Crowdsourcing
In Grayson Daughters' comments on my last posting about Podcamp Atlanta, she suggested I expound upon my questions I raised regarding new and old journalism. I was noting the differences between traditional news coverage from that day and the postings of several
bloggers who attended the unconference. I asked which gave you a better sense of PodCamp Atlanta? Which would you rather read? Is user generated content less newsworthy?
No surprises that the AP story carried more authority and more useful information for the general reader, but it certainly wasn’t personal. The writer’s voice was not to be found, unlike the bloggers who shared many a personal feeling – some of which had nothing to do with podcasting. In general, reporters generally stick to their assignment and are forbidden or strongly discouraged from expressing their own views as it undermines their “objectivity.”
Clearly, bloggers and reporters each have a role to play in recording the news. Is one better, tough to say, but perhaps we need not be so binary. The roles of reporters and citizen journalists are beginning to morph, despite the distrust and even disdain that some have for the other. It’s also getting more common for reporters to blog. But now, according to story by New York Times reporter Nicolas Carr a new experiment is afoot to broaden the traditional network of reporters and their sources to include readers and their sources. It’s an example “crowdsourcing,” typically where the work of employees is outsourced to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call over the Internet for little or no money.
To learn more, I went to Assignment Zero. This site as Nicolas Carr points out is a collaboration between Wired magazine and NewAssignment.Net, which was established by Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University. As Jay Rosen writes:"The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is voluntary; contributors are welcomed from across the Web. The people getting, telling and vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as 'pro-am.'"
I don’t think White House reporters and war correspondents have to worry about losing their jobs – at least not yet – but crowdsourcing can potentially change the news dynamic for the PR profession.
While technology and new media increasingly play an important role in what we do, I still rely on an old fashioned network of reporters to do my job, and I like to believe that they need us; you could say that relationship building is critical to our mutual success. Nonetheless, reporters are still gate keepers to the public, and we don’t always like their results. We have all experienced the negative story or no mention at all despite our best efforts.
With new media, our circle of contacts and gatekeepers has now been expanded, and the results may be even less predictable. With crowdsourcing, journalism is becoming much more collaborative, more egalitarian. PR professionals will face the challenge of participating more, but perhaps influencing less as a wider group writes the story. I only hope that the sponsoring news organizations will uphold the same standards for accuracy and fairness.
In time, readers may not recognize the newspapers of today. They will appear quaint or even stilted as a more informal style becomes more accepted. Most readers under 30 would rather quickly scan through a Wikipedia entry than thumb through a dusty volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.
If this is successful, crowdsourcing may lessen the need for professional reporters. But I am not going to throw stones from any glass houses. For if journalism can embrace “amateurs” to write the news, there is no reason to believe that clients won't seek amateurs to pitch it.
Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags: Crowdsourcing; Jay Rosen; Zero.NewAssignment.net; New Media; PodcampAtlanta;
No surprises that the AP story carried more authority and more useful information for the general reader, but it certainly wasn’t personal. The writer’s voice was not to be found, unlike the bloggers who shared many a personal feeling – some of which had nothing to do with podcasting. In general, reporters generally stick to their assignment and are forbidden or strongly discouraged from expressing their own views as it undermines their “objectivity.”
Clearly, bloggers and reporters each have a role to play in recording the news. Is one better, tough to say, but perhaps we need not be so binary. The roles of reporters and citizen journalists are beginning to morph, despite the distrust and even disdain that some have for the other. It’s also getting more common for reporters to blog. But now, according to story by New York Times reporter Nicolas Carr a new experiment is afoot to broaden the traditional network of reporters and their sources to include readers and their sources. It’s an example “crowdsourcing,” typically where the work of employees is outsourced to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call over the Internet for little or no money.
To learn more, I went to Assignment Zero. This site as Nicolas Carr points out is a collaboration between Wired magazine and NewAssignment.Net, which was established by Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University. As Jay Rosen writes:"The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is voluntary; contributors are welcomed from across the Web. The people getting, telling and vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as 'pro-am.'"
I don’t think White House reporters and war correspondents have to worry about losing their jobs – at least not yet – but crowdsourcing can potentially change the news dynamic for the PR profession.
While technology and new media increasingly play an important role in what we do, I still rely on an old fashioned network of reporters to do my job, and I like to believe that they need us; you could say that relationship building is critical to our mutual success. Nonetheless, reporters are still gate keepers to the public, and we don’t always like their results. We have all experienced the negative story or no mention at all despite our best efforts.
With new media, our circle of contacts and gatekeepers has now been expanded, and the results may be even less predictable. With crowdsourcing, journalism is becoming much more collaborative, more egalitarian. PR professionals will face the challenge of participating more, but perhaps influencing less as a wider group writes the story. I only hope that the sponsoring news organizations will uphold the same standards for accuracy and fairness.
In time, readers may not recognize the newspapers of today. They will appear quaint or even stilted as a more informal style becomes more accepted. Most readers under 30 would rather quickly scan through a Wikipedia entry than thumb through a dusty volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.
If this is successful, crowdsourcing may lessen the need for professional reporters. But I am not going to throw stones from any glass houses. For if journalism can embrace “amateurs” to write the news, there is no reason to believe that clients won't seek amateurs to pitch it.
Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags: Crowdsourcing; Jay Rosen; Zero.NewAssignment.net; New Media; PodcampAtlanta;
And THAT is my biggest concern in all of this. If someone wants to live-blog something, go for it. But I will not rely on that (or Wikipedia) as a trusted source of news/information. I view it as light entertainment because there are no checks and balances in terms of verifying factual accuracy. It bums me out that young people will trust something like Wikipedia instead of learning how to research multiple sources (whether electronic or in print form) and learn how to draw their own conclusions and assessments about something. It sets up patterns that they repeat in other areas of life that are just bad. (Comment this)
There aren't always "checks and balances in terms of verifying factual accuracy" in news organizations, especially in smaller newspapers, for example. (Comment this)