Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mainstream Media To Start "Crowdsourcing"

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:20 PM
from the god-i-hate-buzzwords dept.
guanxi writes "Gannett, one of the largest newspaper publishers in the U.S., plans to change its newsrooms to utilize Crowdsourcing, a new term for something Slashdot readers have been familiar with for years: \From the article, they will 'use crowdsourcing methods to put readers to work as watchdogs, whistle-blowers and researchers in large, investigative features.' Last summer, the The News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida asked readers to help investigate a local scandal. The response was overwhelming: 'Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets, and an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of bid-rigging.' Public service isn't their only concern, of course: 'We've learned that no one wants to read a 400-column-inch investigative feature online. But when you make them a part of the process they get incredibly engaged.' Is this the beginning of a revolution at major media organizations? Can they successfully duplicate what online communities have been doing for years?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • ... Glad that's cleared that up then ...

    Next article please.

     
  • Oh boy (Score:3, Funny)

    by Durrok (912509) <calltechsucks&gmail,com> on Sunday November 05 2006, @12:26PM (#16726201) Homepage Journal
    I can't wait to see the newspapers quoting things like "Our top contributer 'I3tospooge' reports..." and "Breaking news from ObiwanMcCartney..."
  • They're not doing any work anymore and have convinced people to not only do their work for them, but pay the paper to read the final results. Is that what's going on here?
    • Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)

      by creimer (824291) on Sunday November 05 2006, @12:43PM (#16726401) Homepage
      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.
    • Sounds like the wonderful spiral of economy to me, with it requiring an ever increasing profit.

      Cutting journalist costs sounds like the logical next step to me...

      I guess it's the newspaper variant of reality shows. Have regular people star in your TV shows for minimal payment (often just the winner get anything to speak of) in comparison to the income from very frequent advertising. The next step from having celebrities star in various TV entertainment -- just let regular people do who're often more than pl
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday November 05 2006, @12:27PM (#16726231)
    And if enough Citizen Researchers say so, by golly, we'll have a witch burning! I mean, if the crowd says so, it's got to be true! Also, the crowd can just edit the related entries on Wikipedia and make it true, with footnotes.

    Um... or are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do?
    • Exactly right. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism.
      • "Exactly right. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism."

        How can exercise of First Amendment rights (in the form of amateur journalism) be equated with amateur police?
        • How can exercise of First Amendment rights (in the form of amateur journalism) be equated with amateur police

          The analogy actually isn't too far off the mark. One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government. Without the press, we wouldn't have known about things about Mark Foley hitting on his male interns via IM and we wouldn't know about the scandals involving many others in power, such as Tom Delay.

          Knowledge of thes

          • "One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government."

            Really? Yet, nothing about that is mentioned in the defense of the "free press". Thus, press/speech that criticizes the government is treated no better and no worse than free speech that praises the government. No difference. I actually have seen many people demand censorship of news organizations that they perceive to be pro-government, on the idea that such speech s
          • "I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that"

            Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is.

            "This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process."

            Hard to do a worse job of that than Dan Rather. And he was one of those with journalistic experience and training: prob
            • "Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is."

              Of course there is. There are laws specifically prohibiting certain kinds of speech. Free speech does not entitle you to say anything you like.

              "...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.

              Don't know where you get that idea nor where you get the idea that I co
              • "Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post"

                The knee-jerk use of the term "lie" for something someone disagrees with is a perfect example of why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not.

                "When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, "

                "No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce? Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and viol
      • Feh. First off, were you under the impression that the First Amendment only applies to officially-approved reporters? Or that newspapers have some collection of special powers not among those reserved to the regular population?

        But more to the point, it's not "vigilanism" for "amateur police" to report a crime.

        Assuming you're old enough to vote, kindly don't until you get a clue.
      • Except most newspapers already do this, albeit with the words "allegedly", "supposedly", and "probably" intermixed as at least one-third of the column inches in an article and every questionable line is in quotation marks from an "anonymous source" or an "officer close with the investigation" (etc). Some papers are bigger offenders than others.

        And all of the Gannett newspapers (and broadcast stations) already do this "crowdsourcing", although not so explicitly or as openly as the article details. Many artic
        • "many of which are in tiny markets where they hold near monopolies (as most local newspapers are)."

          Can you identify such markets? Most all that I have checked out have several newspapers, and there is thus no monopoly.
    • "And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources.... and all of that old stodgy professional behavior?"

      The old style media was so >good [cbsnews.com] at that, right?
      • The old style media was so good at that, right?

        Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional. Um, other than being professional political operatives, in that case.
  • Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it.

    And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, government cover-ups, etc) will be spewing their own brand of "information".

    It isn't that the mass of humanity is better equipped to provide this information. It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher.
    • "Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."

      There was never a time that Sturgeon's Law did not apply.

      "It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher."

      Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!

      "And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, govern
      • Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!

        I never said that they were perfect. But for every story like that you can find, I can link to 1,000 nut cases on the 'web.

        So? Welcome to freedom of the press!

        Again, that's for making my point. Freedom of the Press means that the government cannot stop you from printing your fantasies about space aliens. But Democracy requires an informed public. And

        • "And when newspapers stop funding their own research and turn to those space alien conspiracy nut cases for their material, the public is no longer informed."

          But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.
          • But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.

            And you are the perfect example of the flaw in your approach.

            This has EVERYTHING to do with Democracy. It isn't whether any person or group of people considers him/themselves to be "more informed". It matters whether they ARE more informed.

            Democracy depends upon the participation of informed citizens. When you take away that "informed", Democracy fails. That is why every totalita

            • Democracy is about how the people influence government by voting, running for office, or participating in referendums. It is not about whether people argue about space aliens or not.

              Totalitarians crack down on the media because totalitarians are very vain: they don't want anyone to say anything bad about them (whether or not anyone is "informed"). In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone is informed or not.

              Also, there is a huge degree of subjectivity over whether someone is "inform
    • "Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."

      This is slash dot, you're stating the obvious.
  • When I was a kid, we called this being a snitch, and it was the easiest and surest way to make people hate you.
    • When I was a kid, we called this being a snitch,

            Why citizen, how unpatriotic. Don't you understand that criminals are really hurting the children and helping the terrorists win? It is your duty to turn in your fellow citizen to the party for re-education. You're not a terrorist, are you?
    • ...but we adults call this "public service" and praise it. I think it's called something like "moral integrity'.
  • ...the newspapers tried to get away with half-assed research and now they're trying to get away with none at all? Really, will they pay this 'crowd' anything?
    • Really, will they pay this 'crowd' anything?
      If they will do it for free why pay them? If that mean the news gets worse, don't buy that paper. Newspapers these days rely on wire services like AP. However, there are some news papers like the Christian Science Monitor that do their own reporting. People that appreciate that use their services. Is anyone forcing you to read these papers or work for them for free? Whats your problem?
  • 'Cause if they all say it's true, it has to be.

    *snerk*

  • When it comes to crowd-sourcing the main stream media *should* win hands down. Established media, in particular some newspapers, have a better reputation when it comes to protecting sources compared to ISPs, for example.
  • So, with the masses doing your leg work... who needs to pay a smart reporter with contacts and experience?

    And to think, they want to SELL subscriptions to Crowdsourcing publications? Yeah, right...
  • Recently, an organization with the goal of creating a discourse on changing election day has offered to pay people to do their dirty work.

    http://www.getoutthewhy.com/weblog/

    The will pay you $300 to ask a house representative why we vote on Tuesday, and $500 for a senate member or a governor. To get the reward, you must post a video of the transaction on youtube. Its a pretty cool idea.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday November 05 2006, @01:11PM (#16726681) Homepage Journal
    Gannett is also the owner/publisher of the various Military Times [wikipedia.org] newspapers.

    Tomorrow, the day before the US Congressional election, all the Military Times individual papers will publish a rare joint editorial calling for the immediate resignation of Donald Rumsfeld [sfgate.com], the US Defense Secretary. I don't know that those military papers have ever called for a Defense Sect'y to resign before, and surely not the day before an election. That editorial is aligned with its military readers, rather than its Pentagon and military contractor "suppliers" who both support Rumsfeld, and often report to him.

    It looks like Gannett is choosing to plug in directly to its consumers to survive the ongoing shakeout of plummeting newspaper circulation [latimes.com]. The real question about the "revolution" at major newspapers is not whether these Gannett moves are the beginning, but rather whether they're an exit strategy, and whether to victory.
  • There was the famous layoff at Wired News [com.com], where they laid off all the reporters and kept some of the editors.

    Of course, what happened is that press releases took over. Wired Magazine is now a version of the Sharper Image catalog. Who needs reporters? Content is what fills in the space between the ads. And if you just use press releases for that, nobody notices.

  • Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have, I can't see this being a good thing in popular media. The right have their fingers in all the pies right now and you can't move an inch without being blasted with right wing lies and propaganda. The left is being incredibly squelched and this mainly has to do with one thing: right wingers are cunning. Note smart, but cunning. They know how to game the system to their advantage regardless of how small their numbers may trul
    • "Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have"

      Are you really serious? I've seen those on the left whine about right-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot...and I've seen those on the right whine about left-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot. I've also observed much of the modding behavior applied to overtly political comments: it goes equally both ways. Only a "nutjob" could see such bias in Slashdot. I did not brand you as one: your own conspirac
      • Actually no. I wasn't being completely serious with that statement. Too bad you're not smart enough to read between the lines. I was being hyperbolic. Even though there are just as many people on the left who might do moderation or post commentary in response to a story or other commentary, it's never even within a particular article. It all comes down to how much one side or the other cares to react. Sadly, when there SHOULD be a reaction there may not be. As far as "conspiracy theories" go, why don
  • Free labor so newspaper corporations don't have to actually pay for investigative journalism? If I was a CEO of a news corporation, I'd think this was a brillant idea too. It's the equivalent of reality TV for newspapers.

    It's one thing to contribute to a project with an free license that everyone can benefit from. This kind of cooperation might one day save the world.

    I don't see any harm in being in a corpoation run community such as Slashdot and making some off the cuff remarks. It's a kind of social exch
  • They used to call these guys "reporters". They would do this thing called "research", to find a "story" and "blow the whistle" on people who were trying to "screw the public".

    These days though, all the "reporters" are just going after stories that are fed to them by government or corporate press releases, and are totally uninterested in what we used to call "sticking it to the man". So maybe, this is a *good* thing.
  • by edmicman (830206) on Sunday November 05 2006, @03:05PM (#16727681) Homepage Journal
    at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again....
    • You also get the freely shared collaborative effort of other "investigators" who are interested in the same subject or subjects. That's your "pay", the information, access to data, the reason you even go to the newspaper website. That the aggregator-the paper-provides the structure and bandwith and pays for the full time employees is fair enough for them to get the ad revenue, doncha think? Certainly better than having to open a paypal account for every news website out there, IMO.

      People have been tryng to
    • "One kid working a deli got killed by an illegal after he raped her. Parents then protested the daily gathering of 200 plus men a couple blocks from their elementary school. Of course Gannett ran one weepy sob story after another story trying to guilt trip everyone into loving their illegals."

      Why not? The vast majority of them are law-abiding, and are here only to do productive work. If you are really SO concerned about crime, why not demand to deport native-born Americans? Most of the crime is committed
    • "I can handle bias and even the occasional factual errors and omissions, but having laypeople conduct your investigatory journalism for you? The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards"

      Actually, it is more likely that if "the average Joe" had been presented with the fake Bush AWOL story they dealt with, they probably would have done enough fact-checking to see that the evidence was forged. And only the worst idiot would actually have done with Dan Rather did: insist tha
    • this is why blogging does not count as news.

      Thanks for generalizing an entire medium. It's much more mentally taxing to look at it as a case by case basis, having to seperate the excellent 1% from the mediocre and the bad 99%.

      The evening news, as shown on TV, is mostly not news either. Either there are trivial local stories about Aunt Betty's cat stuck in a tree with a nice fireman coming to rescue it, or "stories" originating from a press conference in the whitehouse or some corporate press conference wh

    • This is probably one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard of for the mainstream media.

      Bah! I think it is a great idea! And after we "crowdsource" journalism... I think we should move on to "crowdsourcing" NASA, the FAA, maybe even law enforcement! What about the FDA and CDC? I am sure there are lots of amatuers out there who would love to have a say in important food quality and disease information...

    • Regarding the use of the the standard English word "rechristened," you wrote:

      It's remarkable how much Christian mythology is used in common language. Stop and think before you keep promoting Faith over Reason.

      Right. We should always keep in mind the etymology of every word we use, avoiding any with ascientific roots. In the future, please refrain from using the words "goodbye," "soulful," "Wednesday," "Thursday," well all the days of the week really, maybe the months too, and heck, let's throw in "brea