Some blogs (and one op-ed), published elsewhere

Most of my writing is posted to the Samara site of late. In case you've missed them, here are the highlights:

• An op-ed, publised in the Globe and Mail, with a call for all of us to reinvigorate our public life
• A first summary of some interesting writing on political leadership in Canada. If you have any other ideas, please let me know.
• A piece on alumni associations for MPs

I will continue to post here periodically, but for more regular posts, please RSS here.

Watch it here!

In the "media is dead, long live the media" discussions I'm always fascinated by the proliferation of new sites that appeal to the policy nerd in all of us (or maybe just me). We've been doing some research into the US and Canadian examples, and although none have yet cracked the sustainable business model challenge, it's encouraging to see so many efforts to bring news and opinion forward.

The latest to cross my radar in Canada is PublicVoice.tv, a video forum for ideas on public issues and challenges. It's a bit like a video version of The Mark. They were kind (or foolish) enough to include me in their first taping, which you can watch here.e-another-new-online-public.aspx

Shining a light on public service, Volume Two

It's rare these days to see someone, particularly when it's not their job, make the effort to engage thousands of Canadians on important issues of the day. That's what's so impressive about Shauna Sylvester and her Canada's World initiative. Over the past three years, Shauna has met with Canadians far and wide to gather their views on Canada's international policy.

We've written a short piece on the Samara blog about this process, including a short video of Shauna describing the whos and whats of it all. She's meeting with a number of policy makers and others from the foreign policy scene to share the results, and I'm sure she'll regularly update us on how the work is progressing through the CW site.

Shining a light on public service, Volume One

Last year while working on the concept that became Samara, I had the opportunity to speak with several hundred Canadians who were interested in the country and the strength of our public life. One commonly-cited observation was how little we do to shine light on positive examples of public policy development, public leadership and service in Canada. Many asked Samara to consider doing this as part of its work.

While there are awards of many types (e.g., the federal government's Public Service Awards of Excellence or Showcase Ontario's initiative to do the same in that province, and the Public Policy Forum recognizes public leaders at its annual dinner), it is true that stories of these types aren't typically in the news and rarely resonate beyond the award presentation.

While this is lamentable, it is also understandable. Public service is often anonymous, done quietly and without fanfare. Government employees almost always avoid the limelight - in fact, this is the expectation of them. However, a little good news never hurt anyone, so we're regularly writing up short stories of exemplary public service and will post them on the Samara blog.

Our first one features Vickie Cammack, the co-founder of PLAN. This organization, which provides information and resources to families of people with disabilities, developed a Registered Disability Savings Plan. The RDSP is similar to an RRSP or a pension through which caregivers can contribute to the future of a disabled friend or relative. Through the 2008 federal budget it became available to all Canadians. You can read more here, or by visiting PLAN's website.

The beauty in following, in a participatory way

I attended two talks last week that helped me think about how Samara can help create opportunities for Canadians to meaningfully contribute, in small, fun and accessible ways, to issues that matter to them. Friends know this has been a long-time interest of mine, something I've reflected on for years and regret not writing more about.

If you're interested, here are the highlights on presentations by Barbara Kellerman and David Eaves. And if you're really interested, please get in touch with any advice and stay tuned for more from Samara on this front.

Talk #1: Kellerman was at Rotman talking about her new book on followership. She's a leadership scholar at Harvard, and correctly points out that you can't have leaders without followers. Given technological and historical/political trends, she predicts that in this century, followers will be more important than they've ever been before.

This felt a bit "no duh" for awhile, but then she outlined two things that got me thinking. The first was a typology of followers, developed in light of the fact that we too often think of followers as a monolithic group (think "my constituents" or "my employees"). She outlined five types of followers, ranked from low to high based on their level of engagement.

• Isolates: Those who do nothing, and as a result, strengthen those with the upper hand.
• Bystanders: Those who observe but deliberately do nothing and therefore tacitly support the status quo (e.g., many Germans circa 1933)
• Participants: Favour or oppose leaders and care enough to invest something in it (e.g., Merck employees who alternately hid and highlighted the Vioxx problems)
• Activists: Those who feel strongly and act accordingly to support or unseat their leaders (e.g., the Catholics who organized to in response to the sexual abuse crises in their church)
• Diehards: Those who are prepared to die for a cause (e.g., suicide bombers, soldiers)

The second was the reminder that "most of us, on most issues, are followers most of the time." With the typology in mind, and not wanting to be a bystander when I shouldn't be, I called the VoxBox to suggest a different angle on a story that's really bothering me. Small step, I know, but better than nothing. I'll leave the diehard stuff to others.

Talk #2: David Eaves, who writes a terrific blog, negotiates and thinks big thoughts for a living, came to Samara to present his thinking on how technology and social change are transforming (or should transform) public policy development and public service delivery. Building on the work of economist Ronald Coase, internet thinkers Clay Shirky, David Weinberger and journalist Chris Anderson (0f long tail fame), Eaves argues that governments and other public service-seeking organizations need to orchestrate themselves for transparency, participation and collaboration to harness the "long tail." It is these features that will ensure legitimacy and success into the future.

This can be a lot to get one's head around, so he cited a few examples (which he's also written about): Mozilla, the 911 emergency service, Canada25 and space travel. He also highlighted some bright lights of change he's seeing in Ottawa.

My takeaway? This is going to require a little bit more of all of us. This means contributing when we can and, recognizing that things are more open than ever before, going a little easier on people to who are experimenting and may stumble from time-to-time. Samara looks to profile individuals or organizations who are working on the future of public service; ideas are very welcomed.

Star-studded week in policy wonkdom, take two

It's been a star-studded week of international policy-wonkdom here.  After the Bush/Clintondiscussion last week, tonight Toronto welcomed four international development thinkers and activisits to debate whether foreign aid is doing more harm than good.  

The third in an installment from the Munk Debates, the evening was designed (in the words of the event's benefactor Peter Munk) to provide a "stimulus to people so they're more familiar and comfortable participating [in the world]." It can be tough to stay looped into important international debates from Toronto, so this is a welcomed initiative. 

To give away the punchline, the guys arguing for good won.  Stephen Lewis and Paul Collierstressed the necessity of aid as a transitional tool, coupled with other necessary tools such as governance and security, to enable capital formation and infastructure development and alleviate suffering, particularly at the grassroots.  

The "harm" team consisted of Dambisha Moyo and Hernando de Soto.  de Soto stressed the need for property rights, without which there would be no peace (witness 15+ recent African wars over property and boundry rights) and no ability to generate capital (witness our First Nations' reservations, an example he cited several times).  Moyo argued that 60 years and $1 trillion of aid has done nothing to help Africa grow or reduce poverty, and worse, allows African countries to abdicate their responsibility to provide public goods to their citizens. Instead, she encouraged a mix of foreign direct investment, capital market activity and trade.

My favourite moment was in Collier's closing when, in reference to pending decisions Canada must make in Haiti,  he turned to the audience and explained, "you get the aid policies you deserve.  [Those you've received] have been gesture politics... you have to get up to speed [so] we can repeat the successes of 60 years ago when aid helped Europe."  This reminded me of asimilar comments fromGeneral Andrew Leslie in reference to the army being at the service of we the citizens.

You can listen to the full debate on CBC Radio's Ideas on June 8, and it'll be available on CPACtoo (previous Munk Debates are available to watch too).  You can also get a flavour for the discussion now by reading some of the advance media or following the live-blog discussion.

Dispatch from the Bush/Clinton

As most Torontonians likely know (particularly if they attempted to drive along Front Street yesterday afternoon), former American presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in town talking to each other yesterday, ably facilitated by former New Brunswick premier and Canadian ambassador to the US Frank McKenna.

I posted a quick summary of the highlights here, but below is a longer report on the event that, I hope, fills in the blanks from the mainstream media's coverage* of the event. 

After a sprinkling of opening remarks, Clinton took the stage.  By this point, we were about 45 minutes behind schedule, which I found mildly annoying given that 5,000 people had spent between $200 and $2,500 each to be there.  Michael (my co-attendee) mused it was likely due to the backlog of photo-ops, later confirmed by a friend who attended said photo-op.

Clinton opened with a short quip equating the audience's expectations for a show-down to a 21st century version of the Roman coliseum, followed by an acknowledgment and thanks for the Canadian sacrifices, human and financial, in Afghanistan and for David Miller's role as chair of the C40, a group of cities committed to tackling climate change.

He then talked about the transition from President to the job description-less position of former President.  He described life in the Oval Office as "a constant struggle between doing what you promised and dealing with incoming events."  To much of the prior and you look like an idiot ignorant of current realities, too much of the latter and you're a good steward, but you haven't stayed true to the country's founders' desire for "a more perfect union."  Next thing you know, it's all over and you need to figure out what to do with the rest of your life.

Perhaps in a preview to how he'd like history to see him, he cited a handful of ex-presidents who went on to greatness in their post-presidential lives.  John Quincy Adams, who was a leading proponent to end slavery. Taft, who went on to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Teddy Roosevelt who started a national political movement.  Hoover, who reorganized the federal government into a structure that largely survives to this day.

He then talked about how he's "switched places" with Hillary, who while he was in office was very active in the charitable sector.  Although he has to watch what he says ("she gets asked if I give the wrong answer," he said), he gives speeches, works on climate change, obesity and of course, on international development through his foundation.

Next he segued to his views on public service.  Here, he had three points (none, by the way, of which were really reported in the media accounts I heard or read).  The first was the message that "we should all do something like this [in reference to his rule, which is if you're going to attend his meeting, you have to do something]... we live in an interdependent world and we can't escape each other's fate." He cited the environment, the financial crisis and the swine flu threat as three examples.  Next he highlighted that one does not have to be an ex-president or a millionaire to do it.  For example, if Canadians want to help Afghanistan, they can visit kiva.org to become a micro-lender, helping their citizens.  Third, he encouraged everyone to work to fill the gaps that public policy and a vibrant economy will never fill, which are largely the "how" parts.  "I try to find people in a how mentality who want to be in the how industry," he said.  As I noted here, he uses the inability of signatory states to meet the Kyoto commitments (kindly he didn't mention Canada, although he could have).

Next came Bush, whose tan and relaxed demeanor suggested the Texan lifestyle was agreeing with him.  As the media reported, he was full of jokes.  My favourite equated Laura's prodding of him to do the dishes with "his new domestic policy agenda."  I also chuckled at his comment that "Clinton and I used to believe in free speech," a not-so-subtle reference to their speaking fees, rumoured to be somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000.

He's spending his days writing a book, scheduled for release in November 2010 (with a good amount of self-deprecation, he acknowledged that many suggested he couldn't even read a book, but he'd prove 'em wrong!).  "History has a way of changing pretty quickly," he said, "[this will] stake my claim to eight years of the presidency so people understand why I made the decisions I made."  He's also working on a library at the Southern Methodist University that will "continue to press the freedom agenda."

He then told a story about the call he received from the Japanese prime minister after 9/11, who pledged his commitment to the United States.  Bush spoke fondly at this point, recalling that 60 years earlier, his father had signed up to fight the Japanese in World War Two, and now the president of that nation called him to offer support.  In those intervening years, Bush said, "Japan moved to freedom... 60 years is a nanosecond in history."

He closed citing freedom from disease and free trade as other important liberties, and stressed his "optimism about the future."  "I look forward to being a part of it," he said.

The discussion then turned to the Q&A, masterfully (I thought) facilitated by Frank McKenna.  There were seven in total.  Below is a very brief summary of each.

Q1: Afghanistan and the way forward?

WJC: The main issue is what to do now.  Pakistan is important.  We know the Afghans want to be free and not run by the Taliban and we have to salvage things.  We have good people on the case and should stay with them.

GWB: Democracy is an ideology against haters.  This is worth it, and it's in our self-interest to spread democracy. "It's the worst form of elitism" to have it and not wish it on others.  Democracy and change takes time.  Look at the US - people in the administration have great grandparents who were slaves.  It takes time.

Q2: Cuba

GWB: I didn't appreciate it when my predecessors criticized me, although (looking to Clinton) "he never did."  [Ed: I'm assuming he's referring to Jimmy Carter or to Ford's embargoed interview, since his father is the only other living ex-president].  In short, the US should keep the embargo in place.

WJC: "My view is influenced by what the Secretary of State says on the matter."  We can't walk away from countries we don't agree with (e.g., China).  Cuba does great (e.g., help in Haiti) and unacceptable things.  "I'd like Congress to give the President the power to see where we can take this thing... it's an error for us to write this off or just make money down there and not care about the people."

Q3: Why didn't you intervene in Rwanda? (to Clinton)

WJC: It's one of the greatest regrets of my presidency, along with a large regret of the National Security staff.  We didn't have a meeting in the White House about it.  We didn't know it would get so bad as fast.  There was hostility in Congress about Bosnia and Somolia (Black Hawk Down).  In six months, it was all over.  We couldn't have saved all the lives, but we could have saved 300,000. I  have to live with that for the rest of my life.  Now, he's doing everything he can to make it up to them (e.g., helped raise the money for a holocaust museum, helps prevent AIDS/HIV).  Told several extremely touching stories about Rwandans he's met or heard of, including one cab driver who, when talking to a reporter who wanted him to criticize Clinton, said, "Yeah, sure, he should have helped.  But so should have a lot of other people.  And he's the only one who's come here to apologize."  Hopes it helped hasten the US' response in Kosovo, where they got in right away and only 10,000 lives were lost. [Ed: this was the most touching moment for me]

Q4: Darfur (to Bush)

GWB: There is a role for all of us.  We sent supplies and helped with logistics.  We accepted the UN recommendation not to go in unilaterally to another Muslim country.  Once you decide not to act unilaterally you have to rely on international cooperation, which is slow and difficult.   They needed other countries to apply pressure. The UN, with all due respect, "is not meant for problem solving."  (e.g., China, which is driven largely by economic development, needs energy so won't support action).  "Diplomacy only works when there's leverage."  He then said, "we moved a lot of food... the problem is.... well, enough said" and sat back in his chair.  [Ed: I wish he'd said more.]

WJC: This mirrors the challenge he had getting NATO allies into Bosnia, where the US was also criticized for not going in fast enough.  One can't compare Darfur to Rwanda.  "He [Bush] did all he could do.... we had all this manpower in Iraq and Afghanistan."  Providing logistics and asking others to help can work (e.g., that's what they did in East Timor, where the Australians and the Thais sent people).  "Even Darfur advocates said we shouldn't be doing it alone."

GWB (to Clinton in reference to Rwanda): You were too hard on yourself.  You can't just pick up the phone and order 20,000 troops.

WJC: If I'd seen what was going to happen more clearly than we did, we could have saved 250,000-400,000 people.

[Ed: this was an interesting exchange - it was almost like they were trying to one-up each other in support!]

Q5: Same sex relationships/repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act/Ask Don't Tell

GWB: There is a difference between rights and marriage.  Clinton handled the military issue the right way.  If they military has changed, they can make a recommendation to the president.  You don't cram political decisions down the throats of your military.

WJC: [Ed: I'm not doing justice to his response, largely because I got a bit lost in the "ask don't tell" details].  I was trying to starve off anti-gay legislation/constitutional amendments that were coming.    His view on gay marriage is evolving.  Agrees with the Canadian position.

Q6: Passport to cross the border (see here for more on this).

GWB: We had a very different strategy.  "Let me be frank, Frank," I'm not sure what happened.  What happened to Easy Pass?  I'm opposed to Buy America provisions.

WJC: I, like most Americans, didn't know anything about this.  In an interdependent environment when insecurity goes up, one's sense of control does too.  No doubt all kinds of scenarios were developed (e.g., the millenium bomber).  Should have a better system.  "You've got my attention on this so I'm going to take it back home."

Q7: HIV/AIDS in Africa

[Ed: due to the late start and an evening commitment I had, I had to leave without a complete documentation of this answer, but I did catch Clinton's summation, "once you take a communitarian position and realize we're going to go up or down together, party differences matter less."  Hopefully a message for all of us to remember.]

 *To save you the Googling, here are a few links: the Globe's Ian Brown here, the Star's Rosie DiManno here and the New York Times' here.  

A few of my favourite things (lately anyway)

We've had a good few weeks, welcoming people to our growing team and gathering some excellent advice from a number of former MPs on our MP Exit Interviews.  We're also hard at work developing some thinking on the evolution of the news media and what it might mean for our journalism projects (details to come in future posts).

In the meantime, I'm digesting (or aspiring to digest) a wonderful list of Samara-esque tidbits friends have shared recently:

1. Tim sent me Newseum's interactive map that allows you to click on the front pages of the world's newspapers.  Readers of earlier posts will know this isn't helping my problems any!

2. Some big names in US news media (including Google's Marissa Mayer, the Washington Post's Steven Coll and the needs-no-introduction Ariana Huffington) testified at the US Senate's hearing on the future of journalism.  Several people have asked me if I think Canada would engage in such a conversation.... thoughts?  Anyone keen?

3. From TVO, a beta site that attempts to lift the veil on the often obtuse world of government, politics and policy. It also links to The Agenda, my favourite source for Canadian issue-oriented podcasting.

4. And while we're on the topic of public broadcasting, a survey on Canadian's perceptions of the CBC.  They were more positive than I would have thought.

5. A new book, Open and Shut, from Globe & Mail columnist John Ibbitson on "why America has Barack Obama and Canada has Stephen Harper."  I still miss Ibbitson's columns on Ottawa and I'm looking forward to reading his book.  If you care about these issues, the Globe apparently has a wiki and blog dedicated to them, but with their new design my links are dead and I can't seem to recover them.

6. And last but not least, one of the few pieces that tries to humanize politicians and reward those who are doing a particularly good job.  Maclean's annual "Parliamentarians of the Year"recognizes Jason Kenney (best overall), Bob Rae (best orator), Megan Leslie (best rookie), Peter Stoffer (most collegial), Bill Casey (best represents constituents), Paul Szabo (hardest working) and Joe Comartin (most knowledgeable).  We don't say it enough - thank you for your service.

Anything else come across your desk lately?  Please feel free to add it in the comments, or send us a note and we'll include it in future posts as appropriate.

New Cdn media product emerges: The Mark

One of my favourite elements of my job is the opportunity to meet Canadians doing innovative things to make our country a more vibrant and exciting place.  A bunch of months ago I met two guys working to get an online news and opinion forum off the ground.  Their project is called The Mark, and today, it launched in beta. 

Their premise is that there are thousands of thoughtful Canadians, living here and abroad, with interesting experiences and ideas who lack a forum in which to publish their ideas.  The Mark is hoping to do something about that, and become a "national movement to record Canadian ideas and propel the people behind them."

I'm having fun scrolling through the articles, many by people I don't know.  I loved this one about the social media fatigue by a brilliant-sounding Canadian studying in San Francisco what sounds like a topic near and dear to my heart.  I enjoyed learning a bit more about Obama's time in law school and I'm looking forward to following the indomitable Tzeporah Berman's posts on the environment.  I also did my bit, and wrote about the game of mutual destruction underway between media and parliaments I've observed lately and how we're working to help.

The upside?  It's a new, fresh media product emerging from the rubble of the old.  They keen to hear from a wide range of people interested in contributing to their ideas and are willing to work with you to make that happen.  In fact, they've already amassed an impressive and diverse list of contributors, few of whom I've ever seen in the mainstream media.    

The downside?  Well, you won't get paid which, given the challenges facing our dear old media industry, makes me further worry about how we sustain good public affairs journalism (more on that in future posts!).  However, for those out there with a love of ideas (or who, like me, are wannabe journalists at heart), we can do worse than taking the time to participate by checking out the site regularly or if the inspiration strikes, consider contributing.

I'm curious what you think of this new site, and of course, I always welcome feedback on my own article.

Your advice please: how to manage a love affair

I really loved this piece by Jonathan Kay on his love affair with newspapers (the paper kind): how he came to love them and why he loves them still.  His point on the responsibility they provoke on their readers is bang on and he put into words a sentiment I, as an active subscriber to dead trees, have never been able to do.  

Newspapers (and other forms of the printed word), by sitting there, remind us that "the world is sending you homework."  And doing homework is an important part of everyone's responsibility to themselves and the world around them.

I share Jon's love and his belief in the importance of the daily reminder not to be intellectually lazy, even if it means waking up with newsprint on your cheek.  It's something that the web, in all its fabulousness, just doesn't do.  Newspapers and their brethren remind me why it's important to remain curious about lots of things.  Furthermore, like my mother did when I was young, they remind me that I have to do my daily bit of homework.

Perhaps my mother was too successful, though, as I have dug myself into a paper habit that threatens to overtake me.  I share Jon's newspaper (albeit more limited... this one comes Monday-Saturday and this one on Sunday), and an even worse magazine habit.  Like with a good bar of chocolate or bottle of red wine, once I start I can't stop.  

I'm overwhelmed.  My house is stacked with dusty reading material that I can't part with until it's at least skimmed.  I'm killing trees.  I think it's important to stay in touch, challenged and engaged, but I'm feeling guiltier by the day.  And there's only so much guilt one can healthily handle.

Dear readers, I need your help.  Here's where I'm at:

I've tried to cull, to some success (e.g., I cancelled this one, this one and this one, as they were the last ones I'd read, but my decision on the latter made me feel guilty for not supporting the Canadian magazine industry so I resubscribed one year later).  

I've tried resisting, to greater success (e.g., sometimes Rogers sends me Canadian Business and Chatelaine for free for a couple of months and I so want to subscribe, even though the copies are still sitting unread beside the toilet, but I don't; when Conde Nast launched Portfolio I confined myself to the newsstand copies only, thank goodness).  

I've also tried aggregating, largely through an ever-growing list of web tools (including this one, great for headlines and for following the future of news discussion, and this one) plus the wisdom of friends.  However, I'm finding all these feeds and recommendations are only furthering and not alleviating my guilt (e.g., I have so many unread blog posts and browser windows with half-read Twitter links that I'm drowning).

And this doesn't include my book habit, which is another matter all together, or my favourite podcasts or my attempts to get a more global perspective.

So here's where I'm at now.  I get Maclean's for a general overview and out of loyalty to the publication (I'm a third generation subscriber), to friends that work there and to a belief in the importance of strong current affairs magazines to any country's democracy (i.e., it's not going anywhere).  I get Spacing and the Walrus and read Corporate Knights for the same reason.  

Toronto Life is fun, so it comes monthly, as does House & Home, a great gift for an otherwise design-impaired new homeowner (thanks SCR!).  

I get the New Yorker to make me smarter and remind me what I loved about living in the US when I did.  And the NYT magazine comes on Sundays.  Oh, and I also get this and this at work, and recently this, due to another generous gift, also turned up.

What's a girl to do?  Advice?  What do you read?  What would you recommend?

"The business model for newspapers isn’t toast, but it’s in the toaster"

Because I promised, and you already know I'm slow, here's a dispatch from the investigative journalism conference I attended in Berekely, CA in early April.

Overall, it was a good couple of days that largely showcased various investigative stories on corruption and the journalists who uncovered them (this Frontline doc was the feature).  It was a clubby affair of many long-serving journalists from the major branded news outlets, and I was generally fascinated listening to the undercurrent of it all, which was naturally the "what the heck happened to our industry?"  My favourite quote was from Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, who began his remarks with the quip, "the business model for newspapers isn't toast, but it's in the toaster." [as an aside, later that week I read that he equated saving the Times to saving Darfur, so he obviously has a gift for the soundbite]

The most interesting and useful session, given Samara's objectives, was the last one on the future of investigative journalism (glad I didn't duck out early).  You can read the details here.  My favourite panellist was Esther Kaplan from The Nation Institute.  The group has been around since 1966 and was created to address the bias in the independent press to write opinion pieces since no one had the resources to do reporting.  These days she's getting more and more requests from freelancers, bloggers and new journalists for mentoring and support since there aren't a lot of older people around newsrooms to help anymore.  She said, "I feel like I'm the social safety net for independent journalists."  This jives with some of our early thinking at Samara, where we've identified some big gaps on the professional development side for those doing public affairs journalism - regardless of the medium.  For example, there's really no media and public policy course taught in our journalism schools, save for a bit at Carleton.  Nor is there much support provided to practising journos, whether attached to media organizations or working independently.  In any event, we've promised to stay in touch on our respective efforts.

I was also reminded of some of the things I miss most about living and working in the States (of course, there's much I don't miss).  Specifically, despite my best efforts, I didn't know the half of the tremendous proliferation of interesting media experiments happening all over the US.  I lost count of the number of foundations and wealthy individuals funding journalism and investigative work of varying sorts.  There were also a number of local news experiments (this and this were particularly interesting, and these examples don't even begin to scratch the surface on the local news front).  I also learned of some neat university collaborations, news literacy projects, workshops and incubators, legal collaboratives, global networks of reporters.... the list goes on.  In short, a lot for us to learn from, and we'll share what we find with you as we get into the details.

On a final note, one of the major threads running through the conference (besides the "what the heck" stuff I mentioned earlier) was the need for journalism to be more "collaborative."  There were a couple of examples of people doing apparently radical things like talking to each other and even going as far as sharing ideas and sources within and across news organizations!  The horrors!  I was a bit shocked, frankly, as none of these "radical" things seemed all that radical to me.  I suppose I didn't appreciate how the old model, where resource constraints weren't so real, may have limited creativity quite so much.  I'll leave it to Dave Eaves to analyze that nut further.