David Swensen, the chief investment officer at Yale, writes in the New York Times in support of the newspaper as a non-profit institute.

His argument is manifold: it would liberate papers from their challenged business models, provide tax advantages to encourage public participation in their financing, ensure the transition to digital is more survivable, and insulate journalists from the pressures of advertisers and stockholders.

The real challenge is the amount of money raised. To run the New York Times editorial operation alone, $5 billion in endowments would be required. (The op-ed piece from Swensen seems only to deal with newsgathering expenses, which of course are not anywhere near the operating costs of a news operation.)

As uncomfortable as many journalists are in the philanthropic model, particularly when a small number of supporters are involved, in the U.S. the idea is taking root.

The once-far-fetched notion of an individualized newspaper isn't all that far to fetch any longer.

Mary Lou Fulton of the Bakersfield Californian writes in Online Journalism Review of European collaboration technically to produce a tailored PDF based on personal preferences.

Now, a feedback loop with no surprises is hardly the stuff of valuable media, and Fulton makes clear she's in the camp that suggests the tailoring simply enhance the relevance of the content choices --- not tick the boxes each and every time.

She correctly identifies the revenue possibilities of personal advertising and increased subscription prices.

It's an interesting look at technology that can step forward quite soon (indeed, it's being tested at the moment).

Nielsen Online has released new data indicating the top 10 newspaper Web sites in the U.S. continued relatively strong growth in 2008. Year-over-year, the top 10 sites experienced 16-per-cent growth in the period ending December 2008.

The New York Times, with 18.1 million unique visitors, is the top site in the country, but its growth was a slightly flat six per cent in the year. USA Today (11.5m) and Washington Post (9.2m) were second and third.

The New York Daily News doubled its UVs, while Boston.com was off six per cent in the top 10.

Rebekah Wade, editor of The Sun, the British tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, is calling for a new investment in journalism.

She fears that digital growth will not pay.

"Cost-cutting in this business only works if the savings are reinvested in journalism."The death knell is already ringing for publishers who have forgotten our reason for being."

There are several possible implications to today's one-day court case and settlement involving the Boston Globe (part of the New York TImes Co.) and GateHouse Media, which sought redress for the cut-and-paste aggregation of its content by the Globe.

The first is most obvious: A chill. Will media feel less emboldened to link and attribute content to others? I have to think that, and I would imagine many others will do so, too, even if the settlement appears vested in two parties and two parties only.

The second is less obvious: How do we develop a link economy if there are bilateral or multilateral agreements all over the place guiding the conduct of sharing content? It layers what could be a more you-scratch-my-back, I-scratch-yours world. If linking is the foundation of the work of curating, then how is it affected by exemptions and specific deals?

I don't know my American media law, so I'm not sure why the arrangement was so quickly enacted, but it seems strange considering the generosity and assistance of the NYT Co. that it would so quickly fold its hand.

I need a few days to think about this. Meantime, fellow Canadian Matthew Ingram posts on it at the Nieman Media Lab here.

Doc Searls observes that we're entering a new age of journalism, the era of post-largesse. The family compacts that ushered in large media are gradually removing themselves, or being removed, from the business.

And, because those families had a commitment to the public mission of journalism, that leaves the craft in the hands potentially with those who don't.

Hitwise Intelligence is reporting that social media sites have overtaken adult sites in the United Kingdom for the first time. Data from December suggests they've acquired about 9.37 per cent of the traffic, compared to about 8.52 per cent for adult sites. The trend lines are clear: social media on the rise, adult sites declining. But Hitwise suggests it's not certain the lead will be maintained.

In the United States social media caught up to adult sites in 2007, but there has been no clear-cut leader ever since. The two have gone back and forth in traffic. Hitwise suggests a similar scenario is possible for the U.K.

Hitwise earlier said that Twitter had grown 10-fold in the year

Deloitte has updated its 2009 predictions for media.

The big new issue is the cost of hosting user-generated content. Deloitte suggests some larger firms will spend $100 million doing so this year, with no real business model to generate significant revenue.

The two upsides: Mobile advertising is emerging and 3D is a possible breakthrough technology this year.

Josh Korr in Publishing 2.0 identifies a central problem in the recent efforts by some media organizations to aggregate local information with an extensive series of links.

The problem is that it's often unhelpful to offer so much help. It can add to the load just enough to make it overload.

His argument, though, is the benefits outweigh the detriments --- that the advantages of a composite sketch of local stories is useful, even if they can't all be read.

My view, for what it's worth: These are early days in the link economy and in aggregation, and we're all still feeling our way in determining how to serve as a filter and a funnel, a gatekeeper and an enabler, an authenticator and a conduit. Maybe it's too early for a good debate on this. Maybe we just need to let it happen for some time and sort through what works.

From ReadWriteWeb comes a very thorough-going list of issues to understand as you indulge and participate online. Some good, some not so.

Some of the principal points:

1. Search engines aren't enough. Social sites yield research.
2. Interconnectedness on the Web means sharing information and having it build for others.
3. There is no Delete button on the Web.
4. Standards should remain.
5. Be careful, very careful, about what you post.
6. Be mindful of who's following you online.

I have to admit, the list sounds like a cautionary tale for everyone I know, and me at times. I remain surprised at the casual nature of commentary, at the speed with which people are prepared to pronounce on others' hard work, and the risks people take in participating.