By Robert Niles: How can you increase your website's traffic by looking at your current website readership data? The answer to that question might seem obvious, but I warn you that too many news publishers approach this question from the wrong direction - and could be hurting their businesses as a result. The obvious answer to the website traffic question appears to be... to look at what's getting the most page views on your site, and to write more articles like those. Don't do that. Why? Chasing traffic by trying to duplicate your most successful content ultimately narrows the focus of your website, as you try to focus on specific topics, features and tone that's drawn visitors in the past, to the exclusion of other stories and styles. It leaves you (or your staff) feeling cynical, coming to believe that your coverage is being driving by chasing traffic instead of chasing the news. Trying to duplicate past success is reactive instead of proactive - and over the long run that too often leads to a dispirited staff producing formulaic, sterile, mechanical work that runs the risk of turning off readers and advertisers. So how can traffic data help you to create a more popular website? Instead of looking at what's attracting eyeballs, flip your analysis around. Focus not on what's working, but what isn't.

By Robert Niles: Newspapers and book publishers could learn some valuable lessons from one another. Unfortunately, it appears that the book industry's going to make the same costly mistakes as the newspaper industry did, instead. I thought again that as I read the New York Times' story about Barnes & Noble from last weekend, The Bookstore's Last Stand. The Times wrote of the publishing industry's hope that Barnes & Noble will be able to stand up to the challenge from Amazon.com, preserving a major retailer where their companies' products are king. Like many struggling businesses, book publishers are cutting costs and trimming work forces. Yes, electronic books are booming, sometimes profitably, but not many publishers want e-books to dominate print books. Amazon?s chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, wants to cut out the middleman ? that is, traditional publishers ? by publishing e-books directly. Which is why Barnes & Noble, once viewed as the brutal capitalist of the book trade, now seems so crucial to that industry?s future. Sure, you can buy bestsellers at Walmart and potboilers at the supermarket. But in many locales, Barnes & Noble is the only retailer offering a wide selection of books. If something were to happen to Barnes & Noble, if it were merely to scale back its ambitions, Amazon could become even more powerful and ? well, the very thought makes publishers queasy. If Barnes & Noble's future is tied to that of the print book publishing houses, then Barnes & Noble is as doomed as Borders, Crown Books and the other brick-and-mortar booksellers that have proceeded it into oblivion. The Nook alone will not save Barnes & Noble's business because the change that is roiling the publishing business today - whether it be for books or for newspapers - is not simply a transition from printed media to digital. It's a transition from a marketplace where information was controlled by a few gatekeepers to one where anyone may offer their content to a mass audience. This isn't about eBooks versus printed books. It's about a book industry where supply is controlled by a few publishing houses or one where supply is opened to all who wish to publish something. In short, it's not the medium; it's the market. If your business model is based upon controlling access to the information marketplace, you're doomed. If your business model is based instead upon enabling and expanding access to the market, you have a chance of succeeding. And that is what has the book industry scared.

By Steve Fox: A couple of weeks ago I was at a hockey game with my son. During the game, as I absentmindedly checked emails on my phone, I saw a Twitter note from an alumni of the UMass program saying "Look at what this person is saying about you!" Without thinking, I clicked on the link....and instantly kicked myself for doing so, as the link spawned a Twitter spam, sending the virus to hundreds of my Twitter followers. It was the first time for me, but definitely reminded me about the power of social media. I heard from friends, colleagues and students about the spam, and ended up apologizing more than once for not following my own advice to students: Think Before You Click! The social media dustup surrounding the early and inaccurate reports of Joe Paterno's death once again brought to the forefront how the rapid nature of social media can lead to bad journalism. It was deja vu all over again: A year ago NPR mistakenly reported that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had died after being shot in the head. Why do journalists keep botching the facts on Twitter? I posed a question along these lines on the Social Journalism Educators group on Facebook and received some of the requisite "it's not Twitter's fault;" and Twitter is "only" an amplification device. As much as I love most of what Matthew Ingram writes, his post on the Paterno screw-up being another example of "news as a process" worries me. Defenders of the social media realm rarely seem to want to get at why these massive ethical lapses continue to occur on Twitter. And I just won't buy the idea that "this is the way it is" or "letting everyone know you made a mistake is great for transparent journalism." Don't get me wrong, I love the many benefits of social media and I teach about its journalistic value. But I also feel that we all need to begin practicing "safe social media" practices to protect us all. After the Giffords debacle, Alicia Shepard, the former ombudsman for NPR, wrote a column about the need for journalists to re-learn the lesson of checking sources. And she counters the shrugs inherent in many comments from social media defenders by reminding us all why it's important to get it right, even if it's not first: "...To report a death, incorrectly, is a serious, serious error and may have caused untold grief and pain for many who know Giffords." Journalism is about process but the process is to get the correct information out, not to throw spaghetti against the wall, see what sticks and sort it all out later. So, what to do?

By Robert Niles: So, is Apple's new iBooks Author the solution for journalists looking for a simpler way to get into the eBooks market? Nope, not even close. Oh?kay, so is Apple's new iBooks Author at least another option for writers looking to pick up some extra money writing eBooks? Sure. Apple released its new eBook production tool last week, coupled with an upgrade to its iBooks app. Apple's trying to get into the textbook market, positioning its iPad as an electronic textbook reader. But to do that, Apple needs an ongoing supply of eBook textbooks. The company's signed deals with some textbook publishers, but it's also offering the iBooks Author tool to encourage more people to create texts, as well. The iBooks Author app's gotten plenty of attention since its release for its user license restriction that any book created with it can only be sold through the iBookstore. No Amazon. No Barnes and Noble. While iBooks Author can export files as a PDF, it won't generate the ePub file needed for best results in publishing eBooks through those and other online vendors. That alone disqualifies the iBooks Author app as a serious option for any journalist looking for a single eBook creation solution. Better to continue creating an HTML file using your favorite editor, then running that file through Calibre to generate your ePub, which you can submit to Amazon, BN.com... and the iBookstore. The iBooks Author app also requires that you be running Mac OS Lion - it won't download to Macs running Snow Leopard or earlier versions of the Mac OS. And if you're using Windows? Fuggedaboutit. But if you do have Lion, creating a book through iBooks Author and selling it exclusively through Apple is better than not making or selling eBooks at all.

By Ying Zhang: American journalism today is in crisis because it has not adapted financially to digital media, yet I believe we could turn this crisis into an opportunity to make significant improvements in the industry. Journalists and entrepreneurs are searching for business models that would generate revenue to help support high-quality digital media. No matter what forms they take, the newly emerged media products always should be consumer oriented. That is, the products should either meet new, unsatisfied consumer demands, or help reduce the costs of existing products or services in the market. Specially designed online educational clubs could help provide a new and effective alternative for which many consumers would be willing to pay. There is great social value in these clubs that would help draw support from outside the journalism field as well. The project could be implemented in three steps. First: Foreign Language Enhancement Journalists should start by investigating ways to combine traditional studies of foreign language with news delivery to make the learning process more interesting and cost-effective. The project is meant to establish an online portal for interested consumers to learn about different cultures, languages, and international news of current relevance. This site could also be used as a complementary tool for international affairs, world geography, or other international fields of study. An emphasis on music, video, and other modern multi-media technologies would help make the learning process more interesting and diversified. The goal at this stage is to attract paid institutional group subscriptions. These, in turn, may help attract individual and business subscriptions. Paying small fees for an online collection of existing news stories and documentations would likely help reduce the cost of labor-intensive teaching methods. In addition to accurate, in-depth, and up-to-date foreign news stories, current computer technologies would allow student consumers at different learning levels or with different career focuses to practice particular languages of their choice. The clubs also would focus on learning a language as a way to learn the values and wisdom of different cultures, to learn how other peoples make their decisions and live their lives, and to learn how they solve their problems. Therefore, these bilingual clubs potentially would provide attractive learning tools for many consumers.

By Brian McDermott: At first, Brittany Cantarella had no idea the man she accidentally swiped with her Chevrolet was named Lord Jesus Christ. But within two days, the minor traffic incident had gone viral. Reporters snatched the then 20-year-old's Facebook profile picture and left messages on her grandmother's answering machine. "It's the girl that hit Jesus!" a man in Stop & Shop yelled. "I wanted to hide, I wanted to run, I wanted to go far away," Cantarella said. Two months later, she was willing to talk to me about the accident at a coffee shop in western Massachusetts. She was resolute, though, that I not take her picture or shoot video. That's because Cantarella's experience with viral fame made her wary of having her image wedded to a traffic accident that would never go away online. This small anecdote is part of a new media conundrum dogging the relationship between visual journalists and their subjects: most people happily publish their own picture online, but a growing number of them are becoming wary of having their image captured by visual journalists. With facial recognition software becoming commercially available in the past few years, new technologies could further reshuffle the relationship between a subject and a visual journalist. Ed Kashi is a renowned photojournalist who has spent the past 30 years shooting for National Geographic, the VII Photo Agency and dozens of other outlets. And, he told me in an email interview, he's noticed individuals and organizations becoming more reluctant to allow visual access. "There is more wariness and a desire to have more control over access and what you are allowed to show," he said. "In some cases and with certain subjects, this new paradigm presents a dilemma and can halt worthy work."

By Robert Niles: Charles Bronson stars in... Photo by Fish Cop at en.wikipedia Truth Vigilante From IMDB*: "A New York Times reporter becomes a one-man vigilante squad after his story is murdered by copy editors, in which he randomly goes out and kills would-be journalists in the mean streets after dark." (*Not really) C'mon. If we're going to be truth vigilantes now, let's take a lesson from the star of "Death Wish" and do it right, okay? Maybe more people would buy newspapers if we juiced 'em up with some staff-on-source (or even staff-on-staff!) violence. Why should rap stars get all the good beefs? Reporter is such a passive term. Weak. Wimpy. Vigilante? Now, that's a word that'll sell papers!

By Robert Niles: My world is awash in crap data. Several times a week, I open my snail mail box to find bulk-mail solicitations for some member of one of my websites, but sent to the site's street address. Every month or so, I'll get a series of calls to my business phone (which is listed on my website), but the caller will ask for a name I've never heard. For the rest of that week, I'll get dozens of similar calls, from different people calling on behalf of some work-at-home scheme, all asking for the same fake name. And whenever I'm stuck searching for information via Google or Bing, I inevitably have to scroll past link after link to scraped websites - pages written not by any human being, but slapped together by scripts created to blend snippets from other webpages into something that will fool Google's or Bing's algorithm into promoting them. If Google really wants to make its search engine results pages more meaningful, forget about adding links from my Google+ friends. How about creating a scraper-free search engine, instead? I have no doubt that the reason why I get all those misaddressed letters and wrong-number phone calls is that some fly-by-night "data" company scraped together a database by mashing up names, street addresses and phone numbers it crawled on various websites. That database gets laundered through some work-at-home company, which sells it to customers suckers via the Internet as a "lead list" for commission sales. It's bad enough to take phone calls from these poor chumps, who think that they've taken a step toward earning some honest income. But I'm stunned when I see the bogus-name letters coming to my office from established colleges and non-profit institutions, who clearly also have bought crap mailing lists. (FWIW, all my phone numbers are on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and I'm opted out of commercial snail mail with the Direct Marketing Association, so no legitimate data company should be selling my contact information to businesses and organizations I've not dealt with before.) Maybe it's too much to hope for a solution that frees me from having to throw away all these unwanted letters and beg off these unwanted phone calls. (Not to mention saving the people contacting the expense of pursuing bogus leads.) But maybe I can hope for a scraper-free Internet experience instead.

By Robert Niles: If you've started a news website, or left a newsroom to work for an online start-up, don't let the journalism industry forget about you. Keeping a high profile among your colleagues not only helps you personally, it can help drive attention and traffic to your site. But most importantly for our field, keeping track of how many journalists are working outside of traditional print and broadcast newsrooms helps journalism leaders to have a more accurate view of the state of our industry. Last week, I got an invitation via email to participate in the American Society of News Editors's annual newsroom employment census. That wasn't something I'd expected, since I haven't worked in a "traditional" newsroom since leaving the Los Angeles Times in 2004. But I'd never stopped working in journalism. Sure, I spent some time on the staff at USC's Annenberg School, but - along with my wife - we've been building an online publishing business over the past decade, too. So even though neither of us work for newspapers anymore (she spent several years on staff at the newspaper in Omaha, Neb.), we still consider ourselves full-time working journalists. (And that's not just a vanity description, either - together, we're making more income from our business than we ever made together working for newspapers.) I completed the survey, noting that our company employed two journalists full-time, plus a summer intern. Then I emailed ASNE Executive Director Richard Karpel to ask why a small outfit like mine was getting a census invite.

By Robert Niles: When was the last time you read something that prompted you to shout "Yes! That's exactly what I've seen. I've been waiting for someone else to notice that!"? For me, it was last night, shortly after Rob Curley posted a link to Why Best Buy is Going out of Business...Gradually, by Larry Downes on Forbes.com. Downes just destroys the big box electronics retailer, and in doing so, lays out some important lessons for anyone who's running a business today. (Including news publishers.) I hope you'll take a few moments today to read Downes' piece, and to think about how what Best Buy is doing might compare with how your publication treats its readers and customers. Downes' challenge to readers? "Walk into one of the company's retail locations or shop online. And try, really try, not to lose your temper." More times than not, I can't do it. Downes details one recent visit to Best Buy, when friend tried to buy a Blu-Ray disc, only to be waylaid by a "customer service" rep who tried instead to sell him on a pay-TV deal. Me? Dozens of trips to various Best Buys over the years have taught me to never make eye contact with any employees in the store. Keep other customers between myself and the floor staff. If I need a clerk to get something for me, ask only someone who appears to work in the section where the item is stocked, ask for the item using the specific model number and be prepared to walk away if they don't have it, or the clerk wants to start talking about something else. Doesn't this sound like an awful shopping experience? But it's worse to have to endure the sort of bait-and-switch that Downes describes - pitches for unrelated subscription services, incompatible additional products and interrogations about my personal life, designed to talk me into buying products Best Buy wants to push. Even if I manage to avoid all those, I've yet to find a way to get out of the inevitable pitch at check-out to buy an extended warranty. (Extended warranty pitches are the number one reason why I try to buy all of my electronics, software and accessories online. Two days ago, a Radio Shack employee tried to sell me an extended warranty on an iPod case.) I don't believe that the people who run Best Buy are intentionally sadists. Downes describes how Best Buy managers have made apparently rational business decisions that nonetheless have led to their employees creating a nasty, even hostile, shopping environment. That should cause any business managers to pause in fear for a moment.

By Robert Niles: When "objective" journalism decays into a cowardly neutrality between truth and lies, we need advocacy journalism to lift our profession - and the community leaders we cover - back to credibility. That's my response to a source quoted in an item posted by Jim Romenesko yesterday. The post linked a TVWeek.com/NewsPro survey that listed Syracuse's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications as the nation's top journalism school. (USC Annenberg was listed fifth, FWIW.) What caught me eye was one of the quotes Romenesko selected from the original story to include in his post: "One reply stated schools should teach 'objectivity. Too many schools are teaching advocacy journalism.'" Let's dive in: Advocacy is not the antonym of objectivity. Objectivity is the goal of accounting for your own biases when observing of an external reality, so that your report accurately reflects that reality. By reporting objectively, the goal is that you be able to produce an observation that others, observing the same reality, can reproduce. There's nothing about objectivity that prohibits you from advocating on behalf of your results. In fact, putting your work up for peer review, and being able to defend it, is part of the scientific method that influenced the journalistic concept of objectivity. Every journalist advocates for their stories - anyone who thinks otherwise has never hung around an editor's desk or been to a front-page budget meeting. So advocacy's part of the job. And as journalism schools are supposed to be teaching their students how to advance their careers, they need to be teaching their students how to advocate for their work - whether that's getting an assignment approved, a freelance gig okay'ed, or a story onto P1 or into the first slot on the website's homepage. When I've asked journalism students why they decided to get into the field, I've yet to hear anyone respond that they were looking for a big payday. Idealism motivates almost every journalism student - and journalist - I've met. We want our reporting to help make our communities better places and help our readers live better lives. So we get into this field looking to advocate for worthy causes, and we use internal advocacy to get our stories heard. Allow me to suggest, therefore, that the problem some journalists have with "advocacy" is not the concept itself, but those who put advocacy ahead of the truth, instead of behind it, where it belongs.

By Aaron Chimbel: Maybe the future isn't so bad for journalism, after all. There is hope, mostly because so many young journalists see a bright future for journalism. It's the end of the fall semester and as I take a breath and take stock of the past 16 weeks I am optimistic. As a professor in the Schieffer School of Journalism at TCU, I have finished classes and turned in grades and feel pretty good, not about the job I've done as much as the excitement I found in 18 students. The 18 made up an honors section of our Introduction to Journalism class, the first time in more than a decade we've taught an honors class in our program. I'm glad we did and that I had the opportunity to teach the class. What I found with these high school high-achievers in their first semester of college is that they're excited about journalism and recognize the opportunities ahead.

By Melanie Sill: The University of Southern California Annenberg School hosted a panel on Monday called 'Opening Up Journalism: A Culture Change." Here's my talk as part of the panel, outlining my thinking and some of urgency I feel about the need for journalism to become much more transparent, responsive, community-focused and participatory.

By Robert Niles: If you're not careful, efficiency could kill your business. That was the destination on a little mental raft trip I took on the stream of consciousness last week. I was waiting for an airport shuttle at the Hilton Tokyo Bay in Japan and happened upon this spectacular holiday model train display. The next thing I noticed was the advertising - sponsor logos were slathered on every element of the display - trains, bridges, even hot air balloons "floating" above the scene. I suppose that recognition could have inspired several reactions, but mine was "I can't believe any of those companies would get any decent return on investment for this display." Then I wondered what conditioned me to think that. I looked more closely and found that the display was an annual tradition at the hotel, and this year was a benefit for children's charities supporting young people affected by the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan earlier this year. So return on advertising investment wasn't the primary objective of participating businesses. But the charitable contributions weren't the only positive impact of these businesses supporting this display. Presumably, some of the people who designed, built and sold the trains and scenery in the display got paid. As did the salespeople who solicited the businesses' participation. That meant more income for those workers - income that not only helped support their families, but also provided income for the people whose products and services those families paid for. It's Econ 101: Each amount of money spent in an economy creates several times its value as it circulates. That's why an increase in spending by one person or one business can reverberate in creating a bit of additional income for many. And it's also why a reduction in spending can reverberate and cut incomes for many, as well. But it's also a lesson lost on managers and consultants who look only at the first level - the immediate impact of spending, forgetting the reverberation, forgetting the second- and third-level of spending that an initial investment can enable. How does this affect the publishing industry, you might ask?

By Robert Niles: You want to know the lesson of the Crystal Cox case? If you're going to court, get a lawyer. Crystal Cox is the Oregon blogger who got hit with a $2.5 million defamation judgment for a blog post wrote, critical of Obsidian Financial Group. According to the Seattle Weekly, she was unable to use Oregon's shield law to protect her sources for the post in question, because Oregon's law does not explicitly cover online publication. Since she was otherwise unwilling to produce any sources to verify her piece, the judge sided with Obsidian and hit her with the multi-million dollar judgment. Cox represented herself in the case, and that was her biggest mistake. Remember the old saying: "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." I don't care what Cox's motivation for writing was. (Heck, as I've written many times before, I wish journalists would get far more aggressive about taking a stand and going after the crooks and cons in their communities. Neutrality shouldn't be a requirement for journalism.) Nor do I care whether Cox followed SPJ or J-school rules when writing her posts, either. That shouldn't matter. There's nothing in the First Amendment about being a J-school grad or SPJ member. Or even a newspaper or TV station employee. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. In case you haven't committed it to memory, here's the First Amendment, again: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Obviously, though, we've got plenty of laws on the books abridging the freedom of speech and of the press - defamation laws being just a few of them. And ask the protestors at the Occupy encampments around the country about their right to peaceably assemble. Fact is, the First Amendment, by itself, is pretty much meaningless today and is totally useless to anyone defending himself or herself in a court of law. The First Amendment is relevant only within the context of two centuries of case law that have refined its meaning within America's criminal and civil justice systems. That is why you need a lawyer when you go to court. Because only someone with extensive legal training is going to be able to navigate that immense body of case law in order to tailor those decisions to influence a judge or jury to rule in your favor. And if there's no way to construct a winning case, a lawyer should have the experience to know how to craft you the best possible deal so that you can minimize the judgment or sentence you face.

By Robert Niles: We've talked at length about finding new sources of revenue as the news industry moves from a monopoly-driven market to a more competitive one. (And that's the real change that's happening in our industry - not a switch from print to online.) But all the newly self-appointed publishers online will find themselves in the same vulnerable position as their print predecessors if they don't adopt different attitudes about management even as they work to find new customers for their publications. It's human nature to pattern your behavior after role models, and for many of us in journalism, our role models were the managers we followed coming up through the ranks of the business. But while there remain important lessons to be learned from our predecessors (treat people well, be honest, order pizza for the staff on election night), print news managers did some things that online managers must work hard to avoid, too. Here are five lessons I'd like to offer online news managers, so that their publications don't one day end up unable to compete with whatever new competition awaits them. Don't make the syndication mistake Print newspapers helped do themselves in by trading locally produced, staff-written content for less expensive content from national syndicates. While that might have save money in the short term (no benefits to pay, less salary and wage expense), syndicated content helped make many newspapers look the same as their counterparts in every other community across the country. That's no big deal when newspapers were publishing in individual, independent markets. But once the Internet fused the publishing marketplace, syndication-driven newspapers had too little unique, original content to distinguish themselves. Really, who's going to read some op-ed columnist or the AP report on last night's game on your website versus the hundreds of other sites offering the same, exact articles? We found that answer - no one. Creating original content remains relatively expensive, at least up front. And the Internet has made syndication easier and cheaper than ever. (Hello, YouTube embeds!) But publications need unique, original content to attract the audience that attracts advertisers. You've got to offer something that no one else does. (And simply offering a different mix of the same content available elsewhere isn't good enough.) Ultimately, what I'm saying is: I wouldn't bet my future on a business model built on aggregating content equally available to other publishers. It didn't help the newspaper industry and it won't help sustain the online news industry, either. This does not mean that you shouldn't look for and publish content from outside sources. I remain a huge fan of well-modeled user generated content. But that content needs to be original and unique to your site.

By Robert Niles: I thought I would share some potentially interesting information about the effectiveness of various online stores in driving eBook sales, based on my personal experience over the past months. If you're not a regular reader of OJR, last summer I wrote about my first effort in eBook self-publishing. I'm a big believer in eBooks because I see them as a medium where readers have proven that they are willing, even eager, to pay for content. Forget about chasing pennies from paywalls. Go where your readers are buying eBooks by the millions, instead. Newspaper publishers have been publishing books for decades, but the printing and distribution costs have limited those efforts to only the most highly popular subjects, such as national championships by the local sports team and blockbuster investigative works. But eBooks lower the cost of production and distribution substantially. Now, many more long-form investigative works, ongoing columns and popular long-standing can be converted to eBooks, with good profit potential. Adding eBooks to your repertoire provides you another revenue path to supplement advertising, underwriting or whatever else you're using to bring in revenue today. I'd encourage publishers to look beyond repurposed content, and consider how original eBook content might fit within your news product mix. Find the right story, and the demand is there. From paying readers this time. If you're interested in getting started with eBooks, please click into our archives and take a look at my three-part introduction to eBook publishing. Today, I'm going to refine my original advice by letting you know what I've learned from selling eBooks through several popular online bookstores. When I started, I submitted my eBook to four retailers that would accept works from first-time self-publishers: Amazon, Apple, Barnes and Noble and Google Books. I linked to all four stores when marketing my eBook to the readers of one of my websites. (The book was a collection of stories from that site, re-edited and with a few additional chapters.) I signed up for the various retailers' affiliate programs, not only so that I could make a few extra cents from each sale I referred, but also so I could get some information about how many sales were being driven by me, through my website, and how many were bring driven by links on the retailers' stores.

By Robert Niles: Should a news publisher be a cheerleader for the local community? This month, San Diego businessman Doug Manchester bought the Union-Tribune newspaper from a Beverly Hills-based private equity firm. "We'd like to be a cheerleader for all that's good about San Diego," incoming Union-Tribune president and CEO John Lynch told VoiceofSanDiego.org. "Our motivation, both of us, was to do something good for San Diego." Lynch's boss, Manchester, is politically active - he's a Mitt Romney donor and gave more than $100,000 to support Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative in California that's now being reviewed by the courts. So when the new management crew says it wants to be "pro-business," as Lynch told VoiceofSanDiego, I don't think it unreasonable to read that phrase - "pro-business" - as conservative "code" for advocating against government regulation and against anything, including unfavorable news stories, that could impede deals from getting done. Even if those deals hurt others in the community. I'm not afraid to say that I'm "pro-business," too. But I'm an entrepreneur, not a conservative ideologue. I want my business, and other businesses in my community, to succeed - not just in the short term, but long into the future, as well. When I say I'm "pro-business," I suspect that I mean something very different from what Manchester and Lynch imply.

By Robert Niles: Is getting a credential really worth it any longer? I had to wonder that, following the New York Police Department's appalling treatment of reporters covering Occupy Wall Street protests. Of course, the NYPD's not busting up just reporters, which is part of my point. While credentialing helps make reporting easier, it brings with it a risk of compromise that can put us out of position to capture the full picture of a story. That's worth thinking about as the NYPD's actions draw fresh attention to media credentialing. The whole point of media credentialing is a trade-off. We submit to a background check and approval from the police or some other agency or organization and it provides access in return. I don't recall ever talking in journalism school about credentialing, and I haven't had a police credential since I was reporting for the local newspaper while in graduate school, *cough**cough* years ago. But when I had that police credential, that got me behind (some) police lines at crime scenes and demonstrations and behind the desk at the county jail, where I could do my work without getting busted by the cops, the way I would if I were a "normal" citizen in such places, without a credential card hanging around my neck. What's the point of having that credential, though, if it's not going to keep you from getting hit, gassed or hauled off to jail with the rest of the crowd at a protest you're covering?

By Robert Niles: If you're like me, you love hearing about the next new thing in social media and publishing technology. Hey, we're online journalists. Tech is part of what we do. But after a few years in this business, that list of "next new things" gets pretty long, doesn't it? And it grows more and more difficult to keep doing all those old things while making time for the new. So I'm here today to tell you? it's okay to let some things go. You don't have to do everything. You don't have to be on Facebook. And on Twitter. And on Google Plus. And on LinkedIn. And on Tumblr. And on YouTube. And on Vimeo. You don't have to use Google Analytics. And Quantcast. And Compete. And Klout. You don't have to post in your comments and the comments of every other blog on the Internet that references you. You can give it a rest. It's okay. In trying to learn as much as we can about the means in our industry, let's not lose sight of the ends. Ultimately, we publish to meet a need in our communities. (And to get paid for meeting that need.) All these social media services and publishing gadgets are tools to help us do that. That's all. Sometimes, you don't need every tool in the shed to get the job done.