Networked journalism
Read More: journalism, networkedjournalism, newnews, norgI think a better term for what I’ve been calling “citizen journalism” might be “networked journalism.”
“Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product.
I carry some of the blame for pushing “citizens’ media” and “citizen journalism” as terms to describe the phenomenon we are witnessing in this new era of news. Many of us were never satisfied with the terms, and for good reason. They imply that the actor defines the act and that’s not true in a time when anyone can make journalism. This also divides journalism into distinct camps, which only prolongs a problem of professional journalism — its separation from its public (as Jay Rosen points out). In addition, many professional journalists have objected that these terms imply that they are not acting as citizens themselves — and, indeed, I believe that the more that journalists behave like citizens, the stronger their journalism will be.
In networked journalism, the public can get involved in a story before it is reported, contributing facts, questions, and suggestions. The journalists can rely on the public to help report the story; we’ll see more and more of that, I trust. The journalists can and should link to other work on the same story, to source material, and perhaps blog posts from the sources (see: Mark Cuban). After the story is published — online, in print, wherever — the public can continue to contribute corrections, questions, facts, and perspective … not to mention promotion via links. I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as journalists realize that they are less the manufacturers of news than the moderators of conversations that get to the news.
This came to me on the drive back from Media Giraffe with Jay Rosen: the mobile master class. Somewhere in midConnecticut, we were talking about how journalism can, should, and will work when we can all join in and it hit me like a lightning bolt: this isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network.
: LATER: Terry Heaton points us to earlier thinking in this vein. Just to be clear: I’m by no means trying to claim any provenance in this, only indicating a shift in my own thinking.
: LATER STILL: Chris Nolan adds in email:
Stand-alone journalism depends on an audience of people who understand that connection. The web is a flexible medium so readers come and go quickly. So there’s a contradiction: The newsroom has left the building but no one site can really stand alone and prosper by demanding that readers come to it. The business challenge is to make that flexibility part of how we do business if we’re going to grow and keep readers, Smart guys like WashPo’s Jim Brady and Yahoo’s Neil Budde know this; that’s why they’re not demanding exclusivity. That’s also why Spot-on’s pushing the syndication part of our business ahead of everything else. We want to go to our readers wherever they are, rather than wait for them to come to us.
Julian Sanchez of Reason said in email that he’s using “distributed journalism” and I agree with that. I use it, too, in certain company. Only problem is, when I say that in front of newspaper folks, they think trucks.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Okay, if we’re going to start a meme, let’s examine the original record via Google.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Jeff, it seems to me that journalism has always been a network of different shapes and sizes - ‘old boys,’ sources - named and unnamed, PR people, experts, activists, editors, colleagues. What is happening now is it’s becoming more transparent and accessible. Not so much a bigger network than a more ‘public’ one.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:41 am
[…] Jeff Jarvis over at Buzzmachine brings up a great point in his post called Networked Journalism, where he says: …this isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network. […]
July 5th, 2006 at 9:20 am
JJ. jesus christ, is it my overweening sense of importance or is what me and trent just did and are doing anexample of what you’re talking so sensibly and smartly about, and were pushing, I know, long before Trent Lapinski and AL MacLeese ran into each other on the INternet and made a pretty good shot at finding out a truth that the national media tasted and spit out, like it was iodince or something. How many people in the media did not answer me or respond to me during the past three months, welll,. ince since March 27 when I first became aware of Trent Lapinski’s brave and astute assessment of MySPace. WTF, he must have th0ought. you can’t even find out who owns thie outfit? Is something wrong with that, Trent said, and since the giuy has been consorting with computers since the age of five, and studiously sitting somewh4ere and readin g and finding out what is gong in the world, he perservered and, unless I am crazier than an outhouse owl. I believe Trent, in the valley of the wags, may just lead to a good way to run something like MyuSpace, if ew must, but not by these upstart start-ups who know fuckingawell that they can baffle us with bullshit because they’re running stuff we, the most of us, have no clue about. So what JEff Jarvis says seems to be valid and an indictmenty of people who get a couple of inches and take a coupl;e of miiles, guarding their wonderful postion on a loftier plateau. but it could be that them days are over and the journose on newspap0ers may have to goout and get a real job. al macleese from hallowell, where the skies are blue between thunderstorms and eight thousand mallards just flew by my window on Water Street.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Jeff,
So a “story” is never a singular article, but rather a thread across multiple authors and across multiple articles and across time, to give a fuller picture via the network of “journalists?” There is no good mechanism to track all of it and sort by author or time, although Google News and, to a degree, Memeorandum hint at it. Tags are an attempt, I think, to move in this direction.
Does anyone have a service/site that provides the “story” in this fashion?
July 5th, 2006 at 9:59 am
It seems like the best way to follow a story these days is to subscribe to a news feed based on the story that you want to follow. Then you will be sent new articles pertaining to the story as they are published.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:33 am
“I believe that the more that journalists behave like citizens, the stronger their journalism will be”
Sure. And one of journalists/citizens duty should be keep questioning the authority, whichever autorithy, as this “numbskull” guy did.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:36 am
by george, I think he’s got it!
“citizen journalism” is one thing–citizens starting their own papers or websites in underserved or politically balkanized areas or writing on hotbutton topics no paper publication will touch is probably the most constructive way of looking at that concept….
Yet how you are describing “networked journalism” is an encouraging new way of looking at the relationships between journalists and the-people-formerly-known-as-the-audience. By all means link to our blogs and our conversations–and please free to add to them! By all means ask us for our input on topics (like they are doing at Minnesota Public Radio)! Don’t necessarily rely on us (in other words, find your own scoops) but see what’s bubbling ’round about in the wired world outside of your newspaper’s homepage and investigate it (that’s kind of a journalist’s job, don’t you think?) And, perhaps, ask us if we want to share a byline or write our own if we have a specialization you don’t (that’s called freelancing, I think?). Don’t forget to cut us in for a fair share in those cases, and we’ll like you even more…
Jounalisim, after all, is as much a process as a profession. This just adds some cool new dimensions to the process.
Good thinking Jeff!
July 5th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
[…] Jeff Jarvis isn’t happy with the expression “citizen journalism,” and says: “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product. […]
July 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
[…] BuzzMachine […]
July 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
[…] Tosh and Jarvis vote for networked journalism as a better label than citizen journalism. […]
July 5th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
If everyone will participate in information gathering, then the “professionals” are fact checkers, vetters, typists, and grammar nazis?
July 5th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I think that the term “network journalism” is very appropriate. Journalists engage in the process of social networking when they both research their articles and post published articles. The centers of these networks are the journalists who have the most links because this means others will use their work. However, the centers are not the most important component of a network. Without the outliers the network does not exist.
Andrew Pass
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html
July 5th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Why not just call it “conversational media” or “conversational journalism”? The term describes the transparency and accessibility of the phenomenon, much better than “network”. I agree with Tish Grier’s comment, but what she describes is a conversation, not a network.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
We have been searching to figure out a million ways to not call what we do at NowPublic….’citizen journalism’. To most people outside of the digerati it is illogical. It’s like saying you are a ‘citizen doctor’ or ‘citizen lawyer’. It is uninviting and often intimidating for most.
Congrats Jeff, you have come to the closest meme that I think captures what we are all doing. I would still leave out the journalism part and go with “Networked Media” or “Networked Reporting”.
Just a thought…..
July 6th, 2006 at 12:46 am
[…] Networked journalism. Jeff Jarvis offers a new term to replace the hotly-disputed “citizen journalism.” Terry Heaton points to the origins of an idea with much broader application than just journalism. […]
July 6th, 2006 at 3:15 am
[…] Bürgerjournalismus oder Netzwerkjournalismus? [ Blog-Politik ] Another Buzzword? Jeff Jarvis schlägt vor anstelle von “Citizen Journalism” von vernetztem Journalismus zu sprechen. Der Begriff “Bürgerjournalismus” tönt ihm zu sehr nach neuen Barrieren zwischen berufstätigen Journalisten und anderen Nachrichtenproduzenten. Die Aufgabe der Journalisten sieht er in Zukunft weniger im Produzieren von Nachrichten, sonder viel mehr in der Rolle als “Moderatoren”: In networked journalism, the public can get involved in a story before it is reported, contributing facts, questions, and suggestions. The journalists can rely on the public to help report the story; we’ll see more and more of that, I trust. The journalists can and should link to other work on the same story, to source material, and perhaps blog posts from the sources (see: Mark Cuban). After the story is published — online, in print, wherever — the public can continue to contribute corrections, questions, facts, and perspective … not to mention promotion via links. I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as journalists realize that they are less the manufacturers of news than the moderators of conversations that get to the news. [Such! Netzwerkjournalismus Tags: Blogs, Media, Medien, Citizen Journalism, Networked Journalism, Netzwerkjournalismus, Blogging] […]
July 6th, 2006 at 3:50 am
[…] “I think,” Jarvis writes, “a better term for what I’ve been calling “citizen journalism” might be “networked journalism.” He goes on to explain: “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product. […]
July 6th, 2006 at 8:16 am
[…] JEFF JARVIS pergunta-se se não será melhor passarmos a chamar “networked journalism” àquilo que se chama agora “citizen journalism”. […]
July 6th, 2006 at 9:04 am
I agree that “citizen journalism” sounds somewhat illogical, and sadly has led to a lot of networks making this a label for nothing more than a lot of citizen rants and collections of photos of kids who just had a birthday party.
But what I find find fascinating is that the new direction of every field I am researching is nameless these days. There is a new “quantum medicine” (working name only) that is covering a revolutionary new style of medicine not only exciting new results; there is “fusion music” (working category only) that is a blend of traditional and modern styles from all over the world, all in the same song; there is “new millennium” books (working category only) for a new section on the bookstore bookshelves that even the libary’s Dewey decimal system has trouble cataloguing as other than “oo-general”.
Every article I write about, every TV show and book I plan, begins with a long discussion with the subject about what might be the best keywords to use in the beginnings of a definition for the subject’s work. Never have I been so surrounded by brilliance that is so literally and completely invisible to the established order. Anywne doing something this new finds themselves facing a “deer in headlights” inability to move forward which, once the headlights are turned off, opens up only into a twilight zone. This must be “the cloud of unknowing” that the medieval mystics kept falling into on their pilgrimages.
So networked journalism yes is way better than citizen journalism, but going by my experience with reconstituted music, health, cuisine, and philosophies, I would say that “networked” will not be the final word, because everything is networked. It is therefore a nondescriptor.
My mind is leaning towards something that says “open” because this form of journalism is indeed open to all and potentially embraces everything, unlike most established media. I also like the thought of “action”, because it alludes to action hero, and I think that is what a lot of our nowpublic-type innovators actually are, but given their usually excellent educations, OK why not create an “action journalist” as the literate person’s answer to the action hero role.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Why not just call journalism “journalism” — a word the citizens, amateurs, networks, distributors and professionals can understand? Journalism can be “practiced” in all sorts of ways, and by virtually anyone. You don’t even have to be a citizen or a professional; you could be a foreigner, or even an alien from outer space. But I do agree with your overall beat: journalism is not some exclusive club; it’s something that takes many forms, including all the ones you describe.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:22 am
[…] Jeff Jarvis: “This isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network”. […]
July 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am
[…] Der Journalist als Moderator eines Prozesses, ber den Wahrheit ermittelt wird. In seinem eigenen Blog erklrt Jarvis etwas detaillierter, was er unter vernetztem Journalismus verstehen will: Networked journalism takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product. […]
July 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
So this ends us Vs them.
Good one, Jeff.
rajAT
July 6th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I’ve used the term ‘distributed journalism’ in the past, but ‘networked journalism’ has a definite ring to it
July 6th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
A funny story about just who or whom should be a newspaperpers0n: I worked on the old Boston Herald in the mid-Sixties,was on the copy desk, that was beforeit became a tabloid or whatever you call it now. A wonderful newspaperman named Don Ross, who ran the copy desk at nights, was engaged in a cnversation with some eccentrric copy editor, and they were and still are all eccentric, and the guy sez to Ross, “This business went to hell when they started letting in college graduates.,” And Ross, not missing a beat, sez, “No it went to hell when they started letting in high school graduates.” I wish there were more Don Rosses in the biz today, and maybe there are but thye are not thick on the floor as they were in days of yore. almacleese from hallowell, where, if there were a god, he probably would be hanging around here while not saving fallen sparrows.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Steffen Büffel researches in the field of journalism, weblogs, citizen media etc. and uses “Netzwerk-Journalismus” as a key concept in his dissertation. He writes a weblog - mostly german, though. Might be an interesting contact for you.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Thanks Christian for mentioning my work here. I have been using the term “Netzwerk-Journalismus” (networked journalism) in quite the same way as Jeff outlines it in his posting. Unfortunately I mostly don’t have the time to translate my stuff into English, but Jeffs posting totally motivated me to share my thoughts with you guys. I invite everyone who knows a bit of German to read my thoughts and leave a comment on media-ocean.de. I hope to offer some English content on Networked Journalism too. I’d be happy to share my thoughts.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:55 am
[…] Having only recently started blogging, I searched the web for information and was completely amazed by the ripples accross the blogosphere. It was my first ever experience of networked journalism and also of how the web community could come together to offer support. […]
July 8th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
As the extract from my blog which is picked up above is a quote from Buzzmachine, it needs a bit of explanation. The next bit makes it clearer: “Journalism has always depended on networks, networks of sources and people prepared to publish. Journalism cannot exist without networks whether they be in cyberspace or the physical world. To appropriate the word in this way is entirely wrong.” But I also have doubts about the way the word jurnalism is being used, so this debate on the nomenclature of the web is welcome.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:39 am
[…] But thanks to the internet and the age of networked journalism, you can connect those local reporters and witnesses to the world and end up with something much richer than a few features a month. […]
July 10th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Besides the writers of editorials I was never under the impression that journalists did not realize that without the untrained witnesses of or contributors to hot news stories had anything to write about. All journalists know that they would be laughed at if they wrote a story without any sources besides themselves. What articles have you read or journalists that you’ve met have led you to believe that anyone thought that the writer made the news?
July 10th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Naming a thing, a concept, an idea, is problematic indeed - for many reasons. “Citizen Journalism” is too exclusive, it reifies journalism’s troubled ties with the (democratic) State and its ruling institutions, and so on.
However, the notion of ‘networked’ or ‘distributed’ journalism can be equally problematic: so when it is not collaborative (when isn’t it exactly? who/what determines that?), it is not journalism? It seems citizen, networked and distributed journalism can all exist side by side and some people could have a lot of fun articulating differences and boundaries.
But…
It seems that the whole point about the current trends in new media, society and the news is that any traditional (modernist) definition is, if anything, up for grabs, continually under debate. What journalism is - that primary sensemaking practice of modernity (John Hartley) - has become permanently impermanent, which process perhaps started as early as the mid-20th century (with its alternative media, pirate radio, and so on)… and new media practices like Backfence, Wikinews or Ohmynews only supercharge and amplify the blurring of the boundaries between journalism and any other form of public communication.
My suggestion, which is built on and partly taken from the work of eminent social theorist Zygmunt Bauman, is to define everything that anyone contributes to the news and/or to the debate on what journalism is as part of a ‘Liquid Journalism’: a journalism whose boundaries have dissolved, that has become fluid, and cannot hold its shape for long…
Under conditions of a liquid journalism, journalists - whether they’d be professional reporters or concerned citizens, Indymedia activists or Fox newsbloggers - ideally open up increasingly diverse and innovative ways of understanding the equally liquid world we are living in. It embraces complexity and flow over redudancy and stability, and encourages interpretation over explanation.
and, as an academic, this also means I/we should engage in liquid journalism studies, that is
July 11th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Another thought and not funny ha-ha. I think somebody earlier suggested that the name that seems to elude could or should be something like, oh, I don’t know, Buzzmachine?? I am just running this up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes, because, well, as a liquid journalist, I can. al macleese from hallowell maine, where I have done some liquid journalism and its tastes ok to me. Buzzmachine, WTF is off-target about that?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
[…] Toch zal het niet duren. Vanwege dat oubollige, maar ook omdat de werkelijkheid complexer wordt en de tegenstelling tussen burger- en gewone journalistiek geleidelijk zal verdwijnen. Nu illustreert de nomenclatuur nog de clash tussen oude en nieuwe media, maar binnen enkele jaren zal dat gevecht voorbij zijn, en ja, de nieuwe media winnen. Tegen die tijd zal de oude journalistiek de nieuwe hebben geincorporeerd, en ontstaat wat Jeff Jarvis networked journalism noemt. […]
July 13th, 2006 at 10:37 am
[…] However, I think the phrase “citizen journalism” makes it sound like the non-media are now the media… if that makes sense. Jeff Jarvis puts the point better: this isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network. […]
July 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
[…] “Citizen journalism” is not, as the Wikipedia article suggests interchangable with Lasica’s phrase, “participatory journalism”. That is not far from the “networked journalism” Jeff Jarvis recently suggested as a better term “for what I’ve been calling ‘citizen journalism’.” I don’t like either because journalism has always been participatory and dependent on networks. […]
July 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
[…] Für die journalistischen Medien hat Jeff Jarvis diesen Ansatz unter dem Begriff “Networked journalism” zusammen gefasst: “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. […]
July 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
[…] Networked journalism (Buzzmachine LLC): Jeff Jarvis, professional content management consultant, proposes a modified redefinition of journalism for “this new era of news.” […]
July 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
[…] Jeff Jarvis writes “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product. […]
July 25th, 2006 at 9:52 am
El Jefe,
In the last week of March blogger Trent Lapinski and me became aware of the secret ownership of MySpace, and we both started googling, and I sent everything I got on MySPace, Intermix, the venture firms Redpoint and Vantage Point, and MySpace to Trent. Not satisfied with that, though, I got open lines to the Saginaw News and the Kennebec Journal and sent everything to them, and then I addded two friends, one in Panama and one in Michigan, and one sister in Connecticut, to those I was sending the stuff to, and then I added Todd Murphy of the Portland Tribune, a weekly, and offered to dothe same for the Willamette Week outfit.
This was a network of sorts but and alas, my manic enthusiasm over finding something worthwhile to do in retirement vile, was (understandably) shared by all in my little network. A couple of folks shut off the cascade of sometimes incoherent messages, and since I did not even know when something sent got sent,since I had just graduated from an ancient dial-up Mac athat could not talk, I was blithely sending stuff that wasn’t even leaving lovely Hallowell.
It would have been a good idea, practically a platoon of citizens bearing in on a story being overlooked by the lamestreamnewsies, but next time I wisll try to find eight like-minded people who share my zeal, and what wonders could we perform. Say we had a carpenter and a lady and an ex-newspaper hack and, oh, two or three more computer literate types, why I’ll bet we could find out more about where the hell Jimmy Hoffa is that a crack investigative team from the, say, L.A. Times, because we would not be burdened by the jealousies, stupidities, unmerited huge egos, rivalries, brownnoses and childish “hard-nosed” editors, all of whom tend to turn all but the most idealistic cubs into something other than one who is concerned with comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Give me a platoon of guys and gals who will work for nothing to improve matters rather than a bunch of stiff mainly concerned with who gets to go to the next AP conventionin Miami or whos gets sthe page one byline, or the bigger desk. Of course, there are exceptions and I do not wish to be too unfair, but perhaps the time for unfairness has arrived. Al MacLeese, who just walked along the sparkling blue waters of the Kennebec River, and that is calming.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
[…] What interests me so much about the idea of what I call swarm journalism and what Jeff Jarvis calls networked journalism, is that, if it actually happened, web journalists might be able to benefit from a network of sources and co-researchers that traditional papers wouldn’t have access to. […]
July 29th, 2006 at 2:05 am
I will lay dollars to doughnuts that when all this vital and necessary talk about the ideas of the Jays and Jeffs and Steves is thrashed out, that everyone will look about and say, we can do this, this is a slam-dunk, why the hell should we be defensive and diffident about such a wonderful and worthy endeavor, don’t we know that we are smart and good-hearted people and that should we go off the rails our peers will jerk us back to reality. We are not bad, bad dogs, we are good, good steeds and mares and should have the courage of our convictions. We can do this, yes, because we are good-hearted people trying to do some right things. We need to trust in each other and surely we know where we are coming from? We all have paper trails, have proved our earnestness? Charge the blockhouse, for crissakes, no? al macleese, hallowell maine, down by the riverside.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
[…] Consideremos las ventajas de ambas interpretaciones. Los ciudadanos, sobre los nuevos medios, están diciendo “basta de proclamaciones. Dejadnos ver el trabajo. Qué puede hacer realmente el ‘networked journalism‘ (profesionales y amateurs trabajando conjuntamente para contar la verdadera historia)” […]
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 am
[…] • And what are the responsibilities of journalists as citizens to report crime and aid the prosecution? I was in the habit of calling bloggers “citizen journalists” (I’ve since updated my blogictionary and now call this networked journalism because, as I said above, it’s dangerous to define journalism by who does it). Oftentimes, when I used the phrase “citizen journalist,” professional journalists would complain to me, “Well, we’re citizens, too!” Indeed, we are. So what is our responsibility to society in criminal matters? Some say Judith Miller witnessed a high crime in the White House and should have reported it to prosectuors. Others might say that if Wolf has evidence of a cop getting bashed and refuses to hand it over, he is doing nothing less than aiding and abetting the crime. […]
August 7th, 2006 at 11:15 am
[…] • And what are the responsibilities of journalists as citizens to report crime and aid the prosecution? I was in the habit of calling bloggers “citizen journalists” (I’ve since updated my blogictionary and now call this networked journalism because, as I said above, it’s dangerous to define journalism by who does it). Oftentimes, when I used the phrase “citizen journalist,” professional journalists would complain to me, “Well, we’re citizens, too!” Indeed, we are. So what is our responsibility to society in criminal matters? Some say Judith Miller witnessed a high crime in the White House and should have reported it to prosectuors. Others might say that if Wolf has evidence of a cop getting bashed and refuses to hand it over, he is doing nothing less than aiding and abetting the crime. […]
August 14th, 2006 at 4:02 am
[…] Johnson’s assertion may be tested soon, courtesy of Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist. He has funded an experiment, by Jay Rosen, to create a form of ‘networked journalism’ with a site called NewAssignment.Net. Newmark’s $10,000 investment and his endorsement on his Craigblog site will not harm the chances of this experiment getting traction. So what is it? “In simplest terms, a way to fund high-quality, original reporting, in any medium, through donations to a non-profit called NewAssignment.Net. The site uses open source methods to develop good assignments and help bring them to completion; it employs professional journalists to carry the project home and set high standards so the work holds up. There are accountability and reputation systems built in that should make the system reliable. The betting is that (some) people will donate to works they can see are going to be great because the open source methods allow for that glimpse ahead”. Journalism goes pro-am. As yet the site is still an idea and Rosen is battling with the press to establish that it is likely to be a valid model. […]
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
[…] (*AKA Senior Vice-President for Digital Operations, but why not invent stuff? It's the blogosphere. Everyone's doing it, even the big guns. Even people who read the big guns. Anyway.) […]
August 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
[…] When I used to call bloggers et al “citizen journalists,” many professional journalists objected: “We’re citizens, too.” Absolutely, you are, and that raises questions about your responsibility as citizens. Consider these three illustrations involving The New York Times: […]
August 28th, 2006 at 4:04 am
[…] When I used to call bloggers et al “citizen journalists,” many professional journalists objected: “We’re citizens, too.” Absolutely, you are, and that raises questions about your responsibility as citizens. Consider these three illustrations involving The New York Times: […]
September 28th, 2006 at 4:14 am
[…] Overall, a good primer on the topic. He also makes note of the many other names used to describe this concept: grassroots journalism, networked journalism, open source journalism, citizen media, participatory journalism, hyperlocal journalism, bottom-up journalism, stand-alone journalism, and finally distributed journalism. […]
October 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am
[…] Jamieson says that she likes the term “citizen journalist” because it stars with the assumption that you are a citizen at a time when we are concerned with making more people act as citizens. (I still recanted its use.) […]
October 24th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
[…] Jarvis: Networked Journalism People formerly known as the audience Journalistiek als religie Van preek naar conversatie Theo van Stegeren over de Long Tail Henk Blanken over de long tail […]