue was to raise the ad prices; the price to put a non-business ad in the newspaper has gotten ridiculous ($20+ just for a garage sale ad!). Because of the cost people now use the local weekly journals and various internet sites for the same ad. Less ads for cars, garage sales, etc. and the people who buy the paper specifically for those ads falls off, cutting circulation and creating a self-fulling downward spiral. The SJ-R kind of recognizes the high ad cost since they occasionally run a coupon for a free ad. Maybe they should try just lowering the non-business ad prices to something like $5 and see if they can regain ad quantity … 10% of something is usually better than 100% of nothing.

Better product and reasonable prices will be the keys to newspaper survival.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 12:17 pm
Invested, where are these grand, Republic-saving investigative pieces in the MSM that you fear will be lost? There’s a couple of solid people doing original work at the Sun-Times, but where else on the Illinois front?

On the national front, forget it. It’s all the same, celebrity-driven nonsense you find everywhere.

The financial system just collapsed around us through fraud, negligence and incompetence; did we get a heads up from the MSM? The Soviet Union collapsed in front of our eyes while the MSM was dutifully telling us they were 10 feet tall.

You cited Watergate. Good example — yet everyone but the Washington Post ignored it for years. Pentagon Papers? Daniel Ellsberg stole them and gave them to the NYT — no reporting there.

I was a reporter, too. And we squelched more stories that would have angered an advertiser or somebody the publisher played golf with than we pursued.

You were a reporter. I bet you know a lot of stories that were never pursued for the same reasons.

The marketplace of ideas is open; caveat emptor. It was the same with newspapers, now there’s just an opportunity for more voices.

If newspapers would have done their jobs like you seem to think they did, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Helped the consumer. Hurt the journlist. The Internet has created more work and less jobs. Most journlist despise the Internet because it means re-writing copy, writing faster, shorter deadlines, and more multi-media. Newspaper and radio reporters are having to become photojournlists, videographers, and writers. Television reporters are having to become newspaper reporters and having to do two versions of their stories. One for print and one for broadcast.

The lines between the media outlets are blurring and once someone figures out a business model for delivering news on the web, it will become a good thing for everyone…except those who make the news.

Comment by Nick Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:06 pm
dan l-

to your “rules” - iTunes seems to be profitable despite violating your rule #1. And while your rule #2 is in large part true, that doesn’t make it right. My question to you is, what do you produce for a living and, can I now have it for free? Unless you’re willing, right now, to give it to me free, your arguments are shallow and self-centered.

wordslinger-

To a large extent, Illinois no longer has a great mainstream journalistic voice. In fairness, outside of Chicago, there never really was one.

You’re also correct about the national media being more than a little celebrity-driven.

However, I did not claim that the decline of journalism due to the internet was a recent phenomenon, though that is clearly the assumption you made about my words. The battle, to a large extent, has been lost for a decade or more, and in fact, was lost in the internet’s public infancy. The decline and subsequent cannibalization of the mainstream press happened long before the current financial scandal.

As for the Soviet Union, I don’t personally remember all of the stories you seem to from major media exclaiming the strength of that regime, and yes, I am plenty old enough to remember had it happened. Perhaps your bias shows through in that example.

Today, Ellsberg would likely sell the Pentagon Papers to the ideological blog of his choosing. Is that a better delivery method?

As you suggested, I did have stories squelched by higher-ups concerned about advertising, but I would simply say this - those stories would’ve been embarassing for the advertisers, but no harm came to the public by the fact they weren’t published. And in each and every case, they were kiboshed by an extremely right-wing publisher who wanted to protect his friends. Liberal media bias indeed.

There is an opportunity for more voices today, but those voices are lonely and lost in a sea of disinformation promulgated by both the left and the right with increasing vigor. You think that’s a good thing. I don’t.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Poor Invested.

iTunes seems to be profitable despite violating your rule #1

You’re right. Itunes is profitable. Mainly because it’s quite a bit easier than pirating and much more convenient than buying a CD.

And while your rule #2 is in large part true, that doesn’t make it right.

Tough.

My question to you is, what do you produce for a living and, can I now have it for free?

Open source software. And yes, you may.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:28 pm
Alternately, itunes is quit the anomaly on the web in that it’s heavily tied to one of the most popular tech products in history.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:31 pm
dan l-

touche on the open source, but I assume someone is still paying your freight, whether through advertising or some other means. Otherwise, you’d just be a guy in pajamas writing code and living off the government dole. When you write your “open source” without that financial support, let me know.

And regardless of being tied to an iPod, iTunes still disproves your “rule,” so your rule can be disproved elsewhere as well.

Addendum to previous comments:

The business model of traditional print journalism (which has now moved online) is broken, there is little doubt of that. I don’t claim to have the answer. If I did, I’d start an outlet myself or still be personally involved in the profession.

I’ve also never suggested that outlets, specifically publishers and owners, aren’t culpable in the decline as well. To the contrary, they failed to recognize the power of the medium and tried to adapt a business model predicated on print to an alternative delivery system, a strategy that was destined to fail.

The question was whether, on balance, the internet had helped or harmed journalism. Given the response of media over the past two decades to this new medium, I say journalism has been harmed. Had a more successful strategy and business model been followed, that answer might be different.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:41 pm
I think that journalism has gotten better because there are more online people who are going to do fact checks on what is written and post the inacuracies. For people who want to know the facts that is.

The rags that write about aliens, and Elvis sitings are still at all the grocery checkout lanes, those don’t seem to be going out of business despite news (REAL NEWS) being on line.

Also look at the fact that O’Reilly’s show which is anything but fair and balanced has been number one for so long, 100 months?! has not been hurt by the many blogs, postings etc that have blasted him for being so off base.

Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:43 pm
I’ll just modify the rule for you:

Original:
Internet Rule #2: Somebody will come up with a way to make it free.

New:

Internet Rule #2: When it comes to web services that are not tied to hardware devices, somebody will come up with a way to make it free.

Look man, I’m not sure what you want here. Right now, the free model is probably the only way to go, because somebody _will_ offer the news for free and that somebody will win.

But, on the lighter side, as the Google Press Agency defeats you, you really can blame the G men for putting you out of business.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:52 pm
BOth my wife and daughter are professional journalists and my wife has lost her job of 23 years recently and is now trying to develop a freelance business. She is finding it difficult as people “don’t value writing”. I don’t know if this is in part due to the internet where it is no longer necessary to get a journalism degree and get hired by someone, which limits the pool of potential writers. Now that everyone can write and get it disseminated online, why go to school for four years?

Comment by MikeintheSuburbs Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:56 pm
Psssssst Mike.

There’s this big economic thing going on. A lot of people are finding it hard to find jobs. Look it up on google news:)

I’m busting your chops. but very sad to hear.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:59 pm
Invested, re-read your original post. You appear, to me, to make a direct connection between declining ad revenues caused by the Internet resulting in:

–the journalism of the past, specifically journalism that is balanced in its reportage, is on the decline.

In addition, resources for investigative journalism, perhaps the highest “purpose” of the profession, have been winnowed to the point of being inconsequential.–

What I’m suggesting is that you’re nostalgic for an era that never really existed, certainly not on the grand scale you’re suggesting, or as propagated by the interminable journalistic award banquets.

What’s “balanced” journalism? He said, she said? How about journalism that says they’re both liars, or wrong, if they are?

I wasn’t talking about squelching stories that would “embarrass” an advertiser or publisher’s friends. I’m talking about stories in the public interest that newspapers killed, ignored, skewed, or refused to pursue because it wasn’t in the paper’s perceived business or ideological interest. You don’t have any stories like that? I find that remarkable.

I’m a big fan of newspapers. But they’ve never been the end-all of “balance” or “credibility.” Like any other source, they need to be considered with a critical eye.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:03 pm
dan l-

I could modify all the rules to make them support my argument too. But, I won’t.

And that “tough” argument? Haven’t heard that since I was on the playground in gradeschool. Effective.

Finally, I won’t be put out of business by Google, trust me. They’re not in my business and never will be. On the other hand, they are in yours…or are they your “open source” paymasters?

Agreggators are great, but what happens when there is no enterprise reporting to aggregate from.

To answer your question, I want nothing here, but I would ask this — if the free model is the only way to go, how do you suggest journalists get paid? If you’re satisfied with bland AP reports and bloggers who reinforce your world view, cool. I’m not, that’s all.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:04 pm
=== if the free model is the only way to go, how do you suggest journalists get paid?===

Please, keep this in mind: Newspapers have been selling their dead tree editions at a loss forever.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:09 pm
Rich: I think previous posters have nailed it. Journalism is in transition from its historical structure into some yet to be determined status. I believe that the internet sites which develop and maintain a reputation for accuracy and integrity will survive and even prosper. Americans have come to rely upon such things and will continue to place great emphasis upon them in the future.

Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:12 pm
=== The term “journalism” implies some set of rules and standards. There are none when it comes to the internet. ===

You assume wrongly that since journalists talk about standards that they have them.

You also assume wrongly that the Internet is some definable monster.

If there are no standards, what are you doing here?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:22 pm
===As for the Soviet Union, I don’t personally remember all of the stories you seem to from major media exclaiming the strength of that regime,===

You have no memory.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:25 pm
wordslinger-

Did I have stories killed because it wasn’t in the editor/publisher/paper’s perceived business or ideological interest? Sure, but I have to admit that I was never high enough on the food chain to know exactly what the reasons were, although in some cases I surmised the answer.

I do know that our leadership was extremely right wing (like, John Birch-right wing). I certainly found some of that frustrating, not because I wrote from a liberal viewpoint (few would call me liberal), but because I hated it when good stories got killed, period (ok, I hated it when MY stories got killed, whether they were good or average).

Further, my practical experience was just that — practical. I’m a realist by nature, not an ideologue. I have no rose-glasses belief that journalism’s “golden age” was all sunshine and rainbows. I do, though, believe that for some significant time, it was better than it was before and better than it is today.

In J school, my favorite prof was a guy who’d been with the NY Times for something like 25 years. This guy instilled in us, and in many before us and after, that balance meant reporting facts, not he said she said; that it meant getting the story from the principals, but calling out those principals when there were inconsistencies or misrepresentations. I wholeheartedly agree that is an aspect of “balanced” journalism that has virtually vanished since I left school, and that is something I am certainly nostalgic for.

I would also agree with you that every report, whether mainstream or otherwise, must be looked at critically. I didn’t write my original comments with the intention of defending the industry. Honestly, my spouse would probably say I am more on your side of the argument. I was merely conveying my sense of the current situation. If I went too far, it was likely because I think there are too many people out there who readily dismiss the topic. You obviously don’t.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:26 pm
You may be right, that’s what happens when you get old.

- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:25 pm:

===As for the Soviet Union, I don’t personally remember all of the stories you seem to from major media exclaiming the strength of that regime,===

You have no memory.

Comment by Invested Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:31 pm
===iTunes still disproves your “rule,” so your rule can be disproved elsewhere as well.===

The iTunes argument is completely bogus. How can you compare a generic news story to a song that is in peoples’ hearts and minds? There’s a deep emotional attachment to music, unlike generic news stories.

A better analogy might be iPhone apps. Some are free, some are expensive, depending upon their usefulness. None of them are really emotionally based, except maybe the games.

It’s not a perfect analogy by any means, but it’s far better than that lame iTunes argument. Forget it, man. Nobody loves news like they love music. Nobody. And they simply won’t pay for news like they pay for music.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:40 pm
I believe it is not what others put up in the way of news, but the loss of classified advertising to the internet that has hurt newspapers the most.

Comment by Cal Skinner Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:44 pm
Another question could easily be asked…

“On balance, has the stupidity of newspaper owners in borrowing billions of dollars and leveraging themselves beyond the hilt while blaming the Intertubes for all their problems been helped or hurt more by the rise of news consumption online?”

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 2:59 pm
And that “tough” argument? Haven’t heard that since I was on the playground in gradeschool. Effective.

It’s not an argument. It’s a fact. You can’t win. AP, Rueters, whoever can try whatever pay model they want and they’re going to lose. You can tell me it’s not right. The internet doesn’t care.

On the other hand, they are in yours…or are they your “open source” paymasters?

You use internet explorer, don’t you? Come on. Be honest with us. And, fwiw, no. Not even in the same planet as me. Although, for personal uses, I utilize a great many of their awesome free products.

How should journalists make money? Hell if I know. If the news biz hadn’t spent the last 20 years asleep at the switch, they’d have figured it out already.

I’m still with Rich. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen reasons why it’s bogus.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 3:05 pm
rethink:

It’s a fact. You can’t win. AP, Rueters, whoever can try whatever pay model they want and they’re going to lose.

Maybe. If it’s tied with an application or something. But I’ll tell you this: Nobody is going to pay to search a web site.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 3:10 pm
Here’s something that drives me crazy about MSM, and that’s their willful refusal to really do the heavy lifting to understand and relate government’s biggest daily impact on citizens — taxes and spending.

Here’s a bit from a Sun-Times article today:

–With state government debt ballooning to more than $11 billion, Governor Pat Quinn has proposed a 50-percent income tax increase for residents, a hike in the corporate tax and an across-the-board increase in drivers license and license plate renewal fees.–

Where’s the knowledge, savvy and credibility we’re supposed to expect in that statement? That $11 billion figure is, I presume, a rounded off figure on the estimated budget deficit in this and next fiscal year under projected revenues and current spending.

State government long-term debt as of last September, as a five second google search will reveal, was about $21.3 billion in GO bond debt and $42.1 billion in unfunded pension liability (certainly higher now with investment losses). That doesn’t include other revenue bond debt the state is on the hook for if the revenue source doesn’t meet oblibations (McPier, for example). It also doesn’t include the current deficit.

That’s not hard to figure out or understand. Get the numbers and terminology right, please, the give the lectures on the superiority of your product.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 3:18 pm
The turmoil in the MSM is somewhat coincidental with the collapse of the newspaper financial model.

Without the internet, the news consumer had no idea as to what was going on in/outside of their community if the editors of their paper chose not to print about a topic. Once the internet became available, the gaps of what is covered by the MSM became evident and the news consumers voted with their eyeballs and wallets to go where a more complete version of the truth actually is.

Ten years ago you could not sell a used car or any larger item without taking out a classified ad. That revenue is gone. The only things that seem to be coming out in the dead wood editions are death notices and legal advertisements. That revenue is down as well as the revenue from conventional advertising due to the reduced number of available eyeballs.

I do find it funny that among the 43 insiders the majority still do not get it. The MSM, whether in the guise of the paper press, or New York based electronic media no longer have a stranglehold on what is important in the news. This week, while americans were held captive by Somali pirates, there were font page stories on the Obama dog. Priorities are messed up in the MSM and there are other sources of news available.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:07 pm
Helped.

First, there is a lot of interest specific content that never appears in local papers that many have acess too.

Second, newspapers primarily made money on ad revenue. The modern internet journalist primarily makes money on ad revenue. good journalists will draw readers to their sites where they can sell add due to the traffic.

Also lets look at Kindle. Right now you can get a number of newspapers delivered to your kindle reader for a low subscription rate. Gte big papers without the expense of fidning local delivery people or waiting for old papers to arrive out of date by mail.

I reject the idea that you can not succeed with subscription based content on the internet if you have a good “paper” (collection of stories. If anything, the internet cries out for strong journalists to draw readers.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:24 pm
The internet has become so interactive, this blog for example. A story breaks and you can get all kinds of views, and express yours. It’s better than having some stunned or upset bystander have a mike put in front of them, and the newscasts (esp. CLTV) play it over and over, it is constanly updated with many views.

Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:25 pm
===I reject the idea that you can not succeed with subscription based content on the internet===

Other than the Wall Street Journal, which is mostly paid for by expense accounts, name one.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:33 pm
—–
Other than the Wall Street Journal, which is mostly paid for by expense accounts, name one.
—–

Good call. How many average joe sites are paid?

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:41 pm
There are places you can still make money writing. I used to do pretty well as a part time consultant writing the equivalent of “technical guides for idiots”.

Today, I support a web site and edit a subscription type newsletter with a small circulation of about 500. The subscription fee is small. Money is made … not a lot of money since I do it for a hobby and am “unpaid”, but there is a profit even after printing, handling and mailing costs. Might make a bit more if didn’t use a mailing service but would rather not spend time stuffing and mailing envelopes. There is a synergy between the physical newsletter and the web site, (I assume) similar to Rich’s. The web site has information that is not easily found elsewhere (and not found at all by a search engine) and you have to subscribe to the newsletter to get full unlimited access to the web site. One drives the other.

The newspapers can do the same thing … but they still haven’t figured it out. Some of the newspapers I take give you web site access as part of the subscription … but, to be honest, most the web sights are crappy … not easily searchable internally, even worse if you try to just read through them in a semi-logical sequence, nothing extra beyond what was in the printed paper, etc. The MSM are being idiots … no extra value we content for being a subscriber. I might as well quit subscribing and just go to McD’s every morning and read their copy of the paper since there is nothing extra on the web site.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:42 pm
Retired Non-Union Guy, they have dumbed down their product to the point where patronizing attitudes have become a crusade. Therefore, no effort or thought is given to providing info for people above 12 year old reading levels. They’re doomed and they did it to themselves.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:45 pm
Rich, I fully agree with that statement. It drives me nuts when I see the misuse of things like percentages and increases.

And the MSM even miss good stories they had in the palm of their hand. A few years back in the SJ-R there was a big hoopla about the State increasing the number of caseworkers; basically it was a reprinted press release. It sounded good and was, in fact, an improvement. The article also listed the number of clients served, etc. But the writer never bothered to do any analysis. Had he done so, he would have figured that at that level of caseworkers and clients, a caseworker had only 20 minutes per year to spend with each client. The writer missed the real story, how the State was just passing out checks instead of managing the cases and trying to help people be self sufficient. The writer had the facts; he didn’t get the story.

I’ve tried to teach my kid to read news stories with a lot of skepticism and to try to find alternate sources to back up any story … he’s slowly getting it and he’s also a pretty rare 23 year old in that he does read the local paper every day.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 4:56 pm
——
The newspapers can do the same thing … but they still haven’t figured it out. Some of the newspapers I take give you web site access as part of the subscription … but, to be honest, most the web sights are crappy … not easily searchable internally, even worse if you try to just read through them in a semi-logical sequence, nothing extra beyond what was in the printed paper, etc.
——

Good point. I really don’t use news paper sites for anything but checking their front page and maybe going 1 level deep into a story. Their search tools are crap (I’d sooner google from outside), navigation is usually layers of meaningless junk…..

About the only thing I could think of is, a light weight ap that would allow for better searching of archives, maybe a slicker interface than the web site, *possibly* some exclusive content—I might pay 5 bucks a month for that if it were good.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 6:18 pm
Both and, of course, it’s a matter of perspective, too.

On the negative, it’s obviously pulled some audiences away from certain news sources to varying degrees, resulting in the mess we’re in now until it’s corrected.

On the positive, it’s attracted some new audiences, who–even kicking and screaming–are becoming more engaged and informed and therefore are demanding more from journalists and media sources overall.

Result: Probably the challenge news sources overall needed to go beyond the mediocrity they were headed toward a couple of years ago, assuming they figure out a way to prosper once again.

Without that challenge, journalism was at risk of becoming “mind-numbingly” dull and would have lost certain audiences for good anyway.

It forced “innovation”, if you will, but I’m still not certain that the focus of the innovation–or the long-term solution for being the most successful–will be solely in technology.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:14 pm
Reading through the posts, I have to say I disagree with Rocketman. On one hand, he’s arguing that the quality of internet news is poor. And then he claims that the best and the brightest will go elsewhere.

I’d argue the best and brightest will continue to be in demand. I’m beginning to see the internet as just a stepping stone right back to real journalsim.

Consider: Quality IS low. However, WAVES (emphasis added) of people are becoming engaged ANYWAY. I’m guessing that NOVELTY is primarily at play. Engagement SHOULD lead to more knowledge, which SHOULD be followed by demands for higher levels of quality.

Quality on the internet is NOT controlled. More waves of new people will come on board. Good chance that quality levels will remain low.

Previous waves will get tired of the novelty and will become more and more aware of low quality that’s being offered to them. They’ll begin to crave more and seek it out. I’m willing to be they’ll come back to real journalism.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:59 pm
I’ll add, too, that I do not believe that any of what I’ve said applies to CapFax, or similar blogs. These types of blogs are the few, solid innovations that have come out of this mess and I’d guess will continue on no matter what happens to “traditional journalism”.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:32 pm
=== Other than the Wall Street Journal, which is mostly paid for by expense accounts, name one.

===
Nnew York Time, USA oday, Washington Post, Finanical Times, LA Times…

All have online Kindle subscriptions newspaper e-delviered everyday.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 8:43 am
BTW you should add cap fax to the kindle blogs

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 8:44 am
So far it seems to have inflicted a greivous if not a mortal wound on most newspapers in the newspaper industry. Why the leaders of the newspaper industry don’t sit down and talk among themselves on how to save their industry, I can’t really understand? There must be a way for the newspaper industry to adapt to this change in communication via the Internet.

Comment by Beowulf Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 8:48 am