Open-source journalism: How will it work?
Earlier I said we've reached the point at which we're ready to try creating real-world partnerships between the professional journalists on the N&R staff and people in the community who are interested in pursuing news stories that would appear both in print and online.
Both you and some of my co-workers had some questions, which could be summarized mainly as, "How will this work?"
As flexibly as possible, is my hope. On Thursday, I'm going to be meeting with my editor, Mike Grossman; City Editor Mark Sutter; Managing Editor Ann Morris and Editor John Robinson to discuss that big question.
Earlier this week, I threw together some specific questions that I think fall under that general heading and sent them to those four so they could be thinking about possible answers before our meeting. But of course, I also want to hear from you. The issues/questions on my list (followed, in some cases, by my comments to you in italics) were:
- How and by whom coverage ideas will be vetted. (I posted earlier that Mike and I would be deciding, with Mark backstopping us. So far as I know, that's still the case unless someone comes up with a compelling reason for us to change.)
- How and by whom the appropriate medium/media will be determined and assigned to particular ideas/stories. (We want to take full advantage of the online medium, but our resources -- photojournalists, tech folks -- are not unlimited.)
- What the nature and extent of contributing readers' involvement will be. (I personally envision readers' playing as large or as small a role as they are comfortable with on any particular story -- everything from providing info for a photo caption to co-writing a lead Sunday story.)
- What the nature and extent of editing/supervising contributing readers will be, and who will be responsible. (Credibility is paramount, so nobody works without a net.)
- What conditions we may wish to impose on contributing readers in advance of publication; what conditions we may wish to agree to in return. (For example, can the reader blog about the story before it's published, or publish it on his/her blog before we publish it in the paper and/or online?)
- How and to what extent we will make N&R resources -- photographers, artists, video/audio equipment, legal advice, etc. -- available to contributing readers.
- Whether and how we will credential contributing readers who are working in tandem with N&R staff. (For stories involving government documents or publicly accessible events this won't be an issue, of course.)
- Whether creating partnerships with contributing readers creates any legal jeopardy not already recognized as part of our day-to-day journalism.
I'm sure I've missed some important issues, but that's part of the reason why I'm posting this here before the meeting. Please give me your thoughts on these issues and tell me what I might have overlooked.
Thanks!
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Lex, couple of points. I just don’t see the culture of the N&R letting competing actors from outside, in actual fact, participate in planning, implementing, or quickly shifting resources on fast moving events. Still sounds as if it will be top-down command and control to me.
I’m curious if pros like Lorraine Ahern, Ed Hardin, Dick Barron, for example, are suspicious of open source journalism or are they receptive to the concept?
The issue makes me wonder if the possible implementation open source journalism is a contributor to the now frequent departure of talent? Seems like an awful lot of talented people are bailing out.
Would an open source citizen journalist be eligible for press association awards?
Posted on March 1, 2006 2:52 PM
Outdated: Given the nature of the newspaper bidness generally, I understand your skepticism. Newspapers are like battleships: lots of firepowers but they don't turn on a dime. But the main goal in my performance plan for 2006 is to make some form of open-source journalism happen. That goal was assigned to me (although I enthusiastically accepted), it's not something I just made up on my own.
You refer to "competing actors." That's your term, not ours. We've said all along that we're working toward a more collaborative model of reporting news -- a partnership between our professional staff and people in the community who want to see stories told and even help tell them. As for "participat[ing] in planning [or] implementing," that is exactly what I have invited people to do, here and in other venues.
Will people outside our organization be involved in "quickly shifting resources on fast-moving events"? Right now I can't say. If people are deeply invested in a story in collaboration with us, and things change quickly, they'll certainly be involved if I have anything to say about it. As an assigning editor, whenever I've had a story break, or change unexpectedly, I've always turned first to the people who have been the most involved with the subject and, therefore, presumably know the most about it. That's just common sense, and I wouldn't see any reason to change that approach even if one of the most involved, most knowledgeable people on a story wasn't an N&R employee, if that answers your question.
[[I’m curious if pros like Lorraine Ahern, Ed Hardin, Dick Barron, for example, are suspicious of open source journalism or are they receptive to the concept?]]
By all means ask them directly. I'm sure they'll tell you. They might even be more honest with you than with me.
[[The issue makes me wonder if the possible implementation open source journalism is a contributor to the now frequent departure of talent? Seems like an awful lot of talented people are bailing out.]]
We've always been a good training ground. In my 19 years here we've lost a number of reporters, page designers and photographers to such larger papers as Charlotte, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami, St. Pete, Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, as well as such prestigious non-newspaper publications as Advertising Age, Congressional Quarterly and the Chronicle of Higher Education (where Elyse Ashburn is going). Losing five people in two weeks is unprecedented in my memory, but I can recall one or two times when we've lost that many in a month.
But to the best of my knowledge, no, the prospect of open-source journalism isn't driving people out the door. One of the people who's leaving, Allison Perkins, has been one of the most enthusiastic early adopters of online media; she's leaving because her husband's job is moving him. Marta Hummel is leaving because she wanted to write editorials and there were no immediate prospects here for her to do that. Alexis Gines is leaving to teach (the second N&R reporter in less than a year to do so). The now-departed Bruce Buchanan was one of our most enthusiastic bloggers and won praise from people on all sides of some very contentious issues for the way he "tended bar" over at The Chalkboard.
The big picture in the story of our initiative up to this point has been that our roadblocks have tended to be in the area of resources, not of will. I hope, and expect, that that will continue to be the case. And if it's not, I'll be blogging about that, too.
Meanwhile, if you are interested in working with us in some form or fashion on a story (or you know someone who is), by all means get in touch.
Posted on March 1, 2006 3:30 PM