Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Another layer to the discussion
As you can tell by the post below, I have been keeping an eye out for stories about new forms of journalism and approaches to journalism. Google, the Internet Goliath, is announcing one interesting adaptation that could have huge implications for journalism and public discussion.
Those of you who read "The Vanishing Newspaper," written by a distinguished journalism professor, already know about one of the biggest problems facing newspapers. Because newsrooms are so much busier and so-shorter staffed, the quality of individual stories is being dragged down. The book says that after many years of very steady pressure on newsrooms to do more with less, readers are gradually realizing their newspapers are in trouble and spending less on newspapers.
The book gives examples of evidence that people feel many newspaper stories are inaccurate; and what really scares me as an ex-reporter is that there is a lot of evidence that people don't report errors to papers because they fear retaliation. (if you ever worked at a paper, that sounds hysterical, because people point out plenty of errors; like I said, I am just quoting from "The Vanishing Newspaper.")
So out comes Google with a way for people who are quoted in news stories to comment on those stories, directly and unedited. In other words, people quoted in a newspaper story can "talk back." Check out this link for one blogger's explanation. Another blogger notes perceptively that this means Google, which before just presented news, will become part of the news-gathering process.
This will be fascinating. There were times when I worked in public relations at the University of Washington when reporters got medical information just flat wrong; would I now post a correction or clarification at Google News?
Obviously not all comments would be corrections because more often than not, stories are accurate. But stories still often revolve around controversial and complex subjects that invite a lot of discussion. If The News Tribune does a story about the Lakewood City Council, will each council member chime in with reflections and reactions? What happens if we all start talking to each other through those comments? (You'd normally think more conversation would be good. But it would mean that people who don't have computers or who don't go to Google would not see dialogue by the council. The discussion between council members and anyone else mentioned in the story would be, in effect, semi-private. And that wouldn't be good)
More broadly, if everyone involved in a story starts presenting their own version of the world, how will it change how all of us approach the news? There will be implications, and they are sure to be interesting.
Forward this post
Those of you who read "The Vanishing Newspaper," written by a distinguished journalism professor, already know about one of the biggest problems facing newspapers. Because newsrooms are so much busier and so-shorter staffed, the quality of individual stories is being dragged down. The book says that after many years of very steady pressure on newsrooms to do more with less, readers are gradually realizing their newspapers are in trouble and spending less on newspapers.
The book gives examples of evidence that people feel many newspaper stories are inaccurate; and what really scares me as an ex-reporter is that there is a lot of evidence that people don't report errors to papers because they fear retaliation. (if you ever worked at a paper, that sounds hysterical, because people point out plenty of errors; like I said, I am just quoting from "The Vanishing Newspaper.")
So out comes Google with a way for people who are quoted in news stories to comment on those stories, directly and unedited. In other words, people quoted in a newspaper story can "talk back." Check out this link for one blogger's explanation. Another blogger notes perceptively that this means Google, which before just presented news, will become part of the news-gathering process.
This will be fascinating. There were times when I worked in public relations at the University of Washington when reporters got medical information just flat wrong; would I now post a correction or clarification at Google News?
Obviously not all comments would be corrections because more often than not, stories are accurate. But stories still often revolve around controversial and complex subjects that invite a lot of discussion. If The News Tribune does a story about the Lakewood City Council, will each council member chime in with reflections and reactions? What happens if we all start talking to each other through those comments? (You'd normally think more conversation would be good. But it would mean that people who don't have computers or who don't go to Google would not see dialogue by the council. The discussion between council members and anyone else mentioned in the story would be, in effect, semi-private. And that wouldn't be good)
More broadly, if everyone involved in a story starts presenting their own version of the world, how will it change how all of us approach the news? There will be implications, and they are sure to be interesting.
