What are we calling this now? Citizen journalism? Citizen reporting? Participatory media? I forget. Whatever it is, Gannett Newspapers is planning to do it, reports Washington Post. Chairman Craig Dubow sent a memo to staff on Thursday outlining the company's vision of "the newsroom of the future".
You'd be forgiven for thinking that redundancies usually come hand in hand with that phrase, and as Gannett has announced that print and online teams at all its newspapers will merge, let's not rule that out yet.
In this case, staff were told the newsroom's "information centre" will be split into seven areas: multimedia, local, digital, data, public service, custom content and community conversation. Some of those seem weirdly non-specific, but let's not be picky.
The Fort Myers News-Press is one of a handful of Gannett newspapers trialling this "pro-am" approach to newsgathering, collaborating with expert professionals in their readership - otherwise known as crowdsourcing - for some reader-assisted pieces.
While I'm sure there are plenty of old school hacks that would blanch at the idea of consulting readers for information as if it's some kind of admission that journalists don't actually know it all. I imagine the horror! But I'm equally sure this kind of collaborative writing process will become much more common. It's just a source of information, after all, and journalists will fulfil their proper role of assessing and verifying that information.
At the same time, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger told the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco that user content will be expanded on NYTimes.com, though he admitted the site had been slow off the mark because of concerns about maintaining editorial standards. Techworld said Sulzberger hinted at some kind of screening process, so the site fosters a group of contributors it feels comfortable with.
Alan Moore on Communities Dominate Blogs: "What we have seen and witnessed over thast 15 months is a body politic that wants to engage, given the right context, in a process that they can share in, be part of. I wonder if the Johnston Press or any other print media is watching this space?"
Creimer on Slashdot: "It's old media trying to make themselves relevant in today's jargon-filled world. The term "crowdsourcing" is another excuse for the corporate owners to avoid putting money into investigation teams that take a hard look at society to knock over some apple carts, make readers want to buy their product, and win prizes for good old fashion journalism."
Cato @ Liberty: The blogosphere (writ large) can and often does surface relevant knowledge better than any group of reporters, no matter how smart or dedicated. Gannett is wise to recognize this and incorporate superior local knowledge-gathering into its business model."
Kyle Hansen on Kyle's Comments: "The folks at Gannett are finally getting that the internet is important, but I am not sure about the effort to combine the online operations of USA Today and their other papers. We will have to see how it turns out, but the local papers need to have their own online presence, not just force readers over to the national paper."
Josj Wimmer on fargocat: "Gannett isn't looking for reader assistance. They've already had that, on pretty much every story ever done in the field of journalism, if what they mean is that reporters are now working closely with people who don't work for the newspaper to get their information right. I suppose the shift from calling them "sources" to calling them "readers" just means that these particular sources have a more vested interest in the welfare of the paper, because they need something to look at during breakfast."
