Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and four other publishers are coming together to create a company that will make print material available on mobile devices such as smart phones and e-readers.

This doesn’t strike me as any particularly clever idea, or one that will make that great of a difference, but at least it’s a move that’s forward-thinking rather than catching up. It seems like so many of print’s problems are because of or exacerbated by purely re-active thinking. Where would they be now if they had been on top of new mediums like Craigslist that undermined their monopoly on classifieds?

While this joint venture doesn’t sound all that significant to me in terms of predicting consumer demand, it is significant that competing media firms are joining forces in order to prepare for a quite uncertain future. Steps like this which seek to fill future consumer needs before someone else steps in to do so are what Big Media need to take in order to survive and thrive. The article says that executives in the news industry don’t want to lose control of their business the way the music industry did. To avoid that they must embrace new technology and adapt quickly to it, just as consumers do. The article states that this joint venture is considering technology that hasn’t even been invented yet. This is what needs to be happening.

Ex-BusinessWeek CEO John A. Byrne confidently answered a number of questions in a post declaring why he is joining what he calls a revolution in the news industry. He discusses the decline of traditional models and asserts that their glory days are gone for good - predicting, however, that they will not completely die but fall in behind digital content.

One optimistic and encouraging statement from Byrne was that newcomers to the field have the advantage over incumbents. He sees “unprecedented opportunity” for fresh ideas. It only makes sense that a void needs filling – with crippling cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and closings, there is going to be a huge amount of journalism that will be left undone unless someone steps in to do it. There are many motivated and talented people out there who are willing to do it, and as Byrne foresees, there will probably be a countless number of attempts, of which some significant percentage will succeed.

I was particularly encouraged by Byrne’s comments on the future of print. Newspapers’ dramatic decline is clearly evident, but up to this point most of what I have heard about their future has been loose conjecture. Byrne envisions them taking up a supporting role, even predicting print spinoffs of digital outlets. This format makes sense. I’ve never been able to accept the idea of a future without the significant presence of print, however diminished. With its tradition, convenience, and practicality, there will be a solid demand for it for a long time. Byrne claims, “TV didn’t kill radio. Cable didn’t kill the networks. The VHS tape and the DVD didn’t close down all the movie theaters.” This is a simple yet intelligent consideration of history in an answer to the question of whether print is dead, and it provides a good context within which to speculate on the future of the medium.

I’d have to agree with most of the comments under the post in expecting a certain amount of success for Mr. Byrne. Talent coupled with this kind of attitude may be all it takes to make it in this uncharted media territory.

As newspapers lose revenue and struggle with outstanding debt, their lenders are poised to take ownership of them. A significant number of large publications face the possibility that their most viable option is to give their lenders, in many cases banks, part or complete ownership.

William Dean Singleton, chairman of the Associated Press, had an optimistic view of all this that sounded like it made sense. I agreed with his analysis that banks wouldn’t want to destroy these papers that they would be looking to sell off in a few years’ time.

There was another person quoted whose opinion was that “new blood” would be good for the industry. This is a definite possibility, especially because lenders might take a more business-oriented approach.

Even if the “church” suffers in this, it might be worth it in the long run for survival as a whole. Maybe the “state” side needs to step in like it would for a nation at war – or in a recession – and expand its influence and power so as not to perish.

The New York Times now has a Chicago edition, coming one month after the establishment of a San Francisco edition. The Chicago paper will incorporate the reporting of some ex-Chicago Tribune journalists. The venture is a move to attract new readers, and Chicago is the second of what may be several cities that will have local coverage by the Times.

While not a departure from the traditional (failing) model, this seems like a reasonably good idea. At least it’s a more productive step than laying off good reporters. The new papers will have the prestige of the Times’ name with the appeal of local news. The proposed partnership with the Berkeley graduate journalism school for a start-up in the Bay Area sounds especially interesting. Young, motivated journalism students could prove to be a valuable asset to a paper. More innovation like this is necessary if newspapers have any hope of surviving.

I’m not sure how long I would be satisfied with a “serf” role, however. Maybe just a few years. I don’t think it would be too long before I would want to strike out on my own in some way, get down with a newer website or just do my own thing and freelance, and be more independent and creative. I’d be looking to have a real chance to be innovative and to be able to use my ideas to help evolve whatever organization I was with, as well as my own career.

Glenn Beck lost a lawsuit his lawyers filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against a Florida man. The man created and owned the domain name glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com, a satirical site supposedly dedicated to investigating the “vicious lie” that is its name. Its real purpose, its owner said, was to combat the controversial TV host’s misleading and unfair mudslinging tactics. The man says in the article that he especially enjoyed the irony of  Beck, who frequently rants about international conspiracy threatening the US Constitution, using an international organization to wage a legal battle against a First Amendment freedom-of-speech argument.

While this doesn’t strike me as a particularly significant victory, it is a satisfying one. I agree with the owner that Beck’s position is drenched with hypocrisy. As such a defender of the Constitution as he presents himself to be, Beck should be able to see past his personal feelings and accept the free speech argument.

While the case wasn’t decided in a US court, it does hold a lot of meaning. Even with my basic and limited knowledge of media law in this country, Beck’s claim that the domain could be perceived as being owned by him sounds like it wouldn’t hold up here either. I also admired the Florida man’s decision to give the domain to Beck once he won the case. It lends the argument a certain credibility – makes the statement the focus rather than the domain itself - and somehow makes the victory a little sweeter. Glenn Beck is an ass.

Rupert Murdoch said that he plans to use legal action to stop the BBC and Google from “stealing” News Corporation’s content. The article quotes him as saying that he does not expect any action to make it to court before the BBC “adapts,” as they are aware of the law and, presumably, the fact that they are breaking it.

The article also quotes Murdoch’s son, James, who heads News Corp.’s operations in Europe and Asia. The younger Murdoch echoes his father’s sentiments, somewhat harshly criticizing the BBC for its use of their newspapers’ content.

I was most struck by the elder Murdoch’s statement concerning the barring of Google and other news aggregators from using only headlines and the first few lines of articles in their search results. He argues that the fair use doctrine they operate under would be found unlawful in court, yet he admits that the advertising revenue brought in due to his company’s content being so freely available on the Web is enough that he will “take” a legal decision in his favor “slowly.” No surprise that a guy so well known for his ruthless-businessman/profit-driven reputation is willing to wait on challenging something based on ideology because the current situation offers some benefit.

Despite the cynicism of that last line, I have to agree with Murdoch’s position. Putting aside my disparity in respect for the BBC’s journalism over that of Fox News, I think his attitude about the availability of news content on the Web is most likely the way of the future.

Before the Internet and free news sites, print  news was available only through payed access, whether a subscription or the price at a newsstand. Your content was your content, and if someone wanted it they had to go to you. It’s true that advertising was where the money was, but those dollars were attracted by the number of people paying for content. The model of free news sites bringing in adequate revenue solely from Internet advertising seems less viable, at least in light of the current state of things, than the more traditional model of subscribers and/or micropayers giving marketers a more consistent and comfortable picture of online news providers’ readerships.

And to do that, news providers will have to protect their material with the tenacity that Murdoch is.

2. Does your involvement with Patch reflect an awareness of the decline of print and a calculated move to the Web?

3. What is your and your colleages’ vision for the growth of the site?

2.  Do you see what’s happening to American journalism, i.e. the collapse of newspapers and magazines, closings of foreign bureaus, etc., as mostly negative or more as an opportunity to the forward-thinking; a void that will need to be filled?

3. In your opinion, what is the best model out there right now, or what holds the most promise?