Friday, August 10, 2007
A final decision approaches for the Ward building
At 6 p.m. this Monday in Room 1-E of City Hall, the Lakewood Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may decide what to recommend for the fate of the Ward Building in Fort Steilacoom Park. The decision could have huge implications for how history is commemorated within the park; I'd certainly recommend people stop by if you are at all interested.
The gathering of public feedback on the park followed a very familiar trajectory. A ton of people showed up for the first meeting.; not as many showed up for the second. If you want to know what was discussed during the second meeting, check out these helpful and very detailed minutes from the city.
There is a very nice write-up in The Suburban Times about the various options. (I'm indebted to their earlier article and Ed Kane for the photo with this posting)
Genuine art
One of the challenges we used to all know about in Lakewood - but rarely discussed publicly - was finding an entrance to town that you can take with a newcomer without being embarrassed. There are many breathtakingly beautiful and many more simply gracious areas in Lakewood, but you have had to pass some seedy spots to get to them.
Imagine, then, how nice it is to see improvements at Bridgeport and I-5 like a new entrance to town coupled with the new Lakewood Fort and La Quinta.
The quarry on another end of town has given way to the Wal-Mart, which of course is a hot topic in and of itself. But the nearby entrance from University Place on Bridgeport has only become more attractive thanks to the bridge and the art there.
Here's something else that will add a lot to the attractiveness of that entrance. You have driven on the highway and seen concrete walls with various geometric patterns. What our Public Works staff came up with is a variation on the idea involving a concrete wall that will be going up on Bridgeport near the creek and by Flanagan Road.
The retaining wall will have engraved concrete patterns that form a nature scene. In other words, we will have some actual art at an entrance to Lakewood - just like so many cities around us.
Monday, the Lakewood Arts Commission recommended the first design of the two designs that you will see on this sheet. You will see three panels in Option 1, but the designs will actually be laid end to end on the roadway. So as you are driving past and if you are heading north, you will first drive past the panel with Mount Rainier, and then the final panels will be of the water and the fish.
Considering that there had to be a retaining wall there anyway, this was an economical way to add some public art to Lakewood and to avoid a blank, ugly wall. Well done.
Forward this post
Imagine, then, how nice it is to see improvements at Bridgeport and I-5 like a new entrance to town coupled with the new Lakewood Fort and La Quinta.
The quarry on another end of town has given way to the Wal-Mart, which of course is a hot topic in and of itself. But the nearby entrance from University Place on Bridgeport has only become more attractive thanks to the bridge and the art there.
Here's something else that will add a lot to the attractiveness of that entrance. You have driven on the highway and seen concrete walls with various geometric patterns. What our Public Works staff came up with is a variation on the idea involving a concrete wall that will be going up on Bridgeport near the creek and by Flanagan Road.
The retaining wall will have engraved concrete patterns that form a nature scene. In other words, we will have some actual art at an entrance to Lakewood - just like so many cities around us.
Monday, the Lakewood Arts Commission recommended the first design of the two designs that you will see on this sheet. You will see three panels in Option 1, but the designs will actually be laid end to end on the roadway. So as you are driving past and if you are heading north, you will first drive past the panel with Mount Rainier, and then the final panels will be of the water and the fish.
Considering that there had to be a retaining wall there anyway, this was an economical way to add some public art to Lakewood and to avoid a blank, ugly wall. Well done.
One neighborhood's issues
I wanted to share a little slice of life that happens to come from the Lake Louise area. One of the things that council members do is run interference for members of the public with concerns and questions. There were a lot of concerns and questions after a community meeting last Tuesday night at Lakes High School. The meeting had to do with traffic concerns in the neighborhood; but as you will see from the following note, your council members have to keep watch on more than just the actual concerns themselves.
So I am posting this partly as an example of the sort of thing that your council members do for you. Not all correspondence involves complaints of this magnitude, but asking questions on behalf of citizens is definitely part of the job.
And I am also posting this note because if you were at the meeting on 104th, I'd be grateful for your thoughts and impressions about the meeting and the traffic issue itself. Just to bring some sense of completion, I'll let you know what the city manager says to explain the situation:
To; the city manager, police chief and public works director, with cc's to City Councilman Doug Richardson and County Councilman Dick Muri:
Hi there - Doug and Dick Muri and I (and certainly perhaps others) have received some inquiries from two neighbors and someone involved with National Night Out about what's going on at 104th, so I wanted to ask a couple questions.
I simply don't have the time today to phrase the following questions tactfully, and apologize in advance for the wording. I should note that both neighbors said they were impressed with the fact-gathering and perspective of the city staff, and both neighbors were very sorry that they could not be heard (comments below). Both spent a lot of time saying nice things about staff.
1. Why did we schedule the community meeting the same evening as National Night Out?
2. Does the city have any sort of written policy to avoid sabotaging our own events, or what practices and procedures are in place to avoid time conflicts?
2. Two different people told me that the acoustics and screen presentation only made the crowd angrier. Assuming the facts as stated, and please correct me if the report is incorrect, can someone explain how we ended up in an unsuitable place for public presentations given the importance of customer service?
3. Do we have any practices and procedures for ensuring communications to citizens, particularly the elderly and hard of hearing, are appropriate? Given that the council as a whole expressed strong concern about presentations that fail even within City Hall, what more can the council do to guarantee we don't unnecessarily anger our citizens? Feel free to help me out by completing this sentence that I can use at a council meeting: "I make a motion that ..."
4. What exactly is going on with traffic proposals for 104th? What is the purpose of the meeting on Aug. 23, and what time will it be?
Thanks,
Walter
Here's part of a note from a citizen about the presentation:
(snip)
P.S. This is not the main subject of this note but unfortunately the audio/ visual setup in the Lakes gym was extremely poor and caused considerable consternation among the audience. Part of the speakers were not working; many times the audience yelled out"
We can't hear you; Speak into the mike" "Don't mumble" Many of the slides were almost unreadable due to small print. No wireless mikes were available so individuals could be heard by the group and the presenters. With an already somewhat hostile audience the poor audio/visual setup served to detract quite a bit from good communication between the citizens and the Lakewood officials. This is unfortunate since it was evident that the presenters had worked hard to gather the data necessary to understand and resolve the citizen complaints. I believe the next meeting will be in the city hall and the audio/visuals will be more satisfactory.
Forward this post
So I am posting this partly as an example of the sort of thing that your council members do for you. Not all correspondence involves complaints of this magnitude, but asking questions on behalf of citizens is definitely part of the job.
And I am also posting this note because if you were at the meeting on 104th, I'd be grateful for your thoughts and impressions about the meeting and the traffic issue itself. Just to bring some sense of completion, I'll let you know what the city manager says to explain the situation:
To; the city manager, police chief and public works director, with cc's to City Councilman Doug Richardson and County Councilman Dick Muri:
Hi there - Doug and Dick Muri and I (and certainly perhaps others) have received some inquiries from two neighbors and someone involved with National Night Out about what's going on at 104th, so I wanted to ask a couple questions.
I simply don't have the time today to phrase the following questions tactfully, and apologize in advance for the wording. I should note that both neighbors said they were impressed with the fact-gathering and perspective of the city staff, and both neighbors were very sorry that they could not be heard (comments below). Both spent a lot of time saying nice things about staff.
1. Why did we schedule the community meeting the same evening as National Night Out?
2. Does the city have any sort of written policy to avoid sabotaging our own events, or what practices and procedures are in place to avoid time conflicts?
2. Two different people told me that the acoustics and screen presentation only made the crowd angrier. Assuming the facts as stated, and please correct me if the report is incorrect, can someone explain how we ended up in an unsuitable place for public presentations given the importance of customer service?
3. Do we have any practices and procedures for ensuring communications to citizens, particularly the elderly and hard of hearing, are appropriate? Given that the council as a whole expressed strong concern about presentations that fail even within City Hall, what more can the council do to guarantee we don't unnecessarily anger our citizens? Feel free to help me out by completing this sentence that I can use at a council meeting: "I make a motion that ..."
4. What exactly is going on with traffic proposals for 104th? What is the purpose of the meeting on Aug. 23, and what time will it be?
Thanks,
Walter
Here's part of a note from a citizen about the presentation:
(snip)
P.S. This is not the main subject of this note but unfortunately the audio/ visual setup in the Lakes gym was extremely poor and caused considerable consternation among the audience. Part of the speakers were not working; many times the audience yelled out"
We can't hear you; Speak into the mike" "Don't mumble" Many of the slides were almost unreadable due to small print. No wireless mikes were available so individuals could be heard by the group and the presenters. With an already somewhat hostile audience the poor audio/visual setup served to detract quite a bit from good communication between the citizens and the Lakewood officials. This is unfortunate since it was evident that the presenters had worked hard to gather the data necessary to understand and resolve the citizen complaints. I believe the next meeting will be in the city hall and the audio/visuals will be more satisfactory.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Adding to the story
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
A plan for roads
The Lakewood City Council voted 6-1 last night to approve a traffic construction plan for 2008 to 2013. We've been talking about the plan for awhile, in blog posts below. This is the same plan that the citizens' transportation committee used to propose tax increases (another topic discussed below), so the financial projections are quite conservative and don't project a lot of construction without those new taxes.
The document is pretty similar to the ones I have posted earlier, but I did want to put the final document up in case there are any questions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you see a project listed as funded over more than one year, the actual construction is expected in the year of the final column. In an earlier posting, I put up a list of all the various proposed construction projects, including the many that are unfunded.
I was the no vote. Construction of a left-turn lane on Custer at John Dower Road is now scheduled for 2010, even though it will just cost more and more as the years go by to acquire the right-of-way needed for this safety measure. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, but I just feel strongly that this safety measure is needed sooner rather than later.
I should quickly note that the council saved any discussion of the tax increases proposed by the citizens' committee for another day. The volunteers did a lot of homework in making their case; and they won the endorsement of two other all-volunteer citizens advisory groups, the economic redevelopment board and the planning board, for tax increases. I'll let you know when the matter returns for discussion. It seems to me there is more we can do with our current resources, and I am against a tax increase; but it would be impolite not to hear the transportation group out again now that the transportation plan itself is settled.
Forward this post
The document is pretty similar to the ones I have posted earlier, but I did want to put the final document up in case there are any questions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you see a project listed as funded over more than one year, the actual construction is expected in the year of the final column. In an earlier posting, I put up a list of all the various proposed construction projects, including the many that are unfunded.
I was the no vote. Construction of a left-turn lane on Custer at John Dower Road is now scheduled for 2010, even though it will just cost more and more as the years go by to acquire the right-of-way needed for this safety measure. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, but I just feel strongly that this safety measure is needed sooner rather than later.
I should quickly note that the council saved any discussion of the tax increases proposed by the citizens' committee for another day. The volunteers did a lot of homework in making their case; and they won the endorsement of two other all-volunteer citizens advisory groups, the economic redevelopment board and the planning board, for tax increases. I'll let you know when the matter returns for discussion. It seems to me there is more we can do with our current resources, and I am against a tax increase; but it would be impolite not to hear the transportation group out again now that the transportation plan itself is settled.
Bragging rights
My regular readers, both of you, know there is a campaign to bring more visitors to Lakewood. Many of us feel passionately that Lakewood has marvelous features to share with the rest of the world. That's one reason for the Lakewood history book, the Lakewood museum, etc...
As one part of that effort, the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce has been reaching out to travel planners, to help tout Lakewood as a destination to see attractions both here and in surrounding areas. Awhile back I enjoyed giving a tour of Fort Steilacoom to some folks who organize reunion tours for military units.
The latest effort to promote tourism and particularly overnight stays is a brochure that provides suggestions for what people can do in Lakewood. The document should help travel planners, but it's also a great way for us to feel good about ourselves. I'd invite you to take a look. If nothing else, you might learn about one or two attractions yourself.
As with any first effort, there's sure to be some attraction or idea left out. Feel free to contact the chamber with your suggestions, or give me a shout.
Forward this post
As one part of that effort, the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce has been reaching out to travel planners, to help tout Lakewood as a destination to see attractions both here and in surrounding areas. Awhile back I enjoyed giving a tour of Fort Steilacoom to some folks who organize reunion tours for military units.
The latest effort to promote tourism and particularly overnight stays is a brochure that provides suggestions for what people can do in Lakewood. The document should help travel planners, but it's also a great way for us to feel good about ourselves. I'd invite you to take a look. If nothing else, you might learn about one or two attractions yourself.
As with any first effort, there's sure to be some attraction or idea left out. Feel free to contact the chamber with your suggestions, or give me a shout.
Friday, August 03, 2007
News that's maybe not so good ... about the news
Lots of us say in conversation that we figure newspapers are losing readers to the Internet. That may not be true. Newspapers may simply be losing readers. A fascinating new survey says that many young people are simply not paying attention to news. There's lots of interesting analysis, and a thorough report of how there's really no longer any one news source that is dominating the culture.
From the report:
Whereas 35 percent of our respondents over 30 years of age
claimed to read the news every day, only 16 percent of
those aged 18-30 said they read the news daily and a
mere 9 percent of those aged 12-17 claimed daily
exposure (see Table 1). In fact, half of all teens and
young adults said they rarely if ever read a newspaper.
Forward this post
From the report:
Whereas 35 percent of our respondents over 30 years of age
claimed to read the news every day, only 16 percent of
those aged 18-30 said they read the news daily and a
mere 9 percent of those aged 12-17 claimed daily
exposure (see Table 1). In fact, half of all teens and
young adults said they rarely if ever read a newspaper.
The future of papers: citizen journalism?
It seems like every day, there is doom and gloom coming out of the American papers about American papers.
The San Francisco Chronicle is laying off one out of four reporters and editors including people whose work I read and respected back when I was in college. One person posts on a Bay Area blog, "Sure, (and) why not cut the Chronicle staff to 200? It's just as easy to not buy a newspaper put out by 200 as it is to not buy one produced by 400." A memo from another California paper is just sad to read.
Even a couple of local papers including the local daily announced they were shutting down their customer service call centers; so local folks will be calling an outside company with at least some of its call centers in the Philippines.
In this environment, I was intrigued by a news item that says $20 million in private cash is being invested in journalism. And no, I don't mean the Wall Street Journal. The item has to do with what's called 'citizen journalism.' You'll see the national blog lists three efforts, NowPublic, Associated Content, and OhMyNews.
Citizen journalism is essentially journalism posted by citizens. One version, of course, is our very own homegrown Suburban Times.
The advantage of this approach is that citizens can cut out the middleman and post news themselves. Another advantage is that in theory, no news is too 'small;' you could post news about a club meeting, about a neighborhood event, or something else that could not reasonably make the pages of a big newspaper. A final advantage is that unlike in traditional journalism, people can comment immediately on a story that has been posted. If something in the story is inaccurate, someone can correct it. If there is debate about whether something is inaccurate or not, people can have that discussion then and there.
The huge disadvantage, of course, is that you don't know how much, if any, of the content is accurate or what agendas are being promoted. At one of the sites mentioned, I saw a story posted claiming that one of the presidential candidates was stripping. In another news story, someone states as a fact that Hillary Clinton is running for an office called Goddess Empress. Obviously, these national sites have a long ways to go in terms of credibility and breadth. I have much more confidence in The Suburban Times, where a local owner keeps a close eye on the contents.
I'd be interested in what you think about them and especially the potential they represent. I was mostly looking for local content, and of course local citizen journalism is in its infancy. You can get a sense of that by looking at Associated Content's local content.
OhMyNews struck me as focused internationally, which of course is fine when that's your main interest. There's a thought-provoking column about citizen journalism by well-known journalist Dan Gillmor.
All this said, you will find a very clever and skeptical response to citizen journalism at the National Journal. The author says in good humor, but with a point, that if you judge journalism by what citizens produce, all we care about is traffic. Author William Powers concludes by saying, "Crowds aren't wise all by themselves -- they need editing, too."
One thing I will say for NowPublic is that somehow their web page went through my computer and thought I might be interested in news about Tacoma. That was actually a bit creepy. I'd be interested in knowing what happens when you click on their local pages. The local offerings are definitely a little uneven; but it will be fascinating to watch how sites like this grow.
Forward this post
The San Francisco Chronicle is laying off one out of four reporters and editors including people whose work I read and respected back when I was in college. One person posts on a Bay Area blog, "Sure, (and) why not cut the Chronicle staff to 200? It's just as easy to not buy a newspaper put out by 200 as it is to not buy one produced by 400." A memo from another California paper is just sad to read.
Even a couple of local papers including the local daily announced they were shutting down their customer service call centers; so local folks will be calling an outside company with at least some of its call centers in the Philippines.
In this environment, I was intrigued by a news item that says $20 million in private cash is being invested in journalism. And no, I don't mean the Wall Street Journal. The item has to do with what's called 'citizen journalism.' You'll see the national blog lists three efforts, NowPublic, Associated Content, and OhMyNews.
Citizen journalism is essentially journalism posted by citizens. One version, of course, is our very own homegrown Suburban Times.
The advantage of this approach is that citizens can cut out the middleman and post news themselves. Another advantage is that in theory, no news is too 'small;' you could post news about a club meeting, about a neighborhood event, or something else that could not reasonably make the pages of a big newspaper. A final advantage is that unlike in traditional journalism, people can comment immediately on a story that has been posted. If something in the story is inaccurate, someone can correct it. If there is debate about whether something is inaccurate or not, people can have that discussion then and there.
The huge disadvantage, of course, is that you don't know how much, if any, of the content is accurate or what agendas are being promoted. At one of the sites mentioned, I saw a story posted claiming that one of the presidential candidates was stripping. In another news story, someone states as a fact that Hillary Clinton is running for an office called Goddess Empress. Obviously, these national sites have a long ways to go in terms of credibility and breadth. I have much more confidence in The Suburban Times, where a local owner keeps a close eye on the contents.
I'd be interested in what you think about them and especially the potential they represent. I was mostly looking for local content, and of course local citizen journalism is in its infancy. You can get a sense of that by looking at Associated Content's local content.
OhMyNews struck me as focused internationally, which of course is fine when that's your main interest. There's a thought-provoking column about citizen journalism by well-known journalist Dan Gillmor.
All this said, you will find a very clever and skeptical response to citizen journalism at the National Journal. The author says in good humor, but with a point, that if you judge journalism by what citizens produce, all we care about is traffic. Author William Powers concludes by saying, "Crowds aren't wise all by themselves -- they need editing, too."
One thing I will say for NowPublic is that somehow their web page went through my computer and thought I might be interested in news about Tacoma. That was actually a bit creepy. I'd be interested in knowing what happens when you click on their local pages. The local offerings are definitely a little uneven; but it will be fascinating to watch how sites like this grow.
