The salacious news of the moment is that CNN's latest formula has left it in third place, trailing behind MSNBC, which runs repeats in three big time slots. That's right. MSNBC is not even trying very hard, and it still beat CNN in March.

Now the big question is whether modern cable news must be overtly biased to attract viewers. It doesn't. The underlying problem with CNN is its safe programming. Instead of competing directly against FOX by broadcasting the type of show that's proven most in demand at any given time slot, it always picks the alternative format, ceding the high ground.

As if I have any experience programming a news channel, allow me to confidently propose a new lineup for CNN that will undoubtedly propel it into a strong second place. (To overtake FOX, the newly third-place network would have to find talent to replace Dobbs.)

This proposed lineup would significantly improve flow from one show to the next, improving lead-ins between shows, while also giving CNN a chance at fighting for No. 1 in a couple time slots instead of No. 2.

5 p.m.
Lou Dobbs
Strong personalities are effective at 5 p.m. Although the fiercely independent Dobbs won't be strong enough to beat FOX's Glenn Beck, he will depress Beck's numbers enough to deflate the significant lead-in that Fox uses to drive its entire evening. Plus, he'll beat Matthews, which evidence shows isn't the type of show that attracts big audiences in this time slot.
(On MSNBC: Chris Matthews | On Fox: Glenn Beck)

6 p.m.
Wolf Blitzer
Washington coverage works at 6 p.m. But CNN again hedged its bet by putting the indomitable Blitzer on for two straight hours. By slimming down to one hour, Blitzer will force viewers to pick his more experienced Washington coverage over the competition instead of tuning in whenever they want. If it weren't for Dobbs reliably losing to Beck, then Blitzer would win this time slot. Blitzer is even better positioned to win at 6 p.m. because MSNBC's latest addition, The Ed Show, is a non-factor in the ratings, leaving more viewers up for grabs.
(On MSNBC: Ed Schultz | On Fox: Bret Baier)

7 p.m.
Anderson Cooper
The winning formula for this time slot for years now has been Shepard Smith's straightforward but lively news summary. It's the type of thing Anderson Cooper is known for and would have a serious chance at beating Smith. Matthews will continue as an also-ran in this time slot, since it literally is a repeat.
(On MSNBC: Chris Matthews Repeat | On Fox: Shepard Smith)

8 p.m.
Campbell Brown & Soledad O'Brien
What the competing networks have realized is you need a big personality at 8 p.m. The opening for CNN is that both FOX and MSNBC have picked uber-male personalities. The testosterone infused anchors entrenched on competing channels means pairing Brown and undervalued O'Brien offers the straight news complement the channel has been aiming for (but missing) while also drawing out the strong personalities that made both these women a success. Both Brown and O'Brien are Today show alums and have proven they are effective when bouncing the issues off a counterpart. It brings out the best in both of them.
(On MSNBC: Keith Olbermann | On Fox: Bill O'Reilly)

9 p.m.
Larry King
If the network continues to believe in Larry King's interview format, then it must believe all he needs is a stronger lead-in to beat the competition. When King lands the right guests, his numbers do well. So promoting those guests on earlier CNN primetime shows with better ratings might be enough to beat Maddow.
(On MSNBC: Rachel Maddow | On Fox: Sean Hannity)

10 p.m.
Nancy Grace
She is an undeniable powerhouse who does a powerful version of what VanSusteren does. Moving her to this channel, to this time slot, will scare the bejesus out of VanSusteren, who would probably lose.
(On MSNBC: Keith Olbermann Repeat | On Fox: Greta VanSusteren)

Take for example the partnership of Jeff Jarvis and the New York Times. They plan a handful of "hyperlocal" sites that are uniformly named "The Local." Each site is led by one NYT reporter who it seems will eventually be responsible for covering multiple locales with the aide of Jarvis' students.

Howard Owens is peeved that Jarvis and the NYT pin their financial success on "scalability." (Churn out more sites without hiring more people.)

Why would anyone build a site targeted toward a small group of people and then worry about whether it can "scale" to serve a large group? That smacks of a confused business strategy. A hyperlocal business must first be able to make money by standing on its own -- even if it never becomes a franchise.

That's real scalability. Quite frankly, it's dumb to start any business that can't break a profit unless it rapidly expands. I'd be leery of anyone pitching such an idea, which isn't much sounder in strategy than a Ponzi scheme.

Rolling out a new product as quickly as possible to as many places as possible inherently means reacting to how it's received isn't a priority, which is further proof these ideas are schemes, not strategies. Beware any one-size-fits-all idea that hasn't been tested on some, nevermind all.

Believing the if-they-build-it-the-audience-will-come pontificators who have long peddled these schemes to newspapers requires buying into the same sort of get-rich-quick thinking that has crippled newspaper Web solutions. User-generated! No work! Great pay!

There is no shortcut to online success. Media companies look at their competitors from the technology world and see only what exists now, conveniently overlooking the immense effort and sacrifice it took the founders of Facebook or MySpace to attain. They see the traffic successes of Huffington Post or DailyBeast and overlook the quality of the content -- at least for their audiences -- and dismiss it as "user generated" or "freelance" when in fact it took a lot of effort to cultivate. Oh, and they selectively forget that profits at these success stories are still nonexistent or took a long time to appear.

I'd recommend that the Times take a bit of Howard's advice and hire a few people who are willing to put in the sort of effort that doesn't easily "scale."

Well, I don’t have to imagine. That’s exactly where I found myself after taking over the Web site for BostonNOW, a free daily newspaper distributed largely on subways. And the idea that follows is what I developed after being asked to create a program.

Because I’ve pitched this idea to a few large newspapers already, I know the twist – the big innovation – must be saved for the end. Read through the premise and then you’ll have the “ah-ha moment” when it arrives.

FIRST, A NEW MINDSET

The outdated assumption built into most classified strategies is that your site should become the No. 1 Web source in a geographical area. I don’t care about that. Neither do users.

Consider the employment vertical.

As an employer with a limited budget for advertising my job opening, I’m looking for the best three or four places to post an ad. All that matters is whether your site is on the employer’s list, not whether you’re at the top of the list. The same is true for job seekers.

As someone who recently had no job, I can assure you the unemployed will check any site that seems worth our time. My livelihood is at stake, after all! You think I’m going to be lazy and check just one site?

Before planning your new classifieds strategy, first scrap this dumb mindset that the goal is to become the first site any job seeker checks or job poster visits. Just get on their list.

SEEKERS VS. POSTERS

Anxious ad sales people will insist they can’t sell a classified if there’s no audience. The Web people will say they can’t attract an audience if there are no ads.

That’s why so many sites have been attracted to aggregation services such as Oodle. It’s an tact I seriously considered because it creates an instant marketplace. But it’s 100 percent the wrong approach.

If a job poster can get their ad on your site by posting it elsewhere, then that’s what they’ll do. And if users realize (and they will) that your site offers nothing that can’t be found someplace else, then you’re banished from their list.

Generating an audience first requires attracting advertisers. It’s NOT a chicken and egg situation. Luring advertisers is more important than users.

PRICING

To get on the advertiser’s list, posting an ad absolutely must be free. Otherwise, you’re asking the employer to take a risk and abandon one of their old standbys.

If it’s free to post an ad, then all you have to do next is convince the potential advertiser it’s worth their time to fill out an online form. Here’s a sure-fire way to persuade them.

Print the ad.

That’s right. After completing the online form, the reader’s ad will appear in the newspaper for free.

It’s really not as odd as it sounds. To protect their market share, newspapers around the country already give readers free ads for merchandise under a certain dollar amount. But I’m saying let all ads appear in print for free.

Everyone understands the value of having their ad printed in the newspaper. Here’s how I know that.

BostonNOW boasted hundreds of community members creating blogs and posting regular entries. Readers did this despite the admittedly crappy user-experience our blogs offered. In theory, these folks should have been using Blogger.com or something more professional. But they weren’t.

So we asked them: Why are you posting to BostonNOW.com, of all places? The overwhelming majority of respondents (about 80 percent) said they posted to BostonNOW.com because their post might appear in print. Part of the newspaper’s business model was to print entries from bloggers.

The same carrot will work for folks with a classified to post.

HOW TO MAKE MONEY

After those ads are printed for free in the newspaper and posted online for free, numerous people will obviously respond wanting to apply for the job or buy the merchandise.

When that happens, notify the job poster or car seller that someone has responded. If they’d like to view the response, they’ll have to pay a fee.

That’s right. Charge them to view responses.

To encourage usage, maybe give away the first response for free. Then charge per response after that.

Hopefully, you’ve just had your “ah-ha moment.”

LEAD-GENERATION IS THE FUTURE

In the new Web-based business models, advertisers pay only for what they use. What started with iTunes letting listeners pay only for the songs they wanted instead of a whole CD has spread to more traditional markets.

Google has based its entire business model not on traditional advertising but on lead-generation. That’s essentially the definition of cost-per-click.

Monster.com already lets advertisers buy leads instead of ads on its site. A small department is tasked with creating new ways to sell what it calls “lead generation” instead of classifieds. They charge advertisers for the number of applicants their site generates instead of per ad.

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS

I always like to imagine wild success. What would you do if the newspaper was inundated with free ad posts? Is there a point where it’s no longer cost effective to print every ad for free?

There might be. So do what BostonNOW did with blogs.

Boston readers were never guaranteed their post would appear in print. Instead, we said their post had a good chance of being printed. When it was, it became like winning the lottery.

To launch your lead-generation classifieds, print everything you get. As the economics change, be more selective.

Remember this is a marketing gimmick. The goal is to get on employers’ and users’ lists. Trust me, you will. And you’ll do it in a way that CraigsList cannot match. Start putting that printing press to good use.

When users are asked where they get their news, respondents in Media Audits all over the country repeatedly name Yahoo in large numbers. Given that Yahoo is a competitor, it's normally a bad strategy to give away your only competitive advantage, which is newspaper content.

People who depend on sites such as Google News or Yahoo to get information become loyal users because they repeatedly find what they want. Newspapers are complicit in the success of these competing news sources. If users could no longer get the most important news of the day on Yahoo, then they'd stop visiting. Eventually, they might consider your site as part of their daily routine.

A one-off link is no substitute for a daily routine, no matter how glowing the quotes are from the news release. Here are a few:

"It's very exciting when our news makes it to Yahoo.com's top features," said Anthony Moor, Deputy Managing Editor, Interactive, The Dallas Morning News, and editor of dallasnews.com. "It's like a firehose blasting us with up to 800,000 page views in just a couple of hours. We've had placements that have accounted for up to 27 percent of the day's page views, and 65 percent of the day's unique visitors."

"One of Media General's major initiatives is to grow audience in our local markets," said Kirk Read, President of Media General's Interactive Media Division. "Yahoo!'s multiple entry points, incredible reach and tremendous site content get the great journalism created by Media General reporters and producers before news consumers when, where and how they want it."

If these Pollyannas don't want to take my word for it, they should pay more attention to how Yahoo describes the success of 100 million links.

"Placing Newspaper Consortium headlines on Yahoo! has given our users access to some of the nation's highest-quality reporting, and made our sites more relevant than ever," said Scott Moore, Senior Vice President and head of Media, Yahoo!.

In a competitive world, if these links make Yahoo more relevant to users, then aren't newspapers less relevant?

The first to market has likely attracted a community of users who are engaged with the site through user-driven content such as blogging or even basic commenting. This is increasingly why newspapers can't beat down local competitors in niche markets.

The latest example is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which bought a local moms site and relaunched it with a fresh design. Among the first examples I can recall was Fresno Famous, which was bought by the Fresno Bee when it realized it couldn't create a competing arts community online.

After all, there are only so many people in a niche audience. And if they already participate at one site, then it's unlikely they'll be moving. That's why even crappy sites that are effective community organizers can be a threat.

"While all publicly traded newspaper companies have seen their share prices fall in the last year — drops of 50 to 70 percent are commonplace — some have tumbled so far that any number of bargain hunters could snap up a controlling interest, despite the credit squeeze. But they haven’t."

A quote at the end of the article from Peter Appert, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, sums up the situation:

“The market cap of some of these companies, they’re bite-sized and it would be extraordinarily easy for someone to come in and buy them, and a year or two ago, someone would have . . . I would say that what happened to the last round of buyers scared off other bidders, though there weren’t many to begin with. And now there are none.”

What the NYT reports is what I've been feeling about newspapers during the last couple months . . . it seems time is up.

At least one Web director who tried it called me to say it's selling quickly, even in her small market. I guarantee you can sell it. I wrote the following letter to explain the concept to advertisers.

To our advertisers,

Blogatorial takes advantage of newspaper readers’ natural interest in finding information. Here’s your chance to convert their news habit into a passion for your business’ products and services.

A salon might talk with readers about personal grooming and then recommend their own products. A bank’s blog about managing your money attracts people who might be interested in advice from professional financial planners. The goal is to engage consumers early in their decision-making process.

The Blogatorial page is a permanent section on the BostonNOW.com Web site. All of the banner ads on your Blogatorial section are exclusively for your business. Because the business manages the blog on its own, you’re invited to post as much or as little as you want. There’s no limit. But we highly recommend getting the most out of your Blogatorial by posting regularly.

Run the blog as part of a campaign for a selected time period or let it work continuously and build an audience of passionate users of your product.

On its own, starting a blog costs just $300 per month.

But let’s not throw a party without sending the invitations. To lure the newspaper’s information-hungry readers, the Blogatorial package includes promotional ads in print and online that let readers know about your blog.

Contact a BostonNOW sales representative to create a package that fits your budget, and get started today using Blogatorial to convert consumers’ interests in the things they love into interest in your products and services.

This is yet another opportunity to bridge advertisers from the newspaper to the Web while retaining those big-budget print ads, which are used solely to promote the advertiser's new blog. Don't be surprised when advertisers pay to promote your site.

As I did with the "How-To" guide, here's everything I have to help you get started:

- Sales collateral
- Mock-up

This idea makes the most sense for news sites that are already taking advantage of community blogging on their sites. BostonNOW had hundreds of community bloggers, so mixing in a few featured blogs from advertisers was a way to build on an existing advantage. Otherwise, these blogs might same strangely out of place.

John Wilpers points out that too few papers are taking advantage of local bloggers in their midst. Blogatorial is just another reason why that's a huge missed opportunity.

If advertisers still spent like during the boom days, then the latest report from Borrell about which companies are raking in the local online ad dollars would be less consequential. PaidContent broke the news with this jarring statement: "Newspapers’ share of the local online market is now 27.4 percent, down from 35.9 percent in 2006, even as the total segment has seen 57.2 percent gains last year."

Newspapers are losing the battle for online revenue in their own backyards. Meanwhile, advertisers faced with economic woes are shrinking budgets and moving significant portions of what's left to the Web, where dollars might be more effective.

Is this the moment many of us bloggers have warned about for so long? In short, yes. Time is up. Pencils down. If your newspaper company is among those without a hold on its local Web dollars, then it will fail. In the world of business, that equates to being sold or closing down.

The Star-Ledger is among the first to start its death rattle. Here's how the neighboring New York Post reports it:

"The Star-Ledger in Newark, and its sister paper The Trenton Times, are "on life support" and could be sold if fewer than 225 workers fail to accept voluntary buyouts, their publishers warned.

The paper's owners, the Newhouse family, has already hired JPMorgan Chase and could unload the struggling dailies if it can't obtain new union contracts and get at least 225 non-unionized employees take voluntary buyouts by Oct. 1."

Although I have confidence in a few Web folks I know who recently joined that paper, Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp criticizes the organization as one of the slowest to transition its business online.

"The cracks could be seen in recent years as the paper, like most Advance Publications dailies, was slow to expand to the Web. While the papers had Web sites, none of them offer a real breaking news pizzazz or individuality. All of the chain's cookie-cutter sites share the same template and are still among the most difficult to navigate. The Ledger didn't even offer a daily Web video report until this past week."

The Ledger seems to hope that cutting its staff dramatically will cure its sickness. Sounds like management hopes the financial cancer can be stopped by amputating part of the staff. I might agree if only they weren't asking for voluntary buy-outs.

If management was truly engaged and understood what was wrong with the business, then it would know which 200 people need to go and which need to stay. Look around the newspaper industry and you'll find similarly passive fix-it strategies.

If you can't hear the fat lady warming up in the wings, then you're not listening.