As I train down to D.C. for the Online News Association conference (moderating a panel hopefully titled, Optimize and Monetize, tomorrow; if you're there, say hello), the dizzying news industry news of the last week raises more questions than answers. Here's my top nine of the moment. Feel free to add to them:

• As we keep one eye out for the WSJ.com re-launch Sept. 16, I'm wondering why there's no WSJ -- or Marketwatch or Barrons -- app in the iPhone App Store. It's the place to be and be seen, show the flag and at least seem au courant. So far AP is there, with deep local, NYT has a strong, if straightforward presence, Internet Broadcasting has put together a decent aggregation product and Express is porting over its useful Palm/Blackberry product. But news company participation beyond that is weak, and not well-niched.  Will a mobile iPhone app be part of the 9/16 re-do?
• How much more prominent will video be on the WSJ site? It's halfway down now on the home page now, though still a bit higher than NYT's video display. Both text-based companies are starting to master video, but their sites seem to say: text and photos. And, though, we know the Washington Post is doing massive video training, led by Chet Rhodes, here, too, we see little front-and-center placement. News customers are getting beyond a world of  "content types" -- text, story, photo, audio, video, bar chart, etc. -- and just expect to get all the relevant info delivered on a single page, with best coverage (regardless of type) highlighted.
• New York's tabloids had a field day with the lipstick-on-a-pig nonsense (Post: "Boar War"; Daily News: "Lipstick Bungle". Will the Post be right with its data box head,  "Slim pickins"? Indeed, did one of globe's top three rich guys buy at a suitably low-price, considering? Considering among other things that the New York Times is still the top newspaper brand in the world, and that it has barely tapped markets around the world. there are about 900 million English speakers here and there, and yet the Times today derives only about 4% of its revenues from outside the US (mainly International Herald Tribune-related.) That's a big potential upside. Slim's confidence in the Times also underscores the difference in value in national/global brands (like the Times and Dow Jones, as compared to local and regional papers.