Readers As Collaborators: How the Internet Is Changing Journalism For the Better

by: davidsirota

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM MDT

The basic point is that while newspapers and magazines pride themselves on (supposedly) only publishing perfected and finalized articles, online publishers are more interested in publishing less-than-perfect pieces, which then are later perfected with the help of readers:

To quote Gawker founder Nick Denton, when we put up "half-baked posts" we are saying to our public: Here's what we know, here's what we don't know, what do you know. I believe it is critical to clearly label that, giving caveats and context...This is journalism as beta. I make a big point of that in What Would Google Do? - that every time Google releases a beta, it is saying that the product is incomplete and imperfect. That is inevitably a call to collaborate. It is - even from Google - a statement of humanity and humility: We're not perfect.

Of course, traditional newspapers/magazines would argue that there's a fine line between publishing something credible but that's just not-yet finalized, and publishing something that's not credible and is just a hit-attracting headline - and newspapers/magazines would further argue that online publishers too often do the latter and not the former.

I don't think that's actually true - but even if it occasionally is (think Drudge Report), just because some bad actors do bad things, doesn't mean there's no value in beta journalism. Indeed, if the Internet can make journalism more collaborative - if it can bring together professional journalists and readers, and use readers not just as consumers but as participants - then that's a great thing.