Is there any cause for optimism about the future of media? Let’s be honest, the usual answer to that question is a resounding “no.” Since the web upended everything about media, from its business models to its consumption to our expectations for objectivity and truth, folks in the business have been scrambling to find something new that works – and for years now, finding optimism in the media was about as likely as locating restraint in Charlie Sheen. But last night at the Drake Hotel, where Digital Journal gathered experts at the portentously titled “Future of Media” talk, there was something distinctly new in the air. Amidst the usual handwringing, desperation and confusion that accompanies these things, there was the faintest whiff of hope. Moderated by the affable David Silverberg, the panel was comprised of BBC World News’ Jamie Angus, OpenFile‘s Kathy Vey, Bell Media’s Jon Taylor, GigaOM‘s Mathew Ingram and the National Post‘s Chris Boutet. The evening began with precisely the question of whether there is reason to hope for media. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most positive answers came from those in the smallest, most nimble, organizations. “There has been a lot of bemoaning and doom and gloom,” said OpenFile’s Kathy Vey. “But not many people have been trying to innovate. Personally, I get really excited when I look at some start-ups, and this is a great time to be a journalist.” OpenFile’s emphasis is on local news, often in response to requests by its readers, and unlike most news sites, it relies on sponsorship rather than advertising. But as Mathew Ingram pointed out, optimism in media depends on where you sit in the game. “I’d like to draw a distinction between whether it’s a good time for media or the media business,” he said. “It’s a great time to be a journalist and to be writing. But it’s not a great time to be in the traditional media business.” Beyond the difficulty of making money when the dollars brought in by advertising online are drastically fewer than those in print, at least part of that difficulty for legacy media is adapting to evolving methods of and standards for gathering news. The BBC’s Jamie Angus, referencing both the 7/7 terrorist attacks and recent Arab protests, talked about how difficult it is for large traditional news organizations to balance consumers’ desire for speed with the need for fact-checking and objectivity. He suggested that when gathering reports through social media, what was needed was a shift away from an old-school ideal of objectivity to what he called “emergent truths,” where news reports would present information in a constantly updating format like a live blog or collection of tweets. It was a phrase that Bell Media’s Jay Taylor, as well as some audience members, snorted at derisively. But that in itself it revealed something about the division in the business at large: to some, the term was an oxymoron totally at odds with the concept of objectivity and empiricism; while to others it was a reflection of what the web and real-time reporting is doing to the notion of a singular, stable version of ‘the facts’. But the evolution of consumers’ expectations isn’t just about speed or truth; it’s obviously about cost and form too. You have to reach consumers on the web, on smartphones and tablets – and, given that only four percent of Canadians are willing to pay for online news – you generally have to do it for free too. So how do organizations make that work? According to the Post‘s Chris Boutet, the key is to “institutionalize innovation” by not only breaking down the barriers between journalists and designers and programmers to invent new forms of delivering information, but being willing to entertain radically new business models. Though we’ve become accustomed to the idea that you exchange a certain amount of money for a good or service, Boutet suggested solutions like paywalls such as that recently instituted by the New York Times do little but teach you how many people aren’t willing to pay to get your product. “I’d like to see someone try a pay-what-you-can wall,” he said. “Instead of you assigning the value of your product, let readers decide how much they want to pay. At least that way you get information about what people value about your product.” Mathew Ingram added that perhaps news content might be a loss leader of sorts, and newspapers could make money by charging for live events featuring their most popular writers. Those might seem like controversial, even unsustainable, ideas. But what the panellists made clear was that the very uncertainty that has precipitated so much fear and doubt is also driving innovation, pushing media entities to reconsider what they do and how they do it in the most fundamental way. And so maybe, after years of upheaval, we might finally be entering a period of the new, and of hope.