For people like me, media’s in the blood. There’s something compelling about news, feature stories, and comments that make you think. Then there’s the buzz you get from publishing a story, a quality product, or starting a new conversation.

I’m one of the speakers at Ross Dawson’s Future of the Media Summit, being held simultaneously (ie connected across the net) in Sydney and San Francisco (my two favourite cities) on 18/19 July. If you don’t know about the summit, check out the event’s site, or Ross’ blog. Btw, this ain’t no dinky event. Speakers include Wired’s Chris Anderson, Technorati’s Dave Sifry, and Fairfax Digital’s CEO Jack Matthews.

On the agenda are some pretty familiar topics: globalisation, how content will be created, future revenue models, and so on. There’s an argument to be made that media has been deconstructed and separated into its basic elements – content, community, revenue models, etc. Just look at the rise and rise of separate online job sites, or classifieds businesses. Likewise, blog-style media outfits like Alwayson, or Crikey, are carving out a niche as sources of "independent" information.

So one question in my mind is to what extent are we simply deconstructing old media, calling it new media, and then putting it back together in slightly different fashion? That’s my cynical Aussie view of the world. The happier (Californian) view says citizen, or community-driven media is a refreshing change and a noble pursuit for all forms of media.

Got any thoughts?

So I was going to write some great big yarn about how significant it was that Bill Gates will take another step further away from his geek roots in 2008. But then I wrote 1300 words about it on Friday for the Weekend AFR, and well, that was enough. But I notice this morning that Cameron did my work for me with this post. (Oh, and Cam, get that eye of yours off the web! T.M.I. !!!

However, the other comment to make is that I’ve not yet seen too much discussion about Billy G’s humanitarian work. It seems the tech community’s missed the big picture, and that’s fact that an entire generation in Africa is being wiped out by HIV/AIDS.

This might be a plug, but I’ve started supporting Watoto, which provides homes and a future for ophaned children in Uganda. What struck me was a statistic from Watoto that every day, the equivalent of 20 jumbo jets worth of people die in Africa, and it barely rates a mention. Not enough oil over there to worry about, maybe? So at least from the macro perspective, Gates has his priorities right.

Caution: blatant self-promotion ahead!

The big news this week is the annual McNair survey of IT readership in Australia has rated The Australian Financial Review’s IT section – the humble responsibility of yours truly – the number one daily publication for senior IT executives. Meanwhile, the AFR’s MIS Magazine, edited by Paul Smith and also overseen by yours truly, is the number one monthly magazine for senior IT executives.

It’s a very satisfying win for us on the MIS front, having toppled CIO Magazine after its very long run in the number one slot. And I’ll be bold enough to suggest that the AFR result is a great win because The Australian has been attempting to make hay from their recent wins at the annual MediaConnect Lizzie awards. It’s nice to se the record straight. To explain the difference between the Lizzies and the McNair report, the former is an award from media peers, the latter a survey of reader behaviour and opinion. While I’m a fan of Phil Sim’s work with the Lizzies, it almost goes without saying that the marketing types pay more attention to McNair.

ITJourno (a firewalled site for journos) had this to say in a story by Phil:

..the AusIT lost 18 percentage points on the expenditure metric and is now read by 19 per cent of senior IT executives accounting for 25 per cent of spend. That now places it below ‘Next’ with 31 per cent and the Fin Review IT section with 30 per cent.

On the subject of MIS:

According to the McNairIT 2006 research, MIS is read by 52 per cent of senior IT decision makers, who are responsible for 71 per cent of the total Australian IT spend in companies of 50 people or more.

That was an improvement on its 2005 figures, in which it was read by 48 per cent of senior IT executives, accounting for 68 per cent of total spend.

CIO, meanwhile, is being read by the same number of IT decision makers as it was in 2005 at 48 per cent, but those readers this year accounted for only 62 per cent of the total spend, as opposed to 71 per cent last year.

No doubt there will be plenty more competitive gnashing of teeth. But regardless, team AFR is feeling quite chuffed, if not vindicated.