The impact of community
What impact has the community had on us?
Five big ways, and countless smaller, individual ones. The big ones:
One: You've made us more responsive. You've always given us information, asked us questions, and complained to us and about us. But it's traditionally happened one-on-one. Now it's wide open and public. And it demands a response, with words, with action, or, yes, sometimes with neglect and rejection. We've followed your suggestions for stories. We've followed you on breaking news. We've argued about coverage and about news. In many ways, you've schooled us, just the way people discussing the issues of civic life learn from each other. Buying into the idea that news is a conversation is a key learning.
Two: You have stoked our competitive fires. When we're the only daily paper in town, life is easier and we can get a bit sloppy, putting off til tomorrow what we should have done 20 minutes ago. By becoming part of the new media, competition is all around us, challenging us to do better. The questions that bounce around our newroom now: Did you read Hoggard? Do you have anything on this Cone post? We chasing this story at 101? When so many people representing so many media outlets attended the city's news conference, we expected to be online with the first report but the best. No change there, except this one: We weren't competing with the local TV stations. We were competing with the half-dozen bloggers there. When seemingly everyone is a competitor, pursuing stories they're interested in and knowledgeable about, then that makes us better.
Three: We never seem to have trouble hearing from the powerful and connected. But this has opened our ears to other voices. We had always known the other voices were out there, but because they didn't have as many ways to make themselves heard, we sometimes didn't hear them as clearly as we should. Now, we can read the word straight from red states and blue states; from whites and blacks and Asians; from men and women; from the poor, from the homeless and from the disenfranchised. You've helped us discover their stories, stories that we may not have told in our newspaper. Or we wouldn't have told them as well or as completely. (And, yes, we've heard from the cranks, who annoy us much, much less than they think they do. But we may not listen to them as much, either.)
Four: You have opened our eyes to other ways we can extend the journalism we do. Part of it is learning the technological needs that you want and that we should be able to provide. Part of it is figuring out the best way we can build community online, not, as was once feared, by dominating, but rather by participating and facilitating.
Five: You demand journalistic accountability. You tell us -- and the world -- when we mess up. That, in turn, has spurred us to mess up less. And to tell you more often when and how we've messed up. (Pardon my inarticulateness but it seems appropriate in this context.) Knowing that you're out there -- that my readers know more than I do, as Dan Gillmor says -- and can easily correct and second-guess us, makes us more careful. And accountable.
We aren't where we want to be on any of these; simply because we've learned them doesn't mean that we execute perfectly. And I'm sure there are others. Feel free to add them. I'll post on what I think our impact on the community has been later.
Comments (17)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Great post, JR. Fodder for the ConvergeSouth session, methinks...
Posted on October 7, 2006 11:36 PM
Let's move a bit beyond all this touchy-feely community stuff...
Why hasnt your website improved significantly in the last two years?
Aside from installing blogs (which as far as I can tell live on a different platform and world from the rest of your site) I can't see anything you're doing that is better.
Beau Dure said that you're great at Web 2.0 stuff (whatever that means), but that assumes you've nailed the 1.0 stuff, which is what a "crank" like me wants.
I loathe your video and "multimedia" efforts because they are about on par with NPR in terms of intereresting subjects -- and usually promote an agenda of some sort. They also lack any reason to BE multimedia.. they could easily just be text...
Beyond ramping that up, I'm not sure what is better.
I'm not smart when it comes to the web and news, but the most sucessful sites I've seen at least have good weather and breaking news operations. YOurs are barely scraping by...
I guess your Web 2.0 efforts make everyone feel better -- and get you good press in the NY Times and other Journalism publications.. but, where is the basic stuff that one EXPECTS?
What about your site in 2006 is different from 2003 -- except for 3rd party blog software?
Posted on October 8, 2006 11:45 PM
We don't expect everyone to like everything on the site. So you don't like the multi-media? Others do. Don't look at it. We post a couple dozen news updates -- primarily local and state -- on the site every week day. Is that enough? Probably not, but it's more than barely scraping.
(Admittedly our weather isn't first rate, but honestly, it's not an area where we care about being first rate, not with all the live radar -- and promotion -- you can get on the local TV stations sites.)
We're in the process of redesigning our site.
Allow me a question: Why do you come to the site?
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:32 AM
I guess the problem with not liking the multimedia isn't that I'm offended by it (ala "if you don't like what you see on TV, change the channel")
The problem is that you're putting resources toward it and the subject/content is just boring and lame. It's like doing video for video's sake. It's not as if I am offended -- I just think your efforts are wasted. It's like bad PBS video/audio... (And, yes, the subject matter does seem to have an agenda...)
As for weather, from what I can tell you just link off to weather.com. That's a lost opportunity from what I can tell..
Why do I come here: to get an update on what is happening in Greensboro and "check in" with the news there.
Do I get it? Barely.
I don't think you post a couple dozen news updates a day (that would be at least 24).
You post more like a total of 6 -- four of which seem to be AP stories out of Raleigh or Charlotte or Wilmington...
I'm not really knocking you -- although I am sure it comes of that way. I'm just disappointed that with all the talk about community and such that even the basics seem overlooked...
Sometimes I DO find nuggets of Greensboro "updates and news" buried in the blogs, but it's rare, too.
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:51 AM
Given all the weather sites out there, we don't see an opportunity for us to distinguish ourselves with weather. As for the number of news updates, I suppose we'll have to disagree. But you are correct, we do post some news updates on the blogs.
Posted on October 9, 2006 9:11 AM
I saw this post up yesterday afternoon, and was tempted to respond - but the "cranks" reference was up again (it must be a nicer term for the Editor/King to throw out than "troll" or "whack-job"), and I passed.
First and foremost (to answer the question JR posed to Jim), I/we come here, JR, because you INVITED us.
1. I know a great deal about "neglect and rejection" when it comes to local news coverage. And the message I have taken from my own situation - the message the Greesnboro News & Record (not to mention the Courier Tribune) is conveying to the "community" it serves - is that perjury and contempt and generalized misconduct on the part of non-profit officers in your coverage area is a-okay.
According to the News & Record, it's just fine for doctors to have to choose between their jobs and their patients . . . and for our justice system to be a joke.
News is news . . . when you report what has happened on any given day, it's supposed to PRODUCE conversation and challenge the reader . . . not to mention society . . . to do better. It's not supposed to snuggle up and spin for whoever has the most economic or political power. From my reading, your story on the much-ballyhooed city news conference (and the city's "handy" website) last week . . . which brought nothing new to the table . . . was NOT the best. That honor goes to Guarino.
2. On stoking the "competitive fires", I attended Asheboro's Fall Festival this weekend. And what did I find at one of the booths? Why the Greensboro News & Record . . . trolling for subscriptions and telling the crowd it offered "local" coverage. But you don't. You don't even have a full-time reporter down here. And God knows you can't spare a reporter for a couple of hours to talk to me.
3. Count me in as one of the "disenfranchised" readers you're heard from . . . and have done NOTHING to help. If I'm a crank, you're Dr. Crankenstein. I know. You're not listening.
4. I don't care about technology as much as I care about journalistic integrity. You could have the prettiest, fanciest website in the world, but if you not doing the job, you're not doing the job.
5. As for "accountability" . . . the mantra that I'm so far getting from both you and the blogger royalty is that (A) you just don't care about what happened to me, and (2) take it to Jerry Beldsoe if he gives a damn.
You've messed up.
Here's how to clean up one mess (from my blog): Report the story that Dr. Mary Johnson brought to your blog. Inform the general public about what happened to her. Light the fire. Ask why the law is not being enforced (instead of just accepting that it isn’t). Really represent the "little guy". Insist that the powerful (overpaid) public servants who broke the law be held accountable and/or take responsibility for their actions, and that justice be served. DO SOMETHING that restores the original intent of the federal program your readers paid for . . . and brings this "home-girl" home.
Finally, stop calling people names. You're the Editor of the paper for God's sake.
Posted on October 9, 2006 11:53 AM
Jim -- Re: "Beau Dure said that you're great at Web 2.0 stuff (whatever that means), but that assumes you've nailed the 1.0 stuff, which is what a "crank" like me wants." ... no, I'm not assuming that at all. I don't live there, so I can't judge. I can't even judge the 2.0 efforts other than the fact that they're doing more than most, and they've earned a lot of national attention for doing so. The site is more navigable than many local newspapers, so that's a plus in "1.0" terms. I know Lex and a lot of the people who have built up the site, and my general feeling is that they do good work. But one thing I've introduced into the conversation is the notion that "1.0" -- the basics -- should not be overlooked. Some people want to be able to participate in news-gathering. Some people want the weather.
Dr. Johnson -- I used the "crank" term. Not JR. Feel free to take issue with me about it.
Posted on October 9, 2006 4:04 PM
Hi Doc,
...new question for you and JR....
What does it cost to take out a large ad where you tell your story? From time to time I see ads that look like reported stories.
...just thinking out loud again
thanks
Posted on October 9, 2006 8:17 PM
MeBlogin, I tried buying an ad several years ago (P.S. a full page isn't cheap). I went to the N&R office in Asheboro (the one that does not actually house a reporter) and spoke to the ad people. As JR has done with considering this story, they dangled the carrot, but would not sell me the space. So much for free speech.
Beau, I've got no issue with you. You're a blogger just like me and entitled to your opinion. The problem is that JR latched onto your term very quickly . . . as a convenient alternative to calling other names (or letting someone else call them), like "troll" and "whack-job". He posted your comments then hid behind you ("I didn't say that, Beau did"). Nice trick.
The people who come to this blog (hosted by a local newspaper) generally CARE enough about something or another to post their comments - what JR says he wants readers to do. So where does he get off? He's an Editor and a makes his living by writing . . . AND he's been called on it, yet he STILL sinks to it. I have no idea if he has bunched me in with "the cranks" (I expect he has), but I don't like it when he does it to anybody . . . just like I don't like seeing other people get "coned" over on Ed's blog (no matter who they are).
Based on my experience here and elsewhere, I honestly think people enjoy calling doctors names (especially anonymously) . . . it makes them feel superior in some fashion.
Meblogin, I've been to everyone I'm supposed to go to in order to get some help on this case. I've been told that I'm right and that I have a case . . . and that the law says exactly what I say it says. But I've got to find someone on the local and state level to pursue it. The doors of accountability and justice have been slammed in my face. I have been batted from office to offce . . . from jurisdiction to jurisdiction . . . and (God knows) all over the blogs . . . by people who could help but who do not want to get involved. The sage advice to "just hire a lawyer" is not going to fix it.
When government and law fail is EXACTLY when journalists are supposed intervene. Tom Campbell posted a great editorial on NC Spin last week and I linked it on my blog . It was a call to action.
"It is time for honorable people to behave honorably". Yeah, sure. More "spin". Just like "one voice" and the N&R Editor's Blog.
My problem, as a blogger, newspaper reader and a citizen trapped in the mire, is that I cannot "converge" what JR (and Ed and the rest of the journalistic/blogger royalty) say with what they do.
There is a smugness to this "community" . . . a cliquishness worthy of high-schoolers. It's NOT "hip" and it's a problem that no one in the clique is really addressing . . . they're just doing whatever they wanna do and throwing the party (Converge South) to celebrate. So if you're gonna talk about something, talk about that.
Posted on October 10, 2006 9:29 AM
I have to admit Dr. Johnson that at this point I merely scan your posts. I feel your pain, but my interest in your plight just isn't as intense as it once was....
Still, you always surprise me with a lurking gem: What I find most true about your post above is the snobbery that pervades this blog "community" -- be it from the Converge South stuff to the mutual admiration society among many of "professional" bloggers.
It's very much a two tiered world...
I'm certainly not complaining about this because I'm clearly on the second tier.. No, not at all.
I just find it interesting that with something that's supposed to be so "leveling" it actually seems to create even more little cliques and alliances...
Posted on October 10, 2006 8:13 PM
"What I find most true about your post above is the snobbery that pervades this blog "community" -- be it from the Converge South stuff..."
Snobbery? ConvergeSouth? A user-run conference? Please, can you explain or send it directly to me at southernrants-at-gmail-dot-com?
I don't know you, Jim, but take all comments about the conference seriously. Would you like to discuss?
Posted on October 10, 2006 8:34 PM
Dr. Johnson and readers, please read the posts and comments I've made. I've never called Dr. Johnson a crank. Or any other name. Beau referred to cranks in his e-mail to me -- although none by name -- and, yes, I included it because it was what he said.
In my opinion, you misinterpret Converge, you misinterpret the purpose of this blog, and you misinterpret the spirit of the blogosphere. But that's just my opinion.
Converge is free and open to everyone. This blog is to talk about journalism. You don't like my decisions and that's your right. You can talk about your case until the cows come home. That is, too. But I've never promised we're going to tell your story or anyone else's in the paper. Demanding in comment after comment will not make it so.
Cliques in the blogosphere? The only one I'm aware of who has ever given me a title in the blogosphere is you. Everyone else seems pretty open and out there. I've not noticed that anyone gets any special treatment. I sure get my share of criticism in this high school clique. We simply disagree. Ed -- I mention him because you did -- and I disagree on things, too. He listens and responds as it moves him. I'd suggest that you feel you aren't part of that "in crowd" it seems you're describing because you purposely place yourself outside of it, rather than being shunned. But that's just my thought. And it's worth what you paid for. :)
Posted on October 10, 2006 8:44 PM
John, you're pulling out all the (sadly)predictable defense mechanisms now . . . "Here me, Hear me, Readers, readers, I didn't say SHE was a crank."
It's a technicality I called you on the first time: "It's a transparently nice trick of the pen to quote someone else (someone who's "in") about "cranks" (people who are/feel "out" . . . also known as "trolls" and "whack-jobs"), and then "put it aside" so you don't have to claim it as your own. The slam is still out there and you're clean."
But you're STILL doing it just a few posts later.
You make your living by writing. You can make your point without calling readers (specifically or generally) names . . . particularly readers who come to this little "community forum" to tell you what they think . . . WHEN YOU ASK.
As for the "titles" you attribute to me . . . those were actually bestowed upon you (and Ed) by Doug Clark. At the time it was a inside joke (if memory serves, a good chuckle for the "in crowd" at someone else's expense). It was a real high school, "King of the Prom" moment.
Sue, you know what I think about Converge South - particularly with regards to the appearance of Elizabeth Edwards. We don't worship at the same altar there . . . because a long time ago I got ZERO/ZIP/NADDA assistance from her husband (I didn't rate as "ordinary" enough, I suppose). I'm not gonna rumble with you. I'm not buying her book, and I'm most definitely not voting for her husband.
Even if I showed up at Converge South this weekend, we're not gonna be cyber-girlfriends . . . I have not forgotten your jump onto the "whack-job" bandwagon.
A number of people in the "lesser" blogosphere, and in the general community here, are asking the same questions I am about the "local" journalistic BLACKBALLING of my story/case (because that's exactly was it is) . . . a case that is NO DIFFERENT in concept and law than ones currently being prosecuted in Raleigh.
John, my problem is not that I don't understand, it's that I understand all too well. I once believed in the high-minded stuff you shovel out on this blog . . . then I got hit with the shovel. I have not placed myself outside of the mainstream . . . or on the "second tier" (Hi Jim!). I was thrown out with the garbage eight years ago because I "didn't fit in" with the greedy doctor crowd. But the real honor . . . the one of holding my head below the surface of the sewage pile of corruption . . . just below the light and air . . . belongs to you and to your counterparts in Asheboro.
On the other hand, the cows are indeed out of the barn, and coming home to sleep under your window. The poop is piling up. When it gets to the window and hits the fan, the heat will not be crystalizing any "gems".
Posted on October 11, 2006 11:19 AM
Part of our problem is we need a term, that AFAIK doesn't exist. (does it?)
"Crank" is a label for a person, which translates to "Ignore"; nobody wants to be labeled that way.
We need a term for the nonconstructive *behavior* that's occurring in blog comments, and I'm not sure what the term is.
(not "cranky", because (IMO) cranky = irritable)
What the *behavior* is, is:
* making the same point over and over again, typically at length
* ignoring the subject of the blog post (or essentially ignoring it - just using it as a springboard to jump into one's favorite topic)
* either not recognizing or not caring that this has a negative impact on others.
The consequence of this commenting behavior is that the comments section becomes cluttered with text that:
a) in and of itself, has low value to the reader (once you've seen 99 comments making the same point, your time is not well served by reading #100)
and
b) makes it difficult for other commenters to carry on a coherent discussion related to the content of the blog post - thus reducing the value-to-the-reader of the blog comments feature as a whole.
and is a form of
c) hijacking
(since an increasing percentage of the (now vastly reduced) value of the 'blog comments' feature is appropriated by the "makin' my point at length and often" commenter.
Tragedy of the commons...
have a great time at ConvergeSouth, y'all. If I was on the same coast as you, I'd be coming too.
Posted on October 11, 2006 3:39 PM
I always thought the N&R's weather was a weather parody: like Eyewitness Weather on whatever it was (SNL?). But I couldn't care less about the weather. It rains, snows. Partly cloudy. Whatever.
Posted on October 11, 2006 6:36 PM
Anne, I've noticed that you can always be counted on to come to the rescue when John's journalistic decisions are not living up to the hype (and pointing that out IS "constructive" by John's own criteria).
Some of those decisions (pertaining to "sources" and leaks) could have the N&R dodging subpoenas if we on this side of the continent lived in a less legally "conservative" jurisdiction.
A slam is a slam no matter who is doing it - or what clever term they use. It's not "hip".
Here's an observation that is relative to our blogosphere "community" (and perhaps something to discuss at Converge South) that I recently made to Ed Cone (in private correpsondence):
I saw Dennis Miller being interviewed on Hannity & Colmes not too long ago. It is my understanding that his "liberal" views changed somewhat after 9/11, and he is supportive of the Bush administration's approach to the "war on terror". One thing was very telling in the interview. Where the "war" of ideas is concerned, Dennis said that since making "the switch" he had found that people on "the left" were far more acrimonious and just plain nasty/rude/condescending (when discussing differences of opinion) than folks on "the right" . . . who he found to be much more tolerant and willing to listen/debate without calling names.
Like "crank".
Posted on October 12, 2006 2:10 PM
> "Anna...you can always be counted on to come to the rescue"
i shouldn't rise to this one - i know i shouldn't - John, feel very free to delete this -
but i think i do have a broader perspective
("Greensboro bloggers may pause right here, look up at their ceilings, and speak a few words of gratitude for the likes of Lex Alexander, John Robinson, and Allen Johnson.")
believe me, you don't know how good you've got it.
Yes, you see flaws. But compared to what else is out there, they're MINOR flaws, and to repeatedly pound on them causes MORE damage to the cause of good journalism than to let them be. I spent my formative years doing selection experiments on fruit flies, and when you're trying to move the population in a particular direction, what you do is pound on the laggards for being laggards, not pound on the leaders for falling short of the ideal - while this may feel satisfying, it's extremely counterproductive.
> "Dennis Miller... his "liberal" views changed somewhat after 9/11, and he is supportive of the Bush administration...people on "the left" were far more acrimonious...than folks on "the right" . . . who he found to be much more tolerant"
Wow.
(why does this bring to mind Ed Montgomery?)
Posted on October 13, 2006 1:16 PM