Later, the panel rejected the notion that the financial press was to blame for the economic downfall since the financial press had been reporting on the potentiality of such an event for months if not years beforehand (i.e. Freddie Mac and the possibility of bailout fury). It was the mainstream press, claimed Murray, that failed to sound the alarm. Claman agreed, also blaming the participants in the market, but said that sounding the alarm on anything like bad investments has the potential to stymie good investments, so there is a fine line to walk between breaking-edge financial journalism and market-stopping rumor milling. Murray attributed some failures in the press to Stockholm Syndrome, citing skepticism as something that may increase in the future, as it did after Watergate and the dot-com fiasco. A new kind of journalism will emerge from this recession the panel agreed.

This new journalism includes a spike in the number of journalists, according to Farnoosh. The problem lies in that there will be fewer paying professional gigs in the field. But on the subject of blogs and their inability to make money, Farnoosh said that they allow for people to make themselves into a brand, perhaps giving some a reputation and employability rather than immediate paychecks. And of course there will be a lot of garbage in online journalism, but quality news, she said, is still very very common and accessible. Farnoosh's advice on blogging: Diversify yourself as much as possible. The panel's collective advice on top of that: Find the niche audience that you can connect with and don't just speak to the world that's not listening to you.

Murray, older than the two women on the panel, kept talking about his enthusiasm for online journalism. For a middle-aged Wall Street Journal guy, he was more passionate than I thought. He loves the exposure and reach it offers, as well as the ability for readers to comment on articles. The problem is making money from it. An audience member asked why papers aren't charge very small fees for bits of content and Murray responded, "They will. Someone will try that." He suggested that that company should do so by charging for the content that makes them different, citing the New York Times as an example of what NOT to do. He was adamant about charging for the one thing that only you can do, and maybe providing more common material for free.

The panelists were journalists speaking about the economy in general and journalism in this particular economy. During the Q&A segment at the end, the idea that investigative journalism (CenCom event tonight on this topic at NYU) is going to be transferred to the Nonprofit field. On the flashiness of television news networks the panel said that "TV is a visual medium, and you have to get those eyes to stay on your channel." They were not fans of the idea that ridiculous graphics and sounds and dramatic openings were not necessary.

And, wrapping up the summary, some words of wisdom/hope from the evening...

Claman's father on finding a job: "There's always room for one more if it's you."

Panel's idea about the next economic bubble to burst: commercial real estate, commodities and possibly government loans (watch out!).

And Murray's rational about the Jim Kramer-Jon Stewart nightmare: "Well, I don't go to Jim Kramer for investment advice and I don't go to Jon Stewart for news." If only the world would follow...

Burnable DVD downloads though? Wild idea. But I'll save my money on the burner and stick with my Mac.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6653153.html

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6652409.html?industryid=47214

The partnership with studios comes from YouTube's need to have more professionally produced videos which can garner more ads and expand ad placement opportunities. The studios will benefit by receiving a cut of the ad revenue. The article is written primarily with concern to YouTube and it's not-good financial situation rather than the deal's impact on the film industry, but it seems like Hollywood has taken a step to avoid the Napster-Music Industry trap. The studios are working with existing competition to turn a shared profit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/business/media/17youtube.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I want these respondents to adopt me, because they are either very positive people or they have a knack for picking lottery numbers. The only other explanation is that they are not seniors in college who have just realized they are poor, their friends are poor, that Capital One has reduced their credit limit, and that Far-east Bushwick is out of their price range.

I digress, I do believe that more people will go to the movies more often in 2009, and DVD/Blu-Ray sales might be okay too. Videogames and music? I see how one could say that. But by using my communications degree , I have deduced that the math between monies-in-pocket and wish-list items lists don't add up.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6651900.html

Fun Fact: Netflix shares have surged 60% this year versus the 3.1% increase for the Nasdaq
Fun Idea: Rename the Nasdaq as The Netflix. They deserve it (and it couldn't hurt...).

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6651894.html

rhyming haiku summary:

Blu-ray and high-def
is it one of the most-def
things in this recesch?

I can't say "Yes" because it would be too many syllables.
And, I'm still not sold on Blu-ray success (whoa, rhyme).

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6651924.html

------

Sidenote: Indie companies are looking to price their Blu-ray Discs similar to DVD prices. This is a big difference from the studios who generally charge $35-$40 for the HD format. Should be interesting...

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6651352.html?industryid=47213

Quoi? What about France? Scroll down!

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118002178.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

The "Création et Internet" proposal has supporters and opponents but is expected to pass into law. It could fail to stand after review by the French Constitutional Council, though it seems the Council would never say illegal downloading is okay. The passing of the law would require internet users to secure their personal networks to prevent others from downloading via their subscription. Also, the government would have to figure out how to police public wi-fi spots so random thieves aren't stealing copyrighted content while pretending to be picnickers or park enthusiasts.

I vote YES on the motion. And as for public wi-fi areas, I suggest snipers on the rooftops. I don't want pirates near me while I'm enjoying my baguette and bordeaux and contemplating everything and nothing. That is, unless I've already finished the bordeaux, at which point I would say to the pirates, "Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh" (but in French)(is that possible?).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/global/09net.html?ref=media

In a sick not-quite twist of fate, the latest Fast and the Furious film earned $72.5 million at the box office this weekend (which defies any logic in taste or spring time box office trends). Speaking of trends, however, the box office is up 15 percent so far in revenue and 13 percent in admissions compared to this time last year. Thank you Vin Diesel?

And this holiday weekend should post good numbers too, with Fast and the Furious sharing the box office with a new Hannah Montana film and Seth Rogen's Observe and Report (didn't we already do the mall copy thing?) and the already released Monsters vs Aliens.

Funny that the cartoon one is the only one for which I'd buy an adult ticket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/movies/06box.html?_r=1&ref=media

Will we see more re-releases in 3-D? I asked my Magic-8 ball and she said, "All signs point to yes." Translation: The application of cheap 3-D technology to already-made movies during a mid-recession box office boom sounds like an incredibly lucrative idea.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001950.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Also, Fitihian thinks that fewer releases (as in 2008 vs 2007) might be giving each film more breathing room at the B.O. resulting in better B.O. figures. So maybe a small 2010 slate wouldn't result in a release deficit, but rather yield another B.O. success.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001954.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Perhaps certain big players are beginning to think that there's more potential for profit in film than TV right now? If the studios can figure out a way to bring back home entertainment revenues, we could be witness to a boom in film productions (which have fallen victim to budget tightening lately). But if the industry wants to keep riding the recession-moviegoing train into next year, it might have to pump out a few more titles - quickly.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/cbs-smaller-shows-bigger-film-division/

Let's just hope she's right. I mean, big banks usually are.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6646555.html