Eric, I am not involved in this collaborative effort ..... nor have I seen the broadcast to which you. So any comments I might make are purely speculative, and based upon your own observations ..... which I have come to respect over the years.

I think the effort's value - to both news producers and news consumers - may develop over time. That value may not be realized, at least not at first ..... the process might need some tweaking, the focus might need some adjustment ..... or 'the perfect story' for this feature may not yet have come up.

But I think the value of a collaborative, genuinely-reciprocal effort between print/on-air/online media is already established. I was part of such an effort once, and though that relationship did not end amicably, it did establish a new medium for news and information, and unprecedented opportunities in this market for both news producers and news consumers.

I share your interest in the "back story" and "financial or promotional considerations." As we approach October, 2007, I have thought of posting something on news stories, technology and money, and their impact on creating/reinforcing the leadership of a particular medium - or a particular outlet in that medium in the market.

One thing I can say that is not speculative, is that Jimmy will probably take your feedback - and that of others - into serious consideration ..... and we may not, as yet, have seen the final product.

Jeff, I'd be interested in seeing specific instances where this kind of collaboration actually resulted in "opportunities...for...
news consumers." I can't think of any, offhand.

In regard to the specific broadcast I saw this morning, in any other guise it would fall into the category of "commercial advertising." Jimmy was promoting MWT's online poll of "what's your favorite season" and a couple of videos including Mike Canon's decision not to run for re-election. Was this edifying for "news consumers" watching KOSA? Maybe. Not for me.

OK, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and I'm certainly willing to concede that what this might evolve into may look significantly different than the initial effort. I hope so. Otherwise, it's just two advertisers scratching the other's back.

First, I appreciate Jeff trying to make some sense of the situation. He worked for TV and newspaper, so he has expertise.
Second, let's give this thing some time. I think anything which promotes people going to more sites and taking in more information is a positive thing. It is the same reason we have the mywesttexas page.
It is also the same reason bloggers provide links to other blogs. There is no news value to it. It is promotional, and there is nothing wrong with that.

He worked for TV and newspaper, so he has expertise.

Wow. Could you be a bit more condescending?

I'm sure that since I'm just one of the great unwashed masses otherwise known as "news consumers," I'm not qualified to have an opinion as to how valuable what I see on the screen or on print is to me. I'll try to get better educated next time.

There is no news value to it.

Now, see...that's precisely the point I was trying to make. Thanks for affirming it.

and there is nothing wrong with that.

Unless it's presented as "news." Not saying that that's the case here, but with the webcast appearing in the context of a news program, the implication is hard to miss.

Stewart, this whole thing is just not as black and white to me as it is to you.

I think that the average viewer in the area has been dying to see what Jimmy's backyard looks like. Is there a plywood porch? Is that Camaro up on cinderblocks?

Eric, please don't take offense at the phrase, "news consumers." It was not meant to offend, and I stand by my use of it ..... news is a product, someone produces it, someone consumes it ..... there's nothing "great unwashed" about you ..... well, about most of you! :-)

As for opportunities for those news consumers, the collaborative effort of which I was a part - a joint newspaper/television station website DID offer those opportunities ..... for the first time in West Texas, web users could go to a single source of diverse news and information product at one site ..... you could get the depth and breadth of print product, or the immediacy of television product, or any combination of the two ..... to illustrate, you could read a full-length, detailed report on Friday night's football game, complete with box scores and related stories - then you could sit back and watch several minutes of raw audio/video from that game, complete with scoring drives, cheering fans and dancing mascots ..... the e-mails we got from school alumni across the country and overseas - news consumers - testified to their appreciation for this particular feature.

You, yourself, were part of another instance of new opportunities for consumers ..... an online journal kept by a soldier in the Iraq War. Those entries ran with links our readers could click-on for related stories and videos, for more information or to join support groups, photos ..... and opportunities to comment on the entries, and to suggest topics/submit questions, which could be accessed IMMEDIATELY by our correspondent in Kuwait and Iraq ..... we did a similar project with a U.S. sailor aboard an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf ..... and, AGAIN, consumers conveyed their appreciation for this product.

Maybe new opportunities for consumers will not arise from this latest television/newspaper collaboration ..... but then again, given time, maybe they will.

And, please, don't take offense when we make remarks that might indicate some pride in our work ..... we ARE proud of our profession, and our abilities in advancing that profession ..... it's one of the reasons we try to a great job ..... and try to find new and better was to do it ..... for YOU.

Jeff, I'm not at all offended by the term "news consumer." What I'm offended by – although "offended" is too strong a term; see below – is the implication that "news consumers" aren't savvy enough about the business to offer constructive feedback to "news professionals." (And, of course, I don't attribute that implication to your comments.)

Even if we're not experienced or educated in the arcane details of journalistic endeavor, you guys had better pay attention to our opinions because without viewers or readers, your profession becomes an historical footnote.

However, I probably need to make something else clear. This whole issue is not a big deal to me. I don't think anyone's journalistic integrity has been compromised, and I'm not going to stop reading the MRT, watching KOSA, visiting MWT.com, or respecting you, Stewart, or Jimmy. I was hoping to stimulate some interesting discussion about media confluence, and I was intentionally pugnacious in the way I addressed it. But, judging by the overpowering silence from most readers, I can tell this isn't an issue that engages most people, so I probably won't persist in covering it.

By the way, your exåmples of media collaboration are good ones. Thanks for taking the time to document them.

Eric, there's not a single point in your last comment with which I - or most journalists, for that matter - would disagree.

As for generating an "interesting discussion about media confluence" ..... though it HAS been kind of small, kind of quiet ..... there was another confluence, last week on Bravo Network, a confluence between reality television and the blogosphere ..... I think I'll save that for a post on MY blog.