I have one question and three things I would like to boldface.

First, I was struck most by the observation that people are deciding what's news today. That's a big step for me. I come from the Missouri School of Journalism, where the wisdom engraved in one of the arches states, "Schoolmaster of the People."

It seemed clear to me here that most editors don't buy completely the idea that the people are deciding what's news. And there was a question about it that I didn't hear raised in our discussions.

Where do we draw the line and say, here are the stories that the people need to have put in front of them? How do we get readers to want the stories they need? I would like to have heard more discussion of where we draw that line.

Then, the three things I would like to boldface, because they stood out to me during our discussions.

I have not heard before such a candid acknowledgment that our journalistic standards have been eroded by the financial and competitive pressures in the newspaper business today. I do think it's an important step for editors and publishers to acknowledge it.  

I heard no convincing evidence that transparency enhances credibility. I heard indications that readers appreciate being heard, but that can amount to hand-holding and it can simply mean that we have been polite and nice. But that's not necessarily enhancing credibility.

And there's one phrase that has stuck in my head -- and  I think it will keep resonating there for a long time. It was Tom Rosenstiel's reference to "sense-making news," which he defined as "a story that makes the tumblers click."