So my colleague Joshua and I today dived into this Twitter thing that’s been buzzing around the blogosphere for weeks. Here’s my page, and Joshua’s is here. He wrote a yarn on the subject which was slated to run in tomorrow’s paper (Friday).

So what is it? Think instant messaging meets blog, meets SMS messaging, and stir with large amounts of random bizzare conversations. I went out to lunch with an SMS notification service turned on and kept getting an SMS for each message one of my friends wrote. Let’s just say I turned that little service off quickly. I can’t decide if it’s all just a little bit silly. Whatdya reckon?

Update: Story got held. You get that.

Update2: It got a run on page 3 of the Weekend AFR in case you missed it. Joshua kicked off the piece thus: "A digital stream of consciousness called Twitter has become the online flavour of the month."

Amanda Meade took another shot at the AFR today in her media column, due to a number of resignations. It’s worth noting for the record that I have not "become a Christian pastor." It’s an odd statement given that she interviewed me a couple of weeks ago. What is true is that I have begun my studies, a Bachelor of Ministry degree. When completed some 5 to 7 years from now it will qualify me to become a pastor, which under the traditional model means you are employed by a church. Until then, I’m really excited about my freelance journalism career which starts on the other side of Easter.

Check out this Wired yarn on what happens when Microsoft’s PR company accidentally sends a journalist who’s writing a story about Microsoft the in-depth file used to track his every move. Just spectacular.

It’s no secret that PR’s keep files on journos - they use it to justify billing rates and as part of broader strategies to massage the message. What’s amazing about this is the level of detail, including internal Microsoft emails which give you an insight into what their hoards of PR people do all day long. And people wonder why we journos are cynical…

Exactly one week to go before I wrap things up as IT Editor at the AFR. It feels vaguely surreal, I gotta say. People have been asking me all sorts of questions from the profound to the practical. On the practical side, my last day as I said before, is April 4. On the other side of Easter, I will embark on my freelance journalism career writing primarily for Fairfax Media. I’ve already been commissioned on a few stories, so that’s great.  If you want to keep in touch, my work email is markhjones <at> gmail.com. Naturally enough, I also have some other plans in the works, but more on that later!

If you’d like to join me for a few celebratory drinks, we’ll be at Sydney’s City Hotel some time after 6:30pm on Tuesday April 3. And when I say we, that’s a few of my AFR colleagues including Tony Boyd, who after 18 years at the AFR (a few years spent as IT Editor, interestingly enough) is also leaving on the same day as yours truly.

The Australian Information Industry Association’s new boss Sheryle Moon has launched into the blogosphere. Notable because she’s a CEO of a very vocal IT industry lobby group, and there are few CEOs blogging in Australia. Also notable because she did one of those comeeko photo cartoons, a sign that she can’t take herself too seriously. It’s not exactly a funny cartoon, but hey, she’s blogging!

The ABC’s Geoff Thompson reflects on the Indonesian air crash, and expresses some of unspoken sentiment that’s permeated the media, and our office, in recent days.

The questions of "why?" and "why not me?" could drive you mad if you let them but that’s not really what’s been bugging me, though it is just as inexpressible. It’s the really hard question of what, and how much, one should feel when another person dies.

I knew two people who died in that crash. What does it mean to know someone exactly? How do you quantify knowing somebody, especially once they are dead?

I really didn’t know Morgan that well. But his loss still affected me in ways I’ve struggled to understand. I think that’s part of being human. Thanks Geoff for getting us closer to understanding those emotions.

Time for a quick thought piece about one of our favourite subjects here at Filtered. There are two competing forces in the media business which seem completely at odds:

1. All content is a commodity.

2. We value content that is specifically relevant and meaningful to us.

Both those statements can evoke emotional and involved responses, so permit me to grossly simplify things for a moment.

The problem with commodity content is that from a business perspective, the margin pressure is constantly pressing downwards. The assumption is that over time, the cost of creating and publishing online content will continue to decline, and therefore associated marketing costs will either drop or the same dollar will go further.

To switch sides to the value we place on content as consumers and participants in the digital media landscape, there are times when something is so valuable, so important, that we actually want to pay for it. Think about magazines that you have intentionally subscribed to because you are passionate about that subject. Or conferences that you were happy to fork out big bucks for you because they promised to deliver knowledge, contacts, and hopefully business. Most of us are not accustomed to paying for niche content on the Internet. Speaking personally, I’ve spent money on the WSJ online, and a couple of other niche sites because I valued the content.

Chris Saad commented last month that we need to "start thinking niche", something I’ve done ever since I started my IT journalism career in the late 1990s at Network World Australia, a niche networking industry magazine which no longer exists. The reason for its demise was no great mystery - it no longer brought in enough advertising.

So my point is this: at some point, every content creator regardless of whether it is an individual or company needs to make a decision about what their time and efforts are worth. If you have decided that you will generate content for free, more power to you. But if through your writing you are hoping to make a living or build a business, you ultimately must consider what business model will apply.

Hypothetically, you could decide to finance your blog or content business using Google AdWords on the assumption that if you get regular links from Digg/TechMeme/TechCruch/Slashdot to drive traffic, you could make a few bucks. An assumption I have made, however, is that you are still participating in a system in which the margin model trends downwards. That is, I suspect Google is more likely to pay you less money per click over time, rather than more. Am I right?

On the other hand, if you created an online business which provided some level of qualification or filtering to participate in consuming the content (either paid or unpaid), you have the ability to create more value for an advertiser. Theoretically under this model, you can try and push the margins up. But I’ve not read comments from too many new media publishers outside the Fairfax’s (particularly AFR.com - check out FBM decision to stop paying Factiva and AAP. They’re charging $500 a month!! ** See correction below)of this world who are actively and openly trying to create value around content, and extract greater value from that content over time. The dominant meme in the blogosphere, it seems to me, is that we simply give away all our content, sign up to Google and cross our collective fingers. I’ve spent enough time around financial analysts to know that’s not a business model people will support in the long term.

As I said before, if you are not trying to make money from content, none of this is an issue. But if you are, at some point you’ve got to draw a line in the sand. The big question is where exactly did you draw yours?

Update: The NYT is thinking similar thoughts about the scale needed to make money from a niche site, and there are some great ideas over at Publishing 2.0:

Is it possible that Google, the great driver of efficiency in online advertising — and the great democratizer of online ad revenue — has in fact dragged down the average value of ALL page views?

So what is online media to do? It already commands a third of total media attention, rivaling television, the ultimate monopoly medium. So why can’t websites charge monopoly prices? Well, the handful of big online media brands, like Yahoo, AOL, MySpace (homepage), MSNBC, CNN, etc. DO charge premium prices for their premium inventory. The top online destinations can and do price like high-priced offline media.

But for as the long tail — it just doesn’t scale.

Update 2*: I’ve been corrected on the pricing model from an internal source at FBM. The minimum spend is $25 per month, and that fee is waived if you are a subscriber. Pricing climbs to $150 per months for an advanced markets package.

Last Tuesday I jumped in the back of a cab at the Australian Technology Park, bound for Sydney’s CBD, after a colleage at the SMH offered me a seat. I cheerily introduced myself to the other passenger who was already in the back seat. "Oh, Mark Jones! We know you," she exclaimed. "I work at eBay." We all broke out in nervous laughter.

It turns out she was one of eBay’s government lobbists, and this was the day I had broken my second story in as many weeks on eBay’s status as a Switzerland-registered company that does not issue invoices to Australian merchants with GST included.   

I’m flattered The Australian followed my story today, quoting my sources, and I hear it’s been picked up on radio. What’s unfolding is a story about one of the great elephants in the room as far as multinational Internet companies are concerned — if a transaction happens in cyberspace, which government collects the tax? eBay has operated at a loss for the past couple of years in Australia, as I first reported, because its offshore arm that managed the ebay.com.au domain directly collects the transaction revenues. If eBay thought this thing was going to blow over, it seems they were mistaken.

Update: I wrote a feature on "who pays tax in cyberspace" which was published in this weekend’s AFR. Sorry that I can’t point to it here cos our website doesn’t permit such things. But to give you a flavour of the piece, it makes the point that 10 yrs ago the ATO issued reports dealing with the problems posed by e-commerce on the internet. A decade later, and we’ve still got apparently loopholes in Australia’s tax legislation that let multinational Internet companies like eBay send revenues derived from Australian consumers straight offshore. One of eBay’s defences, if you can call it that, is they are not the only company doing this.

Meanwhile, The Australian also ran a small piece this weekend pushing the fear and loathing angle around the fact that eBay has handed the ATO the full contact details of its large merchant sellers as part of an investigation into who is incorrectly claiming GST on eBay invoices. This is normal behaviour - they handed the ATO these details three years ago, and it states in eBay’s user agreement that they will share those details with the ATO and the government. What doesn’t seem to have been picked up in the reporting tho, is that eBay actually wants its merchants to be investigated because they have a bias in favour of the small "mum & dad" auctioneers. Recent fee hikes were designed to disadavantage the large merchant community, and make life better for smaller auctioneers and retailers. What’s confusing to me is that at the same time, eBay has gone out and told the world they want to take on Australia’s big offline retailers. How can you do that without big merchants in your eBay community?

Hugh Martin’s report that Ron Walker (chairman of my employer) was in London visiting the Daily Telegraph does indeed beg a few questions.

A bit of gossip: the day before I was there Ron Walker had been in the building, sitting in on news conference, touring the floor, hobnobbing with the big cheeses. Does this have something to do with the imminent newsroom moves at the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age? Is it about digital integration or commercial real estate (the Telegraph has a uniquely large floor space, something which is hard to come by)? Or perhaps he was just dropping in on some mates?

It’s not a good day. A number of my Fairfax colleagues were on the Indonesian airliner that tragically crashed this morning, and apparently one of my AFR colleagues was also on board. We’re still seeking details. Very often we read about these events, but are somewhat detached. In this case, it’s too close to home. More to come…

Update: The SMH has details on AFR’s Morgan Mellish being unaccounted for, and the survival of Cynthia Banham.

Thursday update: According to the latest press reports, there is little hope that Morgan survived. Another hard day. Morgan’s family have set up a tribute blog here.