It varies from reporter to reporter, and whether they "get" the web or not. Most don't. Those that do, read the comments and actually respond when appropiate. If I had my way, I'd require all reporters to start their day by reading and responding to the comments, but I dont have that kind of authority.
Its one aspect that the article hasnt adressed and that I havent mentioned. These intiatives are well and good, but changing a newsroom culture is a pretty uphill battle, and if other newsrooms go with these ideas, they should expect a fair amount of resistance and/or apathy at the beginning. Its taken us years to get across our ideas.
We've had great success at http://www.freenewmexican.com/ as i posted earlier> We've done reader comments for not quite two years. Over time, the reporters and editors get trained to scan the comments and often get leads or tips, either directly or indirectly. Editors assign f/u stories. Since I have to approve all the comments beforehand, I also get tipped to breaking news and I let the newsroom know asap.
We've also had some great public service action. After a DWI fatality broke the public's back on that perpetual epidemic here, we shifted all the readers venting and ranting into a more productive mode by settting up a forum solely for their recommendations and propsals. Planning Council got involved, Town Hall meeting set up, a goood basis for lesisaltive language underway, and the comments went back into print version. This is the way it's supposed to work - a great partnership between community, print and web.
Its all about closing the gap.
Too often, we think of journalism as "reporting news". And yet a huge concern in journalism is "how to make your news *story* connect with your reader". It is the classic question, almost a cliche - but in an age of increasing media distrust, its a question that still needs some thought.
It involves examining what news is, what a news story is, and who gets lost in that transformation.
First, what makes an "event" different than "news"?
News are events that matter, that are deemed to have some kind of relevance to our lives. So, news might be defined as an event plus some kind of social reaction or response to that event. Extramarital affairs are not news; presidential extramarital affairs are news in this country because this society deems that the private activities of public officials matter - for any myriad of reasons. How "big" a news story is is in part determined by how intense the event's impact will be on the social psyche.
But "news" happens on all levels of scale. A house on fire is an event. It is "news" to its occupants, the neighborhood - its society. If the fire is in a town 10 states from you, it probably won't be "news" to you, but that doesn't diminish its relevance to the society (the homeowners, the neighborhood) that it affects.
Traditional journalism filters this by taking an event plus its social response ("news"), then feeding it ("the news story") back to the individual in that society that responded, and hoping to engage a secondary response (the classic "connect with your reader"). By this time you are far removed from the actual event, it having been filtered by both the social response, then re-filtered and compressed by the gatherer/shaper (news media) that tries to win a secondary response.
It is a loop unaware of itself. News doesn't operate in a vacuum, it's an integral part of the society it happens in.
One of the web's greatest strengths is its ability to make social connections. Since news are events that matter (i.e.,are deemed to have some kind of social impact or response), using the socialization strengths of the web allows people to fully interact both with the events themselves (by telling the story),and with the way and manner that those events are disseminated by others (other citizen reporters, and/or a news organization).
News organizations that support such public reporting and community initiatives can help restore their lost media trust by bonding the readership to a news source that actually includes and responds to the society it reports to.
In my view, that's how 21st century journalism will start to answer the classic question posed at the beginning: You connect to the reader by including them, involving them, responding to them, allowing a voice and a platform to articulate the news that happens to them as well as the news that happened to them that the News Organization tells them about.
I am the web editor at http://www.freenewmexican.com/ where we do have readers comment on each individual story. Its had great response and effect - readers feel more connected to their community, reporters get tips for follow ups and citizen critiques, some great public service intitiatives have come about, and we're a better news organization for it. Newspapers have far too long created a gap between the news events they cover, and the readership to whom those events matter. Im committed to closing that gap.
I highly disagree with the idea of keeping it purely local. Sure people can go to other sources, but if you are a news site, most of your traffic is going to be from other people at their workplace; they don't have the time or want to risk being seen by their boss to sift through 5 different sites for their news. You need to provide a relevant mix, but make it unique and hand pick those stories as opposed to running a bland autonomous AP feed. Even AP runs material not found in the mainstream if you dig hard enough - and your readers will respect you for it. You dont have to inundate and it should never eclipse local coverage - but dont make the mistake of blowing it off. Your neighbor down the street may have a son or daughter serving in Iraq; dont make the mistake of thinking that world events dont matter to yur local readrship. Besides, they can't comment on news stories on those big mainstream sites, but they can and often do with us. Most of our biggest discussions are on world stories. Web content managers should well look into the work of Doug McGill and his work in tying global trends to local interests. As passionate as I am about the hyperlocal trend, I'm equally passionate on this point too.
I've documented our efforts and philosophy on participatory media on our new media blog at http://newmedianewmexico.blogspot.com/. Anyone interested in these issues is welcome to take a look at our experiences.
When JD contacted us for the article, it prompted to jot down these few thoughts:
Too often, we think of journalism as "reporting news". And yet a huge
concern in journalism *writing* theory is "how to make your news *story*
connect with your reader".
This is still a top-down model, however, that bears some examination:.
First, what makes an "event" different than "news"? news are events that
matter, that are deemed to have some kind of relevance to our lives. So,
news might be defined as an event plus some kind of social reaction to that
event. Extramarital affairs are not news; Presidential extramarital affairs
are news in this country because this society deems that the private
activities of public officials matter - for any myriad of reasons. How "big"
a news story is is in part determined by how intense the event's impact will
be on the societal psyche.
But "news" happens on all levels of scale. A house on fire is an event. It
is "news" to its occupants, the neighborhood - its society. If the fire is
in a town 10 states from where you live, it probably wont be "news" to you,
but that doesnt diminish its relevance to the society that it affects.
Traditional journalism filters this model a further generation down by
taking an event plus its social response ("news"), feeding it to the
individual that already makes up the society that responded, and hoping to
engage a secondary response with that individual (the classic "connect with
your reader"). By this time you are far removed from the event, it having
been filtered by both the societal dynamic, then
re-filtered and compressed by the gatherer/shaper (news
media) that tries to win a secondary response. Traditional journalism is
looking for a response to a response; but it is stymied by a unilateral
drag of both direction and weight. It is top down not only in its
distribution and newsgathering mechanisms, but both top down and top
heavy in its society-determined content it feeds us.
This is why a connection with the reader is such a challenge: as readers, we
choke on a condensed, filtered societal nugget that we are asked to respond
to , while subliminally knowing we were once part of it. And while
journalists desperately want to connect with us,
they are often unaware of our need to connect back into some part of this
loop, be it the news or the media or maybe even the very "society" itself.
Until recent technologies, the media's direction of dissemination is
overwhelmingy unidirectional.
So, we've established that news is determined by a societal response. But
societies do not make up individuals; individuals make up societies. Add two
and two: *what if the societal response is defined by the responses of its
individuals?*
What would occur if a society connects and reacts to events not as an
amorphous mass requiring filtration and compression only to re-feed itself,
but as a self - disclosing collective shaping its own responses?
The society itself would determine what is "news" by openly sharing their
*individual responses* to events, in the public platform of participatory
journalism. Such a transparency will give a more accurate and truthful
record of what that society deems to be "news",
as everyones response is openly disclosed.
The information dissemination process("journalism") is a collection of
responses, just as a society is a collection of individuals. A reflected
unity in both form and behaviour, with no need for filtration or
compression, allowing for clear connections, exchanges and responses within
it, with relevance and resonance to what they self-determine is
germaine.
Slashdot Mirror
Its one aspect that the article hasnt adressed and that I havent mentioned. These intiatives are well and good, but changing a newsroom culture is a pretty uphill battle, and if other newsrooms go with these ideas, they should expect a fair amount of resistance and/or apathy at the beginning. Its taken us years to get across our ideas.
We've had great success at http://www.freenewmexican.com/ as i posted earlier> We've done reader comments for not quite two years. Over time, the reporters and editors get trained to scan the comments and often get leads or tips, either directly or indirectly. Editors assign f/u stories. Since I have to approve all the comments beforehand, I also get tipped to breaking news and I let the newsroom know asap. We've also had some great public service action. After a DWI fatality broke the public's back on that perpetual epidemic here, we shifted all the readers venting and ranting into a more productive mode by settting up a forum solely for their recommendations and propsals. Planning Council got involved, Town Hall meeting set up, a goood basis for lesisaltive language underway, and the comments went back into print version. This is the way it's supposed to work - a great partnership between community, print and web. Its all about closing the gap. Too often, we think of journalism as "reporting news". And yet a huge concern in journalism is "how to make your news *story* connect with your reader". It is the classic question, almost a cliche - but in an age of increasing media distrust, its a question that still needs some thought. It involves examining what news is, what a news story is, and who gets lost in that transformation. First, what makes an "event" different than "news"? News are events that matter, that are deemed to have some kind of relevance to our lives. So, news might be defined as an event plus some kind of social reaction or response to that event. Extramarital affairs are not news; presidential extramarital affairs are news in this country because this society deems that the private activities of public officials matter - for any myriad of reasons. How "big" a news story is is in part determined by how intense the event's impact will be on the social psyche. But "news" happens on all levels of scale. A house on fire is an event. It is "news" to its occupants, the neighborhood - its society. If the fire is in a town 10 states from you, it probably won't be "news" to you, but that doesn't diminish its relevance to the society (the homeowners, the neighborhood) that it affects. Traditional journalism filters this by taking an event plus its social response ("news"), then feeding it ("the news story") back to the individual in that society that responded, and hoping to engage a secondary response (the classic "connect with your reader"). By this time you are far removed from the actual event, it having been filtered by both the social response, then re-filtered and compressed by the gatherer/shaper (news media) that tries to win a secondary response. It is a loop unaware of itself. News doesn't operate in a vacuum, it's an integral part of the society it happens in. One of the web's greatest strengths is its ability to make social connections. Since news are events that matter (i.e.,are deemed to have some kind of social impact or response), using the socialization strengths of the web allows people to fully interact both with the events themselves (by telling the story),and with the way and manner that those events are disseminated by others (other citizen reporters, and/or a news organization). News organizations that support such public reporting and community initiatives can help restore their lost media trust by bonding the readership to a news source that actually includes and responds to the society it reports to. In my view, that's how 21st century journalism will start to answer the classic question posed at the beginning: You connect to the reader by including them, involving them, responding to them, allowing a voice and a platform to articulate the news that happens to them as well as the news that happened to them that the News Organization tells them about.
I highly disagree with the idea of keeping it purely local. Sure people can go to other sources, but if you are a news site, most of your traffic is going to be from other people at their workplace; they don't have the time or want to risk being seen by their boss to sift through 5 different sites for their news. You need to provide a relevant mix, but make it unique and hand pick those stories as opposed to running a bland autonomous AP feed. Even AP runs material not found in the mainstream if you dig hard enough - and your readers will respect you for it. You dont have to inundate and it should never eclipse local coverage - but dont make the mistake of blowing it off. Your neighbor down the street may have a son or daughter serving in Iraq; dont make the mistake of thinking that world events dont matter to yur local readrship. Besides, they can't comment on news stories on those big mainstream sites, but they can and often do with us. Most of our biggest discussions are on world stories. Web content managers should well look into the work of Doug McGill and his work in tying global trends to local interests. As passionate as I am about the hyperlocal trend, I'm equally passionate on this point too.
I've documented our efforts and philosophy on participatory media on our new media blog at http://newmedianewmexico.blogspot.com/. Anyone interested in these issues is welcome to take a look at our experiences.
When JD contacted us for the article, it prompted to jot down these few thoughts: Too often, we think of journalism as "reporting news". And yet a huge concern in journalism *writing* theory is "how to make your news *story* connect with your reader". This is still a top-down model, however, that bears some examination:. First, what makes an "event" different than "news"? news are events that matter, that are deemed to have some kind of relevance to our lives. So, news might be defined as an event plus some kind of social reaction to that event. Extramarital affairs are not news; Presidential extramarital affairs are news in this country because this society deems that the private activities of public officials matter - for any myriad of reasons. How "big" a news story is is in part determined by how intense the event's impact will be on the societal psyche. But "news" happens on all levels of scale. A house on fire is an event. It is "news" to its occupants, the neighborhood - its society. If the fire is in a town 10 states from where you live, it probably wont be "news" to you, but that doesnt diminish its relevance to the society that it affects. Traditional journalism filters this model a further generation down by taking an event plus its social response ("news"), feeding it to the individual that already makes up the society that responded, and hoping to engage a secondary response with that individual (the classic "connect with your reader"). By this time you are far removed from the event, it having been filtered by both the societal dynamic, then re-filtered and compressed by the gatherer/shaper (news media) that tries to win a secondary response. Traditional journalism is looking for a response to a response; but it is stymied by a unilateral drag of both direction and weight. It is top down not only in its distribution and newsgathering mechanisms, but both top down and top heavy in its society-determined content it feeds us. This is why a connection with the reader is such a challenge: as readers, we choke on a condensed, filtered societal nugget that we are asked to respond to , while subliminally knowing we were once part of it. And while journalists desperately want to connect with us, they are often unaware of our need to connect back into some part of this loop, be it the news or the media or maybe even the very "society" itself. Until recent technologies, the media's direction of dissemination is overwhelmingy unidirectional. So, we've established that news is determined by a societal response. But societies do not make up individuals; individuals make up societies. Add two and two: *what if the societal response is defined by the responses of its individuals?* What would occur if a society connects and reacts to events not as an amorphous mass requiring filtration and compression only to re-feed itself, but as a self - disclosing collective shaping its own responses? The society itself would determine what is "news" by openly sharing their *individual responses* to events, in the public platform of participatory journalism. Such a transparency will give a more accurate and truthful record of what that society deems to be "news", as everyones response is openly disclosed. The information dissemination process("journalism") is a collection of responses, just as a society is a collection of individuals. A reflected unity in both form and behaviour, with no need for filtration or compression, allowing for clear connections, exchanges and responses within it, with relevance and resonance to what they self-determine is germaine.