Even after all these years of declining circulation numbers, declining revenues, and increased layoffs and page count cuts, most people in newspapers still don't understand what's happening to printed newspapers. Instead, they wait for a magical Web business model to rake in enough dough and become savior to their journalism.

For evidence, just read the latest New York Times Op-Ed piece by Timothy Egan, in which he claims there's nothing wrong with newspapers, except their Web sites don't make enough money. After all, newspaper Web sites have huge audiences but can't support the broadsheet's budget, he notes.

That's where Egan fails to understand reality. It's not the job of the Web site to pay the expenses of the printed newspaper. The newspaper must pay its own expenses using its own revenue. The cuts that Egan laments are proof the printed newspaper can no longer afford infinite pages and sections.

The problem is not that the Web is making too little revenue. The problem is the printed version costs too much. In a twist of selective cognition, Egan points to the success of online-only news purveyors such as the Huffington Post and cries foul.

"There’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post — even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists."

He's right about one thing. When newspapers lay off even more reporters, then Drudge and Huffington will begin creating their own reporting staffs to supplement the loss of stories. In fact, that's already happening. Huffington Post recently began hiring reporters, and its founder says she plans to hire more.

Huffington and Drudge entered the journalism business at the low-end without paying millions for printing and distribution. That advantage lowered the barrier of entry to the market, only newspapers never truly considered them worthy competitors. Judging from Egan's opinions, it seems they still don't.

Since newspapers haven't figured this out by now, it seems they never will. So resign yourselves to a future where the likes of the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, and MSN and Yahoo, hire reporting staffs the size of the New York Times or larger.

And you know what that means for newspapers . . . just ask Egan: "What started as layoffs and buyouts is edging toward closures and bankruptcies."

The ever-loyal group of folks who noticed my return to blogging also inquired about whether the job search is over. And I'm happy to announce that my tangle with unemployment has ended. Later this month, I begin a new role as Online Managing Editor at NationalJournal.com in Washington, D.C.

I'm so honored to work at such a prestigious magazine, especially one that lets me put my obsession for politics to good use.

Obviously, this means I'm leaving the newspaper industry in favor of serving niche topical audiences in the magazine world. I'm excited by the possibility to take what I've learned about how to effectively cover a wide range of topics across a wide range of mediums and apply it to a narrower spectrum of topics.

This also means the stockpile of newspaper related ideas I've had safely stored in my head for use during interviews are ready for release on this blog. So, get ready.

In retaliation for a negative piece about the ratings race in cable news, Fox News aired a doctored photo of a New York Times reporter.

Thinking back on the scandal that erupted when a newspaper photographer erased a piece of the background from a photo and was later fired, I'm truly shocked that Fox would now claim it's common practice to doctor its photos, as a spokesman says in a follow-up column in the NYT today:

"A spokeswoman said the executive in charge of 'Fox and Friends' is on vacation and not available for comment but added that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations."

If you watch the clip of this airing on Fox, there's nothing to suggest the headshot has been doctored. Maybe if they'd added a penciled on black mustache and some fangs, it'd have been more obvious.

If you’ve ever watched “Extreme Home Makeover” on ABC, then you know that good deeds can be compelling, tear-jerking content that also makes someone a heap of money. The show gives away an entire houseful of free stuff, from refrigerators to jungle gyms, that not only make a positive difference in someone’s life, but also doubles as effective marketing of a refrigerator.

Think about it this way. If you’re a refrigerator maker, then it’s nice to buy a commercial and talk about the roominess or reliability. But it’s an entirely different panacea of promotion to give your product to a family and have them break down in tears of gratitude. Wow. Your fridge just changed my life! It doesn’t get more effective than that.

So it’s baffling to me that absolutely no one in the Web media world has caught onto this craze and adopted it for their own devices. The best model to copy was pioneered by – of course – Oprah Winfrey. Her hit show, “The Big Give,” gave money to a small group of volunteers and challenged them to give it away to those who needed it most.

Now reimagine “The Big Give” as a user-generated content opportunity for your local Web site. In Boston, I was going to name this program “Helping The Hub.” Readers identify people in need and submit a heartfelt story about why they’re worthy of a helping hand. An editor selects the most compelling story and asks volunteers to contact local businesses and individuals to find donations that will change the recipient’s life for the better. (Believe me, community members will volunteer to do the work of finding donors. They just need someone to organize the campaign.)

The entire experience is documented by the Web site either via a blog or video or whatever best generated traffic on your Web site. The business who donated becomes a lead for advertising sales around the blog on the site.

Or, “Helping The Hub” can also start with a generous business that wants to pay to promote a specific product. For example, a university looking to promote its continuing education classes might offer a scholarship and ask that readers find people they know who are deserving, with the winner’s uplifting first-person story appearing in print.

Charity has mass appeal these days. If your media organization can become known for helping its community while also increasing revenue, then the decision should be a no-brainer for branding.

Unless your Web site is stuck in the 1990s, increasing traffic can be accomplished only by increasing content. Long gone are the days when a little usability research could produce a better design that significantly boosts page views. No whiz-bang tool will be your salvation. Content is once again king.

Increasing traffic while also cutting the reporting staff of the newspaper is an impossibility, unless the Web site is able to replace the lost content on its own.

I strongly oppose eliminating reporting positions from the newsroom because it hurts the Web site, which is supposed to lead media revenues into the future. Still, most news organizations have demonstrated little understanding of that reality. Short-sighted cuts are venturing even into Web departments. At LATimes.com, they’re transferring power to the newsroom and laying off Web staff in the name of eliminating redundancy. At best, this is a status-quo strategy, not one for growth.

Given the “situation on the ground,” it’s the job of Web leaders to deliver their strongest arguments yet for new resources that create the following:

1) User-generated content. Because our audiences are already sizable, media Web sites have a strong advantage over new entrants to the UGC market. Web leaders must explain to higher-ups that without hiring more reporters, the Web site cannot grow unless it “hires” the public to create content. This doesn’t mean asking the public to report stories. If that’s where your mind goes when I say “user-generated content,” then your understanding of UGC is shallow and doesn’t reflect the vast possibilities for using an audience’s expertise to your advantage.

2) Database reporting. Gannet had a lot of traffic-generating success just by posting random databases of information to its news Web sites. So I’m surprised more sites haven’t tried a similar tact. Get a list of arrests, list of foreclosures, list of lists. A wealth of low-hanging fruit is available from local governments and agencies. Even if the information is already posted by the government, it will likely develop traffic by exposing the information to a larger audience. I don’t recommend simply posting databases and waiting for traffic. Sure, it’ll work. But imagine the potential for traffic if these databases were put into context with some level of associated, evergreen reporting and explanation.

These two areas are your best bets for generating the most traffic with the fewest resources. In short, they’re your best bet for replacing traffic lost by shrinking reporting staffs.

The New York Times points out that Google News has evolved little during the six years since its launch, but the story only hints at the reason – fear.

Google is afraid that Sam Zell, who owns the troubled Tribune Co., and other struggling media moguls will get angry enough about their declining revenues and then sue Google News for copyright infringement. Google would be forced into a huge settlement or risk losing in court, which could destroy its core business model. After all, the entire search engine is based on the assumption that Google can legally copy whatever it wants.

So instead Google is playing a waiting game, suppressing the normal flood of innovation it applies to products in case they might raise the hackles of sleepy media moguls. Here’s how the Times reports it:

By and large, news industry executives have come to accept Google News.

“Clearly, some people use Google News as a primary news source, which makes them a competitor,” said Jim Brady, executive editor of WashingtonPost.com. “But they are a driver of a significant amount of traffic, which we appreciate.”

… In Europe, the criticism of Google News has generally been more strident. A Belgian court ruled that Google News had violated copyright laws by publishing links to newspaper articles without permission.

… People close to the company, who asked not to be named because they did not want to jeopardize professional relationships, said that concerns about antagonizing news publishers have guided some decisions at Google News, most notably the decision not to place ads on the site. Like some other Google projects, Google News has at times also struggled internally to get the resources it needed, these people said.

If Google stalled its upgrades for fear that folks will realize it's making money, then executive Marissa Mayer, who oversees Google News, made a terrific gaffe elsewhere in the article. She admits that despite not overtly posting advertising, the product does generate revenue.

Ms. Mayer called Google News one of the company’s most innovative products, and said that it helped the bottom line because Google News readers were among the most active users of Google’s search and other services. News results also show up on the company’s main search pages, along with ads.

“It directly feeds the main business,” Ms. Mayer said.

Any concession that Google News is of a "commercial nature" automatically puts it in violation of fair use. So it's shocking admission by Mayer in an interview.

To let Google inoculate itself from prosecution and then move ahead with innovation, I proposed a revision to the way robots.txt files are coded. The new file would require all publishers to grant indexing permission instead of Google simply assuming it has the right to take whatever it wants.

As newspaper companies lose more and more, I’d say it’s worth Google’s time to ensure it can’t be scapegoated when the sleeping giants wake to find someone stole their golden goose.

Editors note: After reading my post, Jeff Jarvis claims he's not advocating outsourcing your Web site ... just the CMS. That's not what I gleaned from the following quotes, but we'll take his word for it.

---------------

After thousands of posts about how best to do online journalism, Jeff Jarvis is now contemplating whether newspapers should just stop trying to create great news Web sites. Consider throwing in the towel and outsourcing the Web stuff to someone like Google, he says.

Here's the depressing and misleading tones of what Jarvis recommends:

"Newspapers are in the wrong businesses. They should no longer be in the manufacturing and distribution businesses — which have become heavy cost yokes — and should no longer try to be in the technology business. They’re bad at it."

Under the Jarvis plan, journalists keep writing stories but do it for one common Web site that is basically a souped up version of Blogger.com. Perhaps he's feeling blue about massive layoffs across the industry? I don't know what's wrong. Jarvis has taken the good idea of building on your core competency and twisted it into an argument for abandoning basics.

Anyone who follows this suggestion ignores the success of numerous online-only publications such as Huffington Post, which has its own design and feel. Would HuffingtonPost.com have grown into the massive traffic generator it is today if it had been merely part of Blogger.com?

The notion that it's too expensive to compete online because you have to hire programmers and coders is just lazy. Jarvis sounds like the newsroom curmudgeons who moan for the days when all they did was write a story. None of this silly multimedia stuff, they whine.

Jarvis pretends newspapers are experts only on how to write stories.

"Get out of the manufacturing and distribution and technology businesses as soon as possible. Turn off the press. Outsource the computers. Outsource the copyediting to India or to the readers. Collaborate with the reporting public. And then ask what you really are. The answer matters dearly."

Who are we? Let's remember that newspapers installed giant printing presses and managed citywide distribution networks, proving they can master kooky things that have nothing to do with journalism in order to be the success they are today.

In the Jarvis dream world, he'll just let someone else deal with all the tough logistics. After all, they make his head hurt.

"And a note to others — Google, the AP, et al: There is an opportunity here to be the platform for news. Takers?"

No, there will be no volunteers. Because if newspapers decide to stop creating their own Web sites, then the real "takers" will be the online-only publications who take the market.

Creating a Web site is not optional. It's a cost of doing business. If you stop creating your own Web site, then you cease to compete.

While interviewing for a few jobs recently, I asked a prospective boss whether the Web department had its own budget or was part of the larger newsroom budget. He asked me to repeat the question just to see if he’d heard it correctly.

Of course the Web has its own budget, was his reaction.

Of course. It seemed so obvious to him that the Web would standalone. And yet the L.A. Times is reportedly changing its practices and granting the newsroom budgetary control over its Web site.

This is the proverbial equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. In other words, it’s a giant mistake that baffles common sense.

As the print newspaper continues its unceasing decline in revenue, the higher-ups will inevitably demand more cuts from the newsroom’s executive editor. The ink-stained editor at the helm will look at his or her precious newsroom staff and then at the young Web staff and find any excuse to cut the Web.

At the L.A. Times, they claim to be merging the newspaper and Web site to eliminate redundancy. In other words, they’re cutting the Web staff to save print jobs.

It is imperative that if the L.A. Times or other organizations decide to give one editor control over both budgets, then that editor must come from the Web side of the business. Most print editors are simply too emotionally attached to old ideals about what a newsroom should be and that makes them incapable of deciding future staffing needs. Until the news organization is brave enough to place a Web editor in charge of the whole organization, itIt is critical that the Web budget remain out of the reach of print editors who will be too tempted to leach off the newspaper’s only growth area. This is an important check and balance.

Even if ultimate Web guy, Rob Curley, were named executive editor, there should still be someone overseeing the Web who retains control of the Web budget, and who retains equality with the executive editor. If the EE wants something, then the Web person will agree to the plan if it's a good one.

One disclaimer on this rule: It does not apply at organizations where the Web has never had its own budget. The culture dynamics are different.

Editor's note: Through the beauty of the conversation that is blogging, I realized that even a person with a Web background should not be given control over both budgets. Hence, the revisions. Thanks.

When huge breaking news happens, don’t expect awesome leaps of multimedia prowess from your Web site. Only that which happens daily becomes possible on the big day.

Newspaper editors like to pull out all the stops when facing large-scale tragedies like hurricanes or acts of terrorism. Their instinct is to tear up Page 1 when the unimaginable happens, and they want the same dramatic effect on the Web. What they want, in most cases, is nothing short of a miracle.

If your site follows the same template every day, then it’s unlikely to change quickly when wildfires are approaching. If your site barely posts one video per week, don’t expect multiple, sharp-looking video packages from the scene of the wildfires. Don’t expect an interactive map of the fire’s territory if you rarely post even a locator map of a car accident.

In the print world, practice makes perfect. The more stories you write, the better they get. The more graphics you make, it goes the same. For the Web site, underneath all that practice is progress in workflow and software.

For example, creating great video packages will probably require smooth coordination with photographers on the scene who are likely to shoot too much or too little or the wrong things entirely. On a more basic level, it requires the software and hardware to edit the footage. There’s a huge learning curve that spans both the print and Web staffs for just about anything you can dream up for the big day.

Does this warning strike a chord? If so, I suggest pulling all those newsroom editors into a room and planning the Web coverage for an imaginary tragedy. Then explain what you’d have to practice on a daily basis to be experienced enough when your worst dreams come true.

Washington Post is bringing on Marcus Brauchli as executive editor and he's bringing with him a significant change to the Web strategy.

EditorAndPublisher.com reports that Jim Brady, head of washingtonpost.com, expects to merge the print and Web newsrooms sometime after Brauchli takes the reigns. His quote from the article:

"We have decided that having separate newsrooms has reached the end. We have gotten as much out of it as we can. We need to be in one building so we can learn what the other does . . . No decision has been made, but I think there is an agreement that we need to be together somewhere. We have not talked about where. We have talked conceptually about it."

This is a significant revision in ethos for the Posties. Former CEO of Interactive Caroline Little is on record as opposing such a merger last year. She told Poynter:

"We're very fortunate that our Chairman [of the Washington Post Company], Donald Graham, has been enthusiastic [about our online operations] and has not merged us back into the paper. They would just tell us what to do. Almost all the Web divisions of papers have been merged back."

I'm glad to see the newsrooms being combined. In theory, it should create opportunities for better online journalism. That's essentially what Adrian Holovaty said when he dreamed about a combined newsroom last year, before leaving the Post to start EveryBlock.

Here's what he told PBS at the time:

"My preference would be to combine the teams, because there’s a certain level of overhead, like you’re not on the same network so you have to jump through hoops to get on the intranet. And there are cultural things, like you can’t get a reporter to do something because he doesn’t report to us, he reports to another editor. I can see how it was advantageous at the start to have them apart and let them do their own thing while the print folks weren’t paying attention. But now that everyone’s saying ‘the web is important and it’s front and center as the future of our company,’ it makes sense to roll them together now."

A few disclaimers . . .

As this change is made, it seems like a good idea to move with caution. After all, Caroline Little was a very successful CEO and likely had good reason to want separation. Her views might have changed with the new executive editor, but a culture won't change immediately because of one person.

And just so I'm clear. I support melding the print and Web newsrooms but I oppose melding their budgets. Checks and balances are important to ensure progress in innovation. No reporting indicates the Post will combine Web and print budgets.

Google's new 'how to' site, called Knol, is something I've pitched to newspapers for the last four months during my job search. Now I'm sharing the plan with everyone.

When I arrived at BostonNOW, one of the first programs I created was called "How To Boston." The graphic designers created sales collateral, and I joined sales reps to pitch clients. Several were interested. So I sent the white paper defining the project requirements to our design firm. And then BostonNOW closed down.

With Google's launch of Knol, it's time to share the details of the idea with everyone so you can get to market fast. Based on the overwhelmingly positive early response in Boston, I guarantee that adopting this plan for your local geography will increase traffic and revenue.

About.com has long known that 'how to' content is a significant traffic driver. And yet no newspaper tried to localize that Internet success. Online-only ventures did catch on. For example, Business.com covers a topical niche and created Work.com, which is a user-submitted site for small business. Regular folks submit 'how to" guides on topics such as "how to write a business plan" or "how to promote your new business." It's a huge success because the business owners see contributing as a way to promote themselves, but the final product is a library of information of great value to Business.com's target audience.

"How To Boston" is effective on multiple levels because it's one-part a 'long tail' strategy, and one-part a 'plus business' strategy.

Long tail
Since anyone can post a 'how to" guide for free, any advertiser can participate without paying a dime. But each business becomes a lead for up-selling featured placement in the directory. If the up-sell is cheap enough, then it becomes entry-level advertising for those small businesses priced out of the mainstream spots. Revenue generated by hundreds of small advertisments adds up to big numbers, and eventually the plan becomes like the farm leagues for online advertising. Consider these entry-level folks as leads for traditional banner ads, etc.

Plus business
Some of your biggest clients have Web advertising budgets and are unsure how to spend them. I've heard advertisers say they want to do something cool online, but they're too suspicious about the pay-off for our most innovative programs. This idea is a good way to dip their toe in the water. Let the giant accounts participate by paying the pittance of a monthly charge required to post a featured how-to. But then convince them to promote their new online guide by buying traditional print and online ads that promote the content to readers. This lets the advertiser use their Web budget to try something new while spending most of the money on something they know -- traditional print and Web ads. Right now, some of you are realizing this is a genius negotiation tactic. Pitching a cornucopia of print and Web ads based on this how-to program is a package deal they will feel comfortable buying. I've seen the advertisers' faces light up when they realize the Web budget can be used to buy print ads.

So there, I've laid the whole program's strategy at your feet. You have the:

- Sales collateral for selling the program
- White paper for building the site
- Mock-up of How-To entry
- Mock-up of How-To teaser box

Get going before Google starts attracting worthwhile local content. Wake up and realize that Google is competing with you, again.

This warning should sound familiar, except this time it's coming from the lips of the venerated Valleywag blog instead of mine. Maybe now you'll listen!

"Marissa Mayer, the Google executive who runs all the parts of the search engine, just put her legal team in a pickle. She told conference-goers yesterday at Fortune's Brainstorm conference that Google News, despite being advertising-free, makes $100 million in revenues a year . . . The real reason why Google doesn't put ads on Google News. That's because it fears lawsuits from the media organizations whose headlines and text it picks up and republishes. (It's already lost a court case brought by a newspaper group in Belgium). By not running ads on Google News, Google lawyers could argue it's not profiting from their work. Mayer just shot a $100 million hole in that argument. When she puts a number on how much money Google News makes for her employer, she gives newspapers' lawyers a big, fat, juicy reason to demand a cut of the business."

The first time I mentioned this was more than a year ago, after the Tribune's Sam Zell said Google was stealing his content. I agreed. And then I laid out exactly the case to be made in courts. As recently as a couple weeks ago, I pointed out that Marissa Mayer is going around admitting that Google News is making money.

As profits shrink and newspapers look for a scapegoat, someone is going to sue that woman. Maybe it'll be Sam.