There’s a lot of valuable data for corporate communicators to consider in the 2009 State of the News Media Report on American Journalism published by PEW Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. The report quantifies and analyzes America’s print, television, audio, and online news consumption. Special sections this year analyze election coverage, citizen-based media, and “new ventures.” (Arizonans, note that Arizonaguardian.com is featured in the new ventures section. )

Some points of interest, among many offered in the report include:

• PEW’s survey of Online News Association members indicates that 54% of members surveyed believe journalism is headed in the wrong direction, with only 39% very confident and 43% somewhat confident that a profitable online business model can be identified.
• The number of people either relying on the Web for news or considering it as a major source for news – as one might expect – increased over the past year. This, coupled with the recession, has further diminished already fading ad revenues based on legacy business models.
• The ubiquitous Web vision is playing out. Mainstream onlines have enhanced their content, and more subject-specific news sites have emerged to make online news even more appealing to the masses. (See PEW’s “New Ventures” section for subject-specific examples.)
• With a nod to digital evolution, the Radio section of the report is now referred to as “Audio,” and goes on to call Audio’s future one of “intriguing fragmentation.”
• Micro-blogs, namely Twitter, get special focus within the Online section of the report, with the November 2008 Mumbai hotel raids cited as an example of Twitter’s immediacy and ability to break and share news. 

It’s citizen journalism – via micro-blogs, blogs, and otherwise – that I currently find most fascinating. Citizen journalism is forcing redefinition and/or tightened focus of roles within professional communications. Anyone who is willing can now have a voice via the Web, so professionals need to more clearly add value to the communications process while also harnessing the best of what audience-generated content has to offer.

Some mediums are ignoring or sidestepping this, while others choose to embrace and leverage it. CNN’s iReport is a nice example of the latter. I like that iReport delineates between which audience-generated stories are used by CNN entities, which you’ll find here, and which are not. iReport also encourages reporting aptitude by offering story, photo, video and audio tips to users. Of course there are integrated Facebook and Twitter feeds, and also a weekly news program on CNN highlighting the most interesting iReports.

CNN’s approach is a subtle way of formalizing and activating what is otherwise informal word-of-mouth and community discussion; citizen journalists generally cite just one or no sources, per PEW’s data. And I’m not saying blogs, online communities, an individual’s Tweets, or geographic iReports are less valuable than mainstream news. They’re increasingly what makes the world of information turn ’round, so helping these individual news accounts find their proper fit aids everyone and expands the variety of our knowledgebase.

What’s your opinion of online news growth in relation to the ‘accelerated reduction’ of print publications? Has citizen journalism piqued your interest in Web news, or soured it? Any examples you can share?

My wife and I are into viewing television shows and movies on Hulu as of late. A good friend tipped us off, and we’re wondering if we even need cable at this point. Given Hulu and Netflix streams, plus decent online video content from CNN, most of our basics are covered – though more online sports coverage tops my streaming media wish list.

Hulu is a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp. that offers free online streams of select TV shows and movies, old and new, from their massive catalogs with minimal commercial interruptions.

The limited interruptions is where Hulu really shines (it also has a clean and fairly well organized user interface, and the quantity and quality of content is good). Viewers watching a sitcom on Hulu will encounter about two to five minutes of commercials compared to about 16 minutes watching the same show on television. Viewers can also opt to watch a two-minute movie trailer before a show rather than endure a few ads during their desired program. In some instances you can even pick what kind of advertisements you want to sit through. Shorter clips, like Saturday Night Live skits, may have a brief brand logo and tagline skim across the bottom of the screen. It all seems acceptable to get free on-demand programming.

Hulu has been available for a little over a year and its early success is due to the free content model coupled with its simple, yet rather innovative approach to advertising. While it has drawn some comparisons to YouTube, its organization, search-ability, and opting for the long video format – full-length TV shows and movies as opposed to typical three-minute YouTube clips – has helped it obtain unique online stature.

I actually watch the commercials on Hulu rather than zone out. I know there won’t be many, so that’s an early win. And since I’m not being bombarded, I can actually recall some of the spots from BlackBerry, Nissan, and others that I’m seeing. Try accomplishing that on the tube and its hundreds of channels.

A recent BusinessWeek article notes that advertisers pay three times more to air their commercials on Hulu than on the networks. I think in time they’ll be happy with their investment and rewarded with measurable results. After all, they’re reaching many more open and receptive minds with Hulu’s less is more approach.

I enjoyed following the presidential debate last Friday night… on Twitter. Although the TV was on, it was Twitter that held my attention with a kind of town hall-ish feel.

Thousands of people with at least some interest in McCain or Obama were tweeting their opinions in bursts of 140 characters or less, which generally follows Twitter’s “what are you doing?” premise. The pace of tweets appearing on Twitter’s Election 2008 ‘channel’ was such that you could barely read messages on screen before they scrolled by to make room for others.

This got me thinking about the utility of Twitter in mass appeal scenarios. On Friday, for me, it was mostly a way of polling people’s immediate thoughts. That’s very helpful. But think of the extended impact a more formal use of Twitter with, dare I say, some light moderation could provide.

What if Tom Brokaw chose a couple intelligent questions from Twitter to ask candidates during the second presidential debate in Nashville on October 7th? It is scheduled to follow a town hall format. I’m sure the rules are strict, and they have already been agreed upon by both parties. Perhaps he could get a pulse from twitterers about what they would like answered prior to the debate, if he has that latitude and interest.

A good example of doing just that is CNN’s Rick Sanchez who has recently used Twitter to monitor and ask for viewers’ opinions before doing his broadcasts. Social media expert Brent Leary recently detailed and analyzed this in one of his posts. It’s a good read if you have another minute.

There were some light-hearted moments during Friday’s Twitter debate viewing too. Someone sent a message to @jimlehrer essentially saying “Jim, stop letting McCain run over his allotted response time!” I took this to be intended as comical, although this person could have just as easily meant it. Regardless, monitoring and respecting the ‘vibe’ as a groundswell of tweets occur is a good practice. You can obtain priceless feedback about the topic at hand. (Note: searching on Twitter, it appears the name @jimlehrer is registered but with no updates. Lehrer, or one of his associates, does appear to post updates via @NewsHour.)

I also noticed the “national drinking game” being promoted on many Twitter threads. The rules stated that every time McCain said “my friends” or Obama said “change” you were supposed to take a drink. I didn’t notice either candidate using their buzzwords much though. Perhaps their campaigns did some monitoring of their own and advised each to tone it down, and avoid the embarrassment of elevating the joke.

Whether for amusement or advancing targeted objectives, it is clear that Twitter and other social tools similar to it are gaining critical mass and can help a candidate or organization better convey its message with a sense of immediacy.

To this final point, each campaign is doing a fair job of formally embracing social media. Mashable recently posted a thorough list of each candidate’s various sites and community pages. Take a look and weigh in.