The Third Wave: Doing It Right.

When the title of a conference includes "doing it right" does that mean it's being done wrong now and it?s time to get it right or that it's being done right?

Yes on both counts.

The quality and creativity of some online journalism is already so high it boggles the mind to recall its garage-band origins. So much is done right by so many people around the world on any given day. And yet there is so much to learn and so much that could be better as some 150 journalists, academics and other interested parties discovered anew at the recent USC Annenberg School for Communication conference.

	The hardest part for any news organization may be deciding the difference between a change in the online version of a story and an actual correction.

Some of the people at the Annenberg School for "The Third Wave" have been trying to match bits, bytes and journalism for more than two decades. The ranks have thinned along the way while the enthusiasm has been tempered by experience. Still, the group that's caught some of every wave has this in common with those lured in by the advent of the Web and those still looking for a ride: they believe in online journalism?s present and they're preparing for its future. In some cases, that may be all they agree on.  

These aren't the folks who were in it for the stock options or mythic salaries although some surely benefited during the days when reality was warped as badly as a record album left on a car seat in the sun.

In an interview, when the questioning cycles back around to the point where you began -- and brings the same response -- it?s usually a sign that it's time to stop. The same holds for a hiker lost in the woods.

That axiom doesn't quite seem to work for online journalism. Some of the questions that popped up during the 24-hour span that covered five panels and two meals with speakers are disturbingly similar to those that have been asked for years: How do we create community online? What kind of content will people pay for? How much should be free? How do you keep journalism and advertising separate? Should you? What about credibility when the cost of a printing press or a television tower is no longer an issue and anyone can publish her own definition of news? Is the Internet merely a means of distribution or a revolutionary new medium?

"The thing that bothers me the most is we seem to be doing the same thing over and over," Larry Pryor, Director of the USC Annenberg Online Program and executive editor of OJR, said as the conference wrapped up. As an example, he offered the decision by news industry executives in the early '80s to steer away from chat and as a result away from eager users who eventually found a home at AOL. Today, many news organizations still shy away from the resources and commitment it takes to encourage meaningful online discussions.

WashingtonPost.com?s "Live Online" moderated chats with staffers and newsmakers are a little too rigid for my personal taste but most of the time it works. Thousands of people log on at a time for the chance to ask questions, make comments or lurk while others carry the discussion. Links to transcripts, live discussions and the schedule of upcoming events can be found on the micro-site's front page. (The post-Oscar quote of the day from Los Angeles reporter Sharon Waxman: "For the record, The Washington Post Reporters Rulebook says that reporters are allowed to dance at parties they are covering if it is past midnight and they've had a few of those Veuve Cliquots.")

Speaking of champagne, at this point someone usually mentions that WashingtonPost.com can afford "Live Online." After all, it has lots more staff and resources than the average site. Neither of those matter if the commitment isn?t there. It?s a great example of "if you build it they will come." Does it pay? Can?t tell you. Does it keep people coming back? I think it does. 

Just because WashingtonPost.com manages that part well doesn?t mean its editors are satisfied. They know more can be done, as online editor Dan Froomkin told Annenberg attendees during a panel I moderated. One of his greatest frustrations: the inability to build online communities that reflect geographical ties, not just special interests. No easy answers here.

Not all issues are that difficult. The subject of corrections -- one that I have been hearing about and discussing and trying to solve for at least eight years -- comes closest to driving me into an abyss of frustration. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- should be standing in the way of an online news operation establishing and maintaining a corrections system. And yet from the lunch discussion featuring a presentation by Diane Lynch about ONA?s credibility study and a speech by Dan Fisher about his role as ombudsman for MSNBC.com it sounded like online corrections policies are the exception more than they are the rule.

Yes, the ability to tinker with a story as long as someone is willing to make the changes (thanks, Josh) sets online journalism apart from print. But it is possible to establish a policy and stick to it. Just look at CBSMarketwatch.com, which posts corrections as they come in almost like a Web log and makes certain they are also listed on appropriate pages for various companies. I?d like to see the corrections link more prominently placed on the front page but at least it?s there. The hardest part for any news organization may be deciding the difference between a change in the online version of a story and an actual correction. Whatever the decision as long as the way it?s followed is consistent it should work.

As I walked across campus with someone who has been at the forefront of online journalism, we talked about the cycle of questions and the sense of deja vu. "What?s changed?" he asked. Everything and nothing.    

The news sites being produced today are light years ahead of their predecessors although in some cases that meant dumping the wine along with the vinegar. Video delivery even at low speeds is higher quality. Ditto for sound.
We have improved and it?s not all due to technological advances.

It's because we keep asking the same questions and looking for different answers -- and because we keep talking to each other.

Or, as MSNBC.com's Alex Johnson put it at the wrap-up session (which I missed so I could see an interactive TV demo but caught via webcast): "Perhaps the proper way to phrase it is, 'Wow, look how far we've come in such a short time' as opposed to 'My God, we're screwing up because we're not perfect at age 5.'"