Back in the late nineties, I worked at CNET. It was a pretty heady moment. The company seemed to be setting new standards and best practices every day. But now, CNET doesn't seem interested in setting the pace any longer. It couldn't even get out of its own way long enough to come up with a widget strategy that is early or novel, and has opted out of leading a technology ad network. CNET still has a great content product, excellent editorial and infrastructure staff, and deep experience in premium online advertising. CNET needs ownership that is going to push it to become a stonger content and advertising network, rather than becoming some corporation's Internet trophy bride. CBS has saved CNET from getting the tough love it needs.

Meanwhile, CBS needs more distribution and network power and fewer content businesses. We're moving into a world where (at least in the near term) there will be greater separation between the distribution and creation of content. Media companies must get out in front of that trend. This is particularly true of CBS, whose broadcast network is increasingly threatened by cable and the Internet. They need to remember that they're in the network business. And they're only in show biz because they own a powerful distribution network. It's easy to forget that they got where they are by laying coax, setting up microwave towers, and fighting for affiliates in scruffy little towns.

In this world, Cox's acquisition of Adify looks a lot smarter, giving them more network and infrastructure expertise and a business that is poised to grow. It's not as glamorous, but it should be a solid and important business as the network economics of media become more clear.

The good news for both partners is that CNET still has tremendous potential. But CBS is going to have to learn how turn it into the kind of content and advertising network it should have already become by now.

It's churlish to want more, but what I really want is something that allows me to analyze the results, and not simply to report them. But I guess that's why I'm doing this job.

I was trying to remember the name of a restaurant where I had dinner the last time I was in New York, and couldn't find it in Google Maps or any of the obvious yellow pages applications. So, I zoomed in on the street view in Google Maps to get a look at the sign in front of the place.

I was feeling pretty pleased with myself until I discovered a great, big truck sitting between me and and the restaurant's sign.

The competitive instincts of radio might do the newspaper industry some good. But no media industry treats its audience with more contempt than does commercial radio. Then there's this:

Meanwhile, at Tribune, the hirings suggest that Mr. Zell, who himself owned a radio broadcaster for a time in the 1990s, may put more emphasis on the broadcasting side of Tribune, a side of the business that generates higher profit margins and doesn't face the same rapid falloff in advertising as the newspaper business.

Yes, and oranges are juicier than apples.

Not to mention the fact that broadcasting is being teed up for its own day of reckoning.

Where could radio's cutthroat competitive instincts do newspapers the most good? Radio advertising executives understand how to sell locally and competitively in ways that newspaper ad teams only talk about in PowerPoint charts.

I don’t want a social network, I want a socially *RELEVANT* network (both on-site and beyond). I don’t want a community platform, I want a participation platform where members are rewarded and ranked appropriately. I don’t want a place where people can just blog, because I’m going well beyond the blog. It’s not just about hosting videos, audio files, or any piece of random media - it’s the discovery mechanisms between them that make them more relevant.

It’s discovery - no matter the community, no matter the type of content. Imagine coming to a site and not just reading about what other people are interested in, but what interests they SHARE with you! Imagine coming to a site and seeing how someone ranks in answers pertaining to your own questions! Oh, I’m confident you may have seen these features elsewhere - but what about for your own site, what about for your own community, what about for your own ideas?

Media are becoming social and many bloggers know they will be left behind by the revolution they started if their tools don't get better. But competition is making everybody's tools sharper. The last time I was in the market for a content management system, I was intrigued by Drupal, but I knew that I didn't have the time or resources to build on its deep capabilities. There's a reason most Drupal sites look alike. It's difficult for the average site builder to transcend Drupal's profound dorkiness.

Chris's intense, well-thought-out description of the content management system he'd like to build is loaded with good ideas that every media company should consider for their sites and possibly demand from their vendors.

Boing Boing's new Q&A-style moderation policy is a fascinating document. It ranges from straightforward to cranky and idiosyncratic.

Q. All the vowels have disappeared from a paragraph I wrote! What's going on?

A. We did it. Someone (a moderator, one of the Boingers) was expressing displeasure at your remarks. The technique is called disemvowelling. It deprecates but does not delete the remark. With work, the disemvowelled text should still be readable.

But it's also plainspoken and utterly appropriate to the tone of the site. At some point, we'll come to appreciate moderation as any other editorial function, and one that is essential to the site's editorial voice.

I'm using Netflix to follow a number of HBO series on a Mac Mini with a 17" monitor in our bedroom. And we're using El Gato's Eye TV hooked up to the cable for regular TV. That's how I recorded and watched enough of "Mad Men" to decide to buy it from iTunes.

My wife got addicted to "The Office" buying it on iTunes. She has watched these episodes enough to have a disturbing command of the dialog. We were not happy with NBC's iTunes boycott, but it did give us an opportunity to try it on Hulu.

Meanwhile, our 15-year-old daughter buys "Gray's Anatomy" and "Lost" on iTunes and watches them in a window when she's on the computer or on her iPod when she's killing time.

The only person in our household who's watching much regular old TV (ROT?) these days is our five year old.

These new distribution media aren't going to eliminate ROT, but they can't help but have a profound effect on its business model. And it's already showing in the direction of network TV.

In the meantime, we're living in both a new (and improved) Golden Age of television, and its Dark Ages.

I've become used to widescreen TV's electronics stores and public places showing regular old TV broadcasts stretched horizontally to fill the space. We wouldn't want to waste all those pixels we paid for -- or look like we're just showing plain old TV -- after all.

On a recent cross-country flight I enjoyed Virgin America's new in-flight entertainment system. It's very nice, except it insists on showing, say, The Office, in widescreen format -- making the entire cast look a little chubby.

And no one seems to notice. One can only imagine in how many homes expensive, high-resolution home theaters are showing TV as it was never meant to be shown. And America is left wondering whether Obama has put on weight.

So far, what I've seen doesn't work very well. For example, Google only seems to find the zips that are actually in the text of the story and doesn't seem to reflect any actual geocoding on the part of the news organization. However, this is a clear signal to everyone in the news business to get their metadata in order.

All stories (or at least their database entries) should include all relevant location information, including all government districts, zip codes, latitude/longitude, etc. Publishers should begin the process of setting up their systems so that they can deliver this metadata with the story.

This leads me to two other big trends affecting the news business in 2008.

First, content producers should begin thinking of their content and systems as platforms for new applications. They will need to create new kinds of products and services on those platforms and open themselves up so that intermediaries like Google News can bring them into contact with new audiences.

Second, local content producers must now recognize that Google's main search bar (not local.google.com) is now a big player in their local market and that their customers are already adding zip codes to their Google searches. They must have a strategy for dealing with the coming impact of Google in their markets.

I've got two reports in production on these trends already, and I will continue to explore them in 2008.

Online audience growth in the US has been flattening for some time, and it's only going to get flatter. Couple that with a surprising lack of curiosity about new sites among online users, and you have a world where nearly everyone will have to acquire to order to grow.

But the twist is that Google has not had to grow through acquisitions. Their acquisitions have involved technology, not audiences. No matter how many pointlessly geeky lab projects come out of Google, they're also delivering great, successful products to their users. Even the unpolished Google apps have the sharp, bracing scent of morning about them.

Meanwhile, this deal smells a little desperate.

Does anyone believe that the combination of Microsoft's and Yahoo's online grab-bags will be bigger than the sum of its parts? Microsoft may be able to justify this deal if the combined position is significantly larger than their current position, even after the inevitable user and advertiser flight. But there's no way Google won't win customers from MicroYahoo.

If this deal happens, look for a period of stagnation, not progress, as Microsoft tries to rationalize and corporatize and synergize the resulting hodgepodge of assets--and liabilities. And look to Google for continued innovation in online services and advertising.