We can’t rewind; we’ve gone too far. What the Buck is in the New York Times?

I’ll admit that I am a big Youtube surfer, especially since they enabled access via Apple TV a year or so ago. I check the most-viewed and top-rated videos, and sometimes the featured offerings, not every night but more often than not, especially as the broadcast options become less and less bearable.

It started with professional curiosity. When I went back to the Daily News in August ’07 – after my back-to-school year at Michigan – I picked up a video camera for the first time and produced almost 100 video news reports over the next 12 months, covering mostly breaking news events. (No, I had nothing to do with the bikini girls show.)

Anyway, what better tool than Youtube could I find to assess what people want to watch, how long they will last, or what qualities they expect?

Then one night, I saw this guy Buck. What the Buck? If you surf Youtube, you have seen him too, but no, I have never made it very far into any of his reports. (How did Harry Reid describe Sarah Palin’s voice? Shrill? Well, she’s got nuthin’ on Buck!) I am no fan of celebrity news anyway, especially in the face of a failing war and economy, though I do understand the irony in the way tough times drive audiences to such escapism.

I have spent a lot of time examining this new-media thing of ours for a couple of years now, and I have to admit I was curious when I saw Buck. Specifically, how much is this guy making anyway? I knew the end of my old MSM career would soon come to pass, and I couldn’t help thinking I should be able to earn at least as much as Buck, right? If you have a shred of entrepreneurialism in your bones, you would have to wonder as well.

So, according to Wednesday’s New York Times, Michael “What the Buck” Buckley – or Mr. Buckley as the Times would call him – quit his administrative day job in September “after his online profits had greatly surpassed his salary.” Another Youtube producer cited in the same story claims to earn up to $20,000 per month. (Not only did this feature make the print version as well, but smack in the middle of the front page, no less. Ka-ching!)

Meanwhile, an esteemed but cranky old media colleague emailed me tonight – after reading the story – and told me: “If this is the future, I just want to kill myself now. “

I don’t think we should. I like the idea of a future where enterprising communicators can take the stage – and the money – from the big corporations and millionaire families that have owned the media for all of my life. I suspect that the present preponderance of shallow content might thrive through these transitional times, but in the end I expect to see more of a meritocracy, where the best journalism will be rewarded. New standards will emerge to define authority and excellence. At least, I hope so.

I’m not interested in citizen journalism as we know it any more than I would go to a citizen dentist. I just suspect a new model of standards and practices will emerge after the pros who now originate the content are altogether gone – leaving you and me and Buck with nothing but our own reporting skills.

My friend and I went on to debate the present quality of newspapers but agreed that good work is too rare these days, with few signs of improvement. This week, the Tribune Company filed for bankruptcy, and the New York Times is borrowing against their new building. My friends and colleagues are getting bought out and laid off all over the country, including my friends here in Philly.

Meanwhile, my new blog had hundreds of uniques but zero revenue in my first 24hrs. Maybe I need a video camera?