Mainstream Media To Start "Crowdsourcing"

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?"

Yes.

... Glad that's cleared that up then ...

Next article please.

 

Oh boy

I can't wait to see the newspapers quoting things like "Our top contributer 'I3tospooge' reports..." and "Breaking news from ObiwanMcCartney..."

Tags (beta)

I tried to add "crowdsourcing" to the tags and the "handy" pop-down spellchecker replaced it with "crap" when I hit enter. What gives?

So

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

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.

Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago.

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?

Haven't they read anything on the 'web?

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.

Code of the playground

When I was a kid, we called this being a snitch, and it was the easiest and surest way to make people hate you.

So...

...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?

crowdsourcing=infotainment

'nuff said.

Crowdsourcing?

'Cause if they all say it's true, it has to be.

*snerk*

Newspapers will win

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.

One more way to cut costs.

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...

Heres an cool example

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.

People Powered Military Journalism

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.

This is rediculous

This is probably one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard of for the mainstream media. 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, dealing with too much or just plain unbalanced information, corporate red-herrings, conflicts of interest, fanboyism, private agendas... these are just a few of the reasons news corporations have private, [ideally] independent, eduated staffs of researchers, writers, and editors. And, not coincidentally, this is why blogging does not count as news.

Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago

Gannett already gave up doing its own news for the most part. We have a Gannett paper here and its full of recycled stuff. I read about things online and a week latter it shows up in Gannett as "news".

The "local" section is called "Your World" and it hardly has much local about it. I recently read about workers in Chile in that section. I gave up on it for the most part and never buy it. Most people who get it do so for the high school sports and obits. The rest is agit-prop with boo-hoo sob stories about illegals "suffering" every other day.

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.

Another great story was about the new urban fashion "statement" of wearing 'grills" - the awful metal plates and fishooks kids wear on their front teeth. I think its pretty racist Gannett promotes such buffoonish style as legit. But this is how low they have sunk.

That's why Gannett is doing so poorly. Its McPapper doing McAgitProp with the only "fresh" news about dead people. This latest move is desperate. They gave up journalism a long time ago but pretended to have it with streams of agit-prop.

Wired already did this - laid off all reporters

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.

Not a Good Thing (tm)

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 truly be. The left, on the other hand tend to be people who are more cerebral. They don't game the system to their advantage, they make the mistake of trying to use the system honestly and as it was intended to be. So applying the same kind of approach to big media news is going to result in the very vocal minority of right wingers having even more control and shaping the news to their fantasies, rather than the reality that we actually have to live in. After all... some of us lefties live in the fact based world which is apparently a bad thing.

Add to this the fact that most right wingers don't like to think or persue more in-depth analysis of a topic. They instead prefer a digest that feeds them more "facts" to support their flimsy beliefs. Lefties, on the other hand like to analyze things to death, possibly to the point where their conclusions no longer apply when they're done with the analysis. By the time the left has the real facts and answers, the issue is no longer an issue and it's likely that the "stupids" of America have bought into the fast food "news" that tells them what they want to hear. So again, from this perspective, I expect to see lots of "in-depth" coverage of a story that involves EXTREMELY biased "investigation" by the amateur pundits with an axe to grind. (ie, not much reality based news)

Let's face it everyone. America is lost and severly damaged and it's all thanks to the citizens who don't want to think for themselves and prefer sound bites to dissertations. It's all thanks to the populace getting dumber each year and just THINKING that they're smarter. It's all due to this huge push to keep the average person stupid and happy. After all, what's a few thousand American lives lost in Iraq for a war based on lies, when you're fat stinking American asshole has a big cushiony SUV to sit in and drive anywhere? Who cares if the elections in this country are being rigged to satisfy the needs of the people who REALLY have control (people with lots of money and they really don't care about Democrats or Republicans as long as they can keep making more money) when you can go home after sticking an icepick in your brain, err... pulling the levers for the wrong (ie. Republican) candidates and watch it all in video game fashion with slick graphics as Fox news tells you what's REALLY going on and it jibes with what you think reality is? Who cares if you aren't going to be able to leave or return to the U.S. without the appropriate clearance this coming January and likely for good, when you can watch that stock ticker on you PC and feel like you're some kind of financial maverick which somehow makes you untouchable? Yeah... who cares about anything that matters as long as "number 1" is looking OK?

Finally, as much as many of you assholes will brand me as some liberal or commie "nutjob", let me make something completely clear to you numbnuts on both major sides of the fence (and you whackjobs in the libertarian camp too even though you're stubborn idiots). There are currently two major parties: Republicans and Democrats. The alternate parties will NEVER win anything other than some small seats here and there so they aren't worth discussing unless the voting system changes drastically. But the REAL key here is that there are also voters (that's most of you who are in reality completely powerless as long as you aren't working together) and there are also politicians (that's the jerkoffs who want to control you) of each stripe. So just taking the two major parties (Repugnica

Revolution?

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 exchange.

It is something else entirely to spend time working for a corporation, sharing your expertise and time, that is then claimed as intellectual property of that corporation. It is the height of stupidty and shows you don't value your time.

It's a variation on the old formula used in academic publishing. Researchers employed by universities publish in corporate journals (a priviledge) and those same universities have to pay enormous fees to subscribe to those journals. Sometimes they pay the salaries of editors for these publications and for the time of people involved in peer-review. It's great for the middle man, but it is a rip off for the universities and their faculty - not to mention it actually stifles access to important research.

So, yeah. Let's all run right out and do this shall we?

All I can say is....

Ba Ba Booeey

Why in *my* day...

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.

An early example perhaps

www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

I crowdsourced once....

at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again....

I think they have already had these for years

They are called "freelance writers" and "tipsters."

Too late.

It's too late to turn off the collective [wikipedia.org]. ;)

CNN has been doing this for a while now...

They have regular segments where they check in on the "blogosphere" and iFilm/iReport.

Why do I have a strange feeling that Faux News won't be doing this...

Real fucking journalism...

Great, now JoeBlogger will _really_ have his head all full. Look ma, I'm a reporter!!
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/text_editor.html [what-is-what.com]

Its an attempt to get back online viewers

Newspapers are trying to get back some of their lost audience by allowing "citizen journalism" as corporations call it. They know the future of the newspaper is online, so they need to get people back to visit their website. Fact is unless they really start to tell the news and not censor it, it will never work.

They lost a lot of people and will never get them back, simply because we cannot trust them anymore.

In the meantime I'll stick to indy and underground news sources such as Guerrilla News Network [guerrillanews.com]. They tell the stories the corporate media wont tell and wont let "citizen journalists" report.

Hmmm...

Can you say "GROKLAW"???

Howard Stern invented this...

Long before the Web became World Wide, Howard Stern was sending his armies of listeners to investigate (and harrass) people who offended him.

Of course, it works much better in real time.......

Asking Questions

The world would be a better, and I dare say safer, place if more people starting asking questions.

This relates

This is somewhat related to Microsoft releasing Vista early to let people beta test it for them. FREE BETA TESTERS!

tagline

This post really could have used a better dept phrasing. "God-I-hate-buzzwords" puts it to mockery before anyone even reads the article. Way to go with the Slashdot prejudice that everyone hates us for.

It's a shame, because this is an exceptional article. It could have used a "I-sure-hope-so" dept line, and maybe some positive publicity would be directed at Slashdot when other sites link this story (when they undoubtedly will). This kind of "Slashdot is above all other news sources" thinking is ruining the site, and I'll say it right now.

Distributed

This sounds like Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading.

Every now and then, I log into Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading [pgdp.net]. There, I proofread a couple of scanned pages and then leave it at that for a few weeks. It's not much but that's OK; it's the power of numbers that kicks in.

I believe Jon Stewart

already covered this [youtube.com] phenomenon as CNN tries their hand at it.

Is that a death knoll I hear?

yet another sign of the death of the newspaper. Gannett has been attempting to mine the "local data machine" for a couple years now, stumbling every step of the way. Like most of their "initiatives," it will be too little, far too late. Innovativeness is not their trademark -- as a former webmaster and software engineer for Gannett, I can attest to this. They don't understand the technology, and beyond marketing demographics, they don't understand the general public. They understand margins and budgets, and that's where it ends.

One Gannetteer is quoted by the article as saying the future of journalism will require more programmers than copy editors ... too bad Gannett has never understood technology people, much less the tech itself. It's tech staff are underpaid, and treated very poorly in comparison with newsroom-sitting reporters and editors. Tech staff have, typically, been segregated from the news process, their roles marginalized by an industry that sees the Internet as a necessary evil.

What are you people thinking?

I'm totally confused by the responses I've read to this article. Everyone is immediately jumping to the idea of vigilantism and the corporate newspapers outsourcing their investigations for free. Remember that saying about those willing to give up their freedom for a little percieved safety deserving neither? Well, people who are not willing to be involved with investigations of local government deserve to be financially raped by the same.

I've been a member of a church at several times that was transitioning from one pastor to another. For the non-religious, it can be any club or organization. Doesn't really matter. But when there wasn't a pastor, all the members would step up to the plate, things would get done, and the church did well. Then a new pastor would come in, everyone would say that it's the pastors job (for N number of jobs), and the place would start to fall apart. I've seen music groups do the same thing, and a democracy is no different. When people set back and say its the police/FDA/FCC/newspaper's job to expose corruption, then corruption is never dealt with, because there is always more corruption than any authority can handle.

The summary said that the newspaper got responses from architects and accountants. People with skills and knowledge that no reporter could hope to have. We all complain about reporters being idiots, and then we complain when they ask for help? If I saw something in some source code that didn't look quite right, I would take it to co-workers and ask for input. Why is it wrong for a newspaper to do the same for something in the government that looks suspicious? It is OUR government, after all.

A whistle-blower saw that there was a place to submit information that would possibly do something about the problem. He could call a 1-800 number and then suffer the retribution as the problem being reported is swept under the rug, or he can be a hero for exploding it into the light. Which is more likely to get people to come forward?

Is it vigilantism for people to band together and seek the truth? Where does it say that truth seeking must remain secretive till someone determines that the process is complete? The idea is ludicrous, because it only insures that the powerful know where to go to suppress inconventient truths.

your fee

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 figure out how to do this online thing for a long time, there just *aren't* that many options to pay for all of it. You have ads, or direct pay in some form, that's it. Everytime you can share, whether it is code or news or just learned expertise to answer a question on some help forum, it cuts costs for all of the above, including you, because we all can't be experts at everything, nor can we be all places at the same time to see what is happening. We have to rely on others, and no matter what, there is some expense to an online presence, especially if you are a host of some sort.

Re:Is Gannett a Christian outlet?

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 "breakfast" (only religious extremists fast).

Or... we could just accept that the meanings of words change over time, and not try too hard to read an agenda or conspiracy into the use of common words that can in specific contexts denote a religious ceremony.

Apologies for feeding the troll.