Further Update: The Columbus Dispatch editor, Ben Marrison, blogs about why the paper took down the YouTube video: “We must protect our copyrighted material.”

Update: Lost Remote commenter Ryan Squire found this: The Columbus Dispatch has posted the video on YouTube, a day after ordering the video service to remove it.

The paper posted the clip on its own YouTube profile it created today, according to the “joined” date on the page. It’s a little late this time, but we salute stations and papers that establish their own YT channels.

Earlier: A day after The Columbus Dispatch ordered a takedown of “The Golden Voice” Ted Williams video, the web has responded by posting the video more than 100 times on YouTube. (At least, that’s by my approximation. The actual number is, likely, more.) The Dispatch is feeling the wrath, too. Many comments in the Dispatch’s follow-up stories about Williams are similar to what user Rosie Marquez commented in the original LR story:

“Bad paper, naughty, naughty! Why doesn’t the Dispatch spend time writing a nice follow up story. An uplifting piece on how thanks to an anonymous You Tuber, this man now has a bright future and won’t be homeless anymore.”

Certainly, The Dispatch has its defenders. LR commenter Mike writes:

“[H]ow can all of you, most of you in the broadcasting industry, seriously sit there and defend blatant theft of copyright material? Seriously unbelievable that you can all attack the Dispatch – the victim – for standing up and not allowing their property to be stolen and their rights violated.”

Of interest – in a follow-up story, the Dispatch (sort of) credits the web with helping Williams, referring to him as “[T]he Columbus panhandler-turned-viral sensation.” It does not mention how Williams came to be that “viral sensation.”

A new ad network is launching in Seattle, and it is reaching out across platforms. The Seattle Times and KING-TV are behind The BeLocal Ad Network. Among the 26 partners will be our pals at West Seattle Blog.

Writes Media Buyer Planner:

“The network, focused on local news, will be made up of news sites and blogs. Revenues from (the network) will be shared with the online publishers. The sales teams from both the newspaper and the TV station will work with the community publishers to sell ads.”

This is something we’ve preached forever and it’s great to see the group trying this. The Knight Foundation’s Networked Journalism Project helped fund the partnerships.

As many more journalists seek to create their own newsrooms, whether online or cross-platform, the keep-you-up-at-night question remains the same. Who is going to pay us? How do we sustain these ventures? (I have written here at LR about my own Journalism start-ups, including InvestigateNY.)

Over the weekend, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting in Boston, a not for profit journalism center that started a small movement of start-up centers nationwide, leveraged one of their successful revenue streams: training. About a dozen reporters and civilians gathered to learn interviewing techniques, computer assisted reporting and how to mine the internet for stories.

NECIR is one of about 40 regional reporting centers that are members of the Investigative News Network whose mission is to support non-profit investigative start-ups with the goal of making them sustainable.

Most of these Centers are affiliated with a University and run by legacy journalists from TV and print. The New England Center (at Boston University) is directed by Joe Bergantino (formerly a reporter for ABC News and WBZ-TV) and Maggie Mulvihill, (formerly of the Boston Herald.)

This is a little off-topic. But there are an estimated 1,300 – 1,700 reporters at the Chilean mine covering the rescue. Yes it’s a good story, but couldn’t at least some of these resources be used elsewhere? Twitterers are all a-tweet on this one:

@rockpiggery: There’s about 1700 journalists hanging around covering the Chile mine rescue – wouldn’t 6 dudes from Reuters suffice?

@jayrosen_nyu: Wait: you’ve got 1300 reporters at the miners rescue AND you’re asking, “Who’s gonna pay for the Baghdad bureau, people…” You’re sure now?

@Ashan: 1300 journalists covering up that single event (neglecting other important events) is a complete failure of journalism IMO

Blogger Jeremy Littau adds: “[T]his story depresses me. I see a story about journalism. To know that 1300 journalists have descended on this mining town to cover a worldwide story is a little disconcerting in an era of closed foreign bureaus and budget cutbacks… Foreign stories are worth covering, but let’s be honest that this is more a human interest story with a small impact on a large population than something such as the earthquake that occurred in that same country of Chile just eight months ago.”

I have to say I agree. Not to be cranky here – it’s great that these men are being rescued. But the coverage is way out of proportion to the importance of the event. And there is little perspective here. Suppose these men had died in the collapse back in August. Would it have received a mention at all in the news? This has as much to do with the fact that the coverage could be planned as anything.

That’s right, the Sun Chronicle, a small Massachusetts paper, will begin charging users a one-time fee of 99 cents to post comments on the site. The user’s real name, from the credit card, will appear on the comment.

The paper has struggled with comments in the past, and the publisher says he hopes the new plan will “eliminate past excesses that included blatant disregard for our appropriateness guidelines, blind accusations and unsubstantiated allegations”.

Hmmm, I have my own doubts, but I’ll ask, will it work?