This model has several implications:

You have to provide “satellite media” that orbits the core: it’s easy to digest and looks cool or fun.

The convergence of two phenomena has catapulted "user-generated" content to incredible heights. Number one, it became possible for the first time in human history for individuals to connect with hundreds to tens of thousands of people they don't know through the Web.

Talk to Pluck, and they'll tell you that reader interaction usually starts with simply reacting to a story. That's commenting — the 20,000 or so comments USAToday.com gets every day. Think of that as letters to the editors on Barry Bonds or Manny Ramirez's vitamins. Comments are, by their nature, reactive.

Move up the ladder, and readers start filling out a "profile" page, noting their interests. Then, they may participate in forums or discussion groups. Everything from political campaign groups to health support groups to sports team back-and-forth. Then, they may "upload" photos or video, the latter of course being the fuel that feeds CNN's iReport and YouNews. While much of the public feels deficient in "writing" skills, anyone can take a picture or use a Camcorder.At the top of the ladder are the regular contributors, mainly in print. These are people who have great expertise or passion or both — and keep up on topics of interest to their readers. Some have huge direct followings. Some are former journalists — bought out or laid off — looking to keep up their craft. Others disdain the word "journalism." Others are increasingly being — you guessed it — aggregated, as we saw in Chapter 5, by smart new middlemen.

how do editors vet? The short answer here is that they vet lightly, and that of course is why there are a lot of ticking time bombs out there. People do blog to advance business or political interests. Sometimes they disclose those; sometimes they don't. Disclosure is what is the basic rule should be, but it's an uneven practice.