I have been pondering the Microsoft-Yahoo deal announced today. It has many fascinating business machinations, but it mostly comes down to you, dear Web surfer. Both companies are vying to know your search proclivities so they can target information and, therefore advertising, to you. This deal will bring a more heated battle between Google and Microsoft-Yahoo to sell you different wares.

Microsoft has made its living out of resilence, and its partnership with Yahoo is a classic example of its ability to partner with another company to make a run on a more innovative rival. Partnering with other companies is a difficult skill (just ask the auto industry), but Microsoft has been good at it. It made this deal at a low-point in the history of Yahoo, which has been clobbered, in a variety of ways, by Google. It will be interesting to see if this 10-year deal, which still needs federal approval, will elevate Yahoo and help Microsoft re-brand its own search technology, Bing, which is one of the best products to come out of Redmond for a long time. But search engines are really a way toward greater desktop dominance. Google is working on a free operating system, which threatens Microsoft’s core product, Windows. All of this back-and-forth between the companies will mean more innovative search engines, and probably better operating systems, because the companies are so desperate to track and understand you. With this deal, Microsoft is trying to nudge itself into the new era of computing. Since Google has not had significant competition for awhile it will be good news for consumers.

Technology has altered many industries in the last several years, but the media has taken some of the biggest hits of late. The Web, and now social networking sites, like Twitter, have made consumers into real-time news junkies. In some ways it feels like a Golden Age of information dissemination, but one with troubling consequences. We still have newspaper reporters feeding us old fashion journalism. We also have access to source material through government (and other) organizations and we can access this information on demand. We really have the best of both worlds–for now.

People are thrilled about the access to information, but over the last several months I have noticed a changing mood. Friends and strangers keep asking me about the future of journalism. I think there is a growing uneasiness. People are worried because they are sensing an information age disaster: they are picking up their newspapers and seeing thinner products, weaker reporting and writing, and more mistakes in the pages. And the mistakes and lack of quality in print are starting to seep onto newspaper Websites. Massive layoffs in the editorial ranks have left reporters scrambling to cover their beats, and experienced journalists are been fazed out, meaning newspapers are ruining their credibility with substandard products in print and on-line. I was on vacation for a couple weeks and and everywhere I went people were complaining about their local newspapers. (“Should I bother to subscribe anymore?”)

Even the elite newspapers are suffering. The result? Boots-on-the-ground reporting is often being left to individuals and foundation-funded sites like ProPublica. Citizens can do interesting journalism, and ProPublica and other sites continue to break stories, but why hasn’t the The New York Times’ Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. or The Washington Post’s Katharine Weymouth or News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch come to the forefront with innovative ideas on how to do great journalism and make it pay? While organizations like the Fair Syndication Consortium are fine, the lack of leadership among the big three is astounding. Newspaper publishers were once bold iconoclasts who were ready for a fight, but these men and women have done a profoundly poor job. Business journalists will spend a lot of time questioning the capabilities of business leaders, but they should turn a sharp gaze toward their own industry. Of course the circumstances are different, but just like auto executives, newspaper publishers should be called before Congress. Newspaper publishers have let a national treasure go to waste. The whole industry is dithering and it will be ruined without action. I am convinced that with ideas and leadership, positive change can come about. Remember ten years ago when Napster held the music industry hostage. Much of the world felt (for some reason) that ripping off artists was acceptable. Of course, iTunes changed the course of the music industry 99 cents at a time, and stealing music lost its allure.

I think the public senses that the end of journalism, as we know it, will bring corruption and disinformation. People want quality reporting and analysis; the true innovation is not coming from publishers but out-of-work reporters. It is important for an informed society that The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and other dailies thrive. Newspapers are on the ropes. Which publisher will ensure his or her legacy as a savior?

Chad Johnson, a professional football player who is best-known for changing his name to Ocho Cinco, has decided to Twitter during NFL games. While NFL honchos and football purists have decried this idea, I actually think it is a fascinating one. I am a big football fan and even wrote a book about the sport. I have an appreciation for the history of the game, but I am always craving more information as I watch a contest. The average sideline reporter gets cliched sound bites so getting real time information from a player in the fray would be very cool. I am sure Chad Johnson’s idea will be quashed, but I would enjoy getting real time strategic insights, comments, and rants about different plays, and I am sure other fans would be interested, too. While I don’t know of athletes Twittering during a contest, athletes use Twitter all the time nowadays. In the last 72 hours most news outlets have been quoting Lance Armstrong’s Twitters after each of his Tour de France races. Unlike Johnson’s proposal, the operable word with Armstrong is that he is Twittering after each of his races.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won’t seek a second term in 2010 so she can supposedly spend her time building a national political team for a 2012 presidential bid. Sarah Palin–the voice for conservative stay-at-home moms–was profoundly unqualified to be vice president, and this latest venture will prove how much the world has changed since the Bush years.

We are living in a world in which America is falling behind and Palin’s values, most of them indefensible in 2009 and beyond, have become an anachronism. While we are still the world’s economic power, the United States is in a decline: our industrial strength is being challenged by China, our economy is still in a free-fall, terrorists and unstable countries threaten us, and the bailout combined with Republican over-spending during the Bush years has left us heavily in debt and the victim to our creditors. The world has become much flatter; it is based more on meritocracy than ever before so intellect and statecraft have become more important than at any time in the history of the American presidency. Sarah Palin, who seems to have no grasp of the world, is the Republican answer in these momentous times?

The world has changed and the lack of intellectual depth among conservatives is shocking, and probably not good for healthy debate in our country. While there is a personality cult around President Obama, the worship of Sarah Palin by many conservatives shows a lack of understanding about the world, and our country. The Bush years were disastrous because his administration was so dishonest on several fronts: the economy, the budget, and the war in Iraq. The lack of ideas, the bullying attitude, and the epic dishonesty pushed voters away from conservatives, and the cowboy wing of the Republican party. We have become more European in our sensibilities: less religious, more socially egalitarian, and less bold in our outlook.

Sarah Palin will undoubtedly make noise in her run for higher office, but she is ill-equipped to lead the United States in a world so changed by her own party, and a world in which an understanding of international relations might be our most important asset. We are beyond her. Her performance in the last election was laughable, and the reality distortion field in which she–and her supporters–live will give President Obama an easy victory in the next presidential election.

There have been recent revelations about the troubled $75 billion taxpayer-financed program created by the Obama administration to help distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. Because of failures in the system, millions of homeowners might be put on the street, and the overall economy will suffer, too, because it can’t find its footing when house prices are in freefall. “They need to do a much better job on the basic management and operational side of their firms,” Michael S. Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions, told the New York Times about the mortgage lenders. “What we’ve been pushing the servicers to do is improve their infrastructure to make sure their call centers are doing a better job. The level of training is not there yet.” Apparently applications are routinely lost. I find this indicative of a greater problem among many of our most important instititutions. It is easy to blame President Obama for the troubles in reviving the economy, but at least part of the problem comes from a spider web of inefficiency wrought by a lack of effective technology policy. The federal technology infrastructure is broken, and it needs to be fixed. We live in a world in which people can download almost any movie in an instant, use car navigation systems to avoid congestion, and get up-to-the second news from the frontlines of a revolution. Meanwhile, critical programs, from the Treasury Department’s mortgage relief plan to medical records management, are hopelessly out of step with the needs and expectations of the populace. For the purposes of national security, fair and accurate tax collection, streamlining the medical system (and saving lives) through digitized health records, and other needs, the United States needs to create an urgency around technology. In the 1930s we had WPA workers building roads, now we need another type of highway. Our current technologic infrastructure is unacceptable in a world lived in real-time.

Where should we begin?