Steve Outing has an article titled "The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism" at Poynter Online. Outing says he's experienced "plenty of confusion about the concept" of citizen journalism among newspaper editors. "There's enthusiasm about experimenting in some quarters," he notes. "But mostly I hear concern and healthy skepticism."
Take one look at some of the ideas Outing proposes in this article and you can understand why many in the newspaper industry would be concerned and skeptical about citizen journalism. Not all of Outing's proposals are radical or whacky, however. His first proposal -- opening up all articles online for public comment -- is something that should have happened a long time ago. Today, however, very few newspapers have opened up their online news articles for public comment. Some like the Star Tribune, allow comments on their blogs, and that's it. That's a start, but why not go all the way? Blogs have become so popular in part precisely because readers are allowed to respond to everything through comments.
Others haven't been so slow to figure this out. Magazines like libertarian-leaning Reason and left-leaning The New Republic allow comments to their articles on their respective web sites, and the result is often both entertaining and informative. Many college newspapers, including the MSU Reporter, open all their articles to comments. I know of at least one presidential campaign that has a "Campaign HQ blog" on its web site. The blog, which is called "The Daily Dose," is open to comments from readers.
Newspapers should follow the lead of college newspapers and magazines like The New Republic and Reason and open up all articles to comments -- including straight news articles and editorials. Why shouldn't they? The advantages of doing so (solidifying online readership, provoking discussion, making the newspaper seem more open and reader-friendly) vastly outweigh any disadvantages I can think of.
Having said that, I can understand why editors would be reluctant to put in place some of Outing's other proposals. These include:
"Recruit[ing] citizen add-on contributions for stories written by professional journalists."
"Establishing a stand-alone citizen-journalism Web site that is separate from the core news brand."
Establishing an unedited version of a stand-alone citizen-journalism website.
Integrating citizen journalism and tradition ("pro") journalism. "Imagine, then, a news Web site comprised of reports by professional journalists directly alongside submissions from everyday citizens," writes Outing.
Finally, Outing concludes his list with this: "Wiki journalism: Where the readers are editors".
I'm not sure this is really the direction traditional news media -- in trouble as it may be -- wants to be going. Let's take the idea of wiki journalism, for example. We already have a good idea of what wiki journalism would look like thanks to Wikipedia. And the nearly universal verdict on Wikipedia is that it's unique, helpful and interesting, but not always reliable or professional. (That's why no one with any good sense will ever cite or quote wikipedia as an authority for any project that's actually important.) Is that really where news media wants to go? Newspapers have enough of a problem today dealing with accusations of inaccuracy, mistakes and bias. Going the wiki route would turn news media into a farce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with two of your points. The first being that responses to news should be allowed. I think hearing people's opinions is the only way to move forward.
Also, the whole Wiki journalism idea probably won't sound too good to traditional journalists. In my blog I mentioned that Wikipedia is frowned upon by professors and for good reason. It's hard to trust informatin that anyone can edit.
Sorry, I typed the word information wrong.
I wonder if bringing "citizen add on information" to traditional stories could open up a whole new world of how we do journalism. Maybe local citizens are the real experts on hyperlocal matters?
I really like the last part of your blog talking about wiki-reporting. I feel the same way, and with our wiki-reporting already well on its way, it is true that if it continues it will be a farce. Good thought.
Thanks for the comments!
I should clarify that I'm not opposed to all of Outing's ideas -- I think a lot of them are, at least in some form, worth pursuing. I just think he takes the concept of "citizen journalism" too far, with the most obvious example being his ideas about "wiki journalism."
I don't know if public submitted and edited information sites are the enemy of news. I think that websites like wikipedia have their place. As long as we continue to distinguish the difference between uneducated opinion/entertainment and traditional, fact- based reporting.
Anyway, good blog overall Derek.
I agree that newspapers should open up to comments. Anything to improve online readership. But I know of a newspaper (StC Times) that is a step ahead of the game as far as an online newspaper. Check it out: www.sctimes.com
Post a Comment