Assignment Zero Tests Pro-Am Journalism 52
Jay Rosen writes "Assignment Zero is a pro-am, open-platform reporting project. The investigation: crowd sourcing and peer production are a social trend growing well beyond tech. Why is this happening? Partners: NewAssignment.Net and Wired.com, with Newsvine. From the Wired essay: 'We're trying to figure something out here. Can large groups of widely scattered people, working together voluntarily on the net, report on something happening in their world right now, and by dividing the work wisely tell the story more completely, while hitting high standards in truth, accuracy and free expression?' Wired.com: 'We want out readers and our sources to be one and the same. We think it will make for better journalism.'"
A higher calling. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes it does [slashdot.org]
Nah, Slashdot is mostly PR pieces... (Score:2, Offtopic)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/23/134 6225 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/ 194245 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/06/193720 0 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:A higher calling. (and cheaper) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is just another blog, full of loudmouths and yappin'.
wikipedia does a pretty good job of this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
How did (and do) you know? Were you there, did you know someone who was there, or did you compare the descriptions after the fact with other sources?
Re: (Score:2)
inquired with the locals on our behalf.
So, yes, I did compare, both during and afterwards and that is what I base my
opinion on.
Even down to the 'these are live events' headers on the page in all it was a
remarkably neutral and cleanly reported event.
Check it out if you feel like, you can view the complete editing history,
then check out http://www.fijilive.com/ [fijilive.com] and http://www.fijitimes.com/ [fijitimes.com] as
well as various international news sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For that matter, even the already mentioned Wiki articles are biased by the views and opinions of the submitters.
I just think it's the nature of the beast of journalism these days. If you truly want to get both sides of a story, you have to read several opposing sources and balance it all out yourself. A good example of this is CNN -vs- Fox News.
Re: (Score:1)
If a reader isn't interested in balancing their view, fifty sources isn't going to help them. Even someone actively and honestly seeking the truth will ignore something sufficiently incompatible with their existing world view.
Me Fail English? That's Unpossible!
Re: (Score:1)
Peer review can do little in either camp.
In terms of truth, it persecuted Copernicus and Galileo.
In terms of reality, it created more work for all.
Stanislaw Lem's infinite story generator would be proud.
Wired has nowhere to go but up (Score:1, Troll)
No kidding. If you've ever been subjected to the "journalism" in Wired, you know they have nowhere to go but up. Whatever helps Wired, whether its "crowd sources" or monkeys and typewriters, is OK by me.
Balance of professional and amateur talent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Precedent: "stringers" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Balance of professional and amateur talent? (Score:4, Insightful)
The more important question to ask is whether these reporters will have the same rights and expectations as the pros? If one of these volunteers is sued or arrested will "Wired" stand by them, organize - and pay for - an effective defense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Someone gets carpal tunnel, no Worker's Comp!
Wired mounts every new tech show pony (Score:1)
Bandwagons will get you to next
Re: (Score:2)
When Wired's first issue came out, it was described as "Playboy for geeks." Goes right in line with what you said.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the self esteem cults. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because most people, honestly, do not know that they're not very good at most everything. People don't have the critical thinking skills to separate quality work (say, reporting/editorial work) from amateurishness, and so they fancy themselves just as able to do anything that an experienced professional can do, if the subject matter is interesting to them. This is bolstered, these days, by 'reality' TV shows that make celebrities out of addled-brained twits, and by grade school warm-and-fuzziness that goes to great lengths to proclaim everyone a star at everything, regardless of actual merit, capacity, charm, motivation, DNA, or hard work.
Collaborative "reporting" attracts only those people that have some vested interest or an axe to grind. That vested interest distorts most people's sense of whether their own opinion is valid or objective, and makes their contributions highly suspect (in terms of actual journalism). Someone truly objective is practicing a true skill/profession, and if they're any good at it, they're usually going to be looking for an actual job at it. And what makes someone who IS a professional journalist skip on over to a collaborative arena, for no pay, to work on some other material? Personal vested interest in that topic area, and the resulting lack of objectivity on that particular topic.
So, you've got either serious, capable people who are good journalists, and capable communicators/researchers who are off on a project that isn't part of their career, per se... or, you've got what amounts to activists and fan boys who are solely motivated by the outcome of the reporting, usually as characterized by a glorious dollup of spin... or, you've got people who think they've got more to offer on this front than they really do, and get social validation from having their hands in it - and everyone's too politically correct to tell them that they're really not very good at it, actually. And since operations like Wired are really just looking to build more brand loyalty and eyeballs on their site, of course they're going to position this get-other-people-to-do-the-work effort as being a vital, fresh, hip, we're-really-all-journalists shrine to Web 2.0. Balls, I say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because someone who is intimate with the subject and has a personal interest in how it is spun will be handling it differently than someone who must get to know something about it in order to write about it, but who is not writing because of a specific agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that it's because that one news source doesn't have the basic information, then you definitely need to turn to more sources. To the extent that they do have the information, and are deliberately spinning it (as in your good example of war coverage), then I would argue that those people should not be considered professional journalists, but rather activists. And yes, most of the people with the airtime are just that, yo
Re:It's the self esteem cults. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying that collaborative journalism is bound to succeed, or even likely to succeed, but dismissing it as you do seems pretty blinkered.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you refer to someone who is NOT these things as a professional? Being in the mainstream media and being honest are not the same thing. Have a journalist's credentials and access do not equate to having integrity.
the Fiji coup attempt on Wikipedia was covered about as quickly and accurately as on regular news outlets
Doesn't matter how well an unusual event's coverage is enhanced by popular contributions. In a difficult spot, or one that doesn't have the infrastru
Re: (Score:1)
Because most people, honestly, do not know that they're not very good at most everything. People don't have the critical thinking skills to separate quality work (say, reporting/editorial work) from amateurishness, and so they fancy themselves just as able to do anything that an experienced professional can do, if the subject matter is interesting to them. This is bolstered, these days, by 'reality' TV shows that make celebrities out of addled-brained twits, and by grade school warm-and-fuzziness that goes to great lengths to proclaim everyone a star at everything, regardless of actual merit, capacity, charm, motivation, DNA, or hard work.
Collaborative "reporting" attracts only those people that have some vested interest or an axe to grind. That vested interest distorts most people's sense of whether their own opinion is valid or objective, and makes their contributions highly suspect (in terms of actual journalism). Someone truly objective is practicing a true skill/profession, and if they're any good at it, they're usually going to be looking for an actual job at it. And what makes someone who IS a professional journalist skip on over to a collaborative arena, for no pay, to work on some other material? Personal vested interest in that topic area, and the resulting lack of objectivity on that particular topic.
So, you've got either serious, capable people who are good journalists, and capable communicators/researchers who are off on a project that isn't part of their career, per se... or, you've got what amounts to activists and fan boys who are solely motivated by the outcome of the reporting, usually as characterized by a glorious dollup of spin... or, you've got people who think they've got more to offer on this front than they really do, and get social validation from having their hands in it - and everyone's too politically correct to tell them that they're really not very good at it, actually. And since operations like Wired are really just looking to build more brand loyalty and eyeballs on their site, of course they're going to position this get-other-people-to-do-the-work effort as being a vital, fresh, hip, we're-really-all-journalists shrine to Web 2.0. Balls, I say.
You're kidding right? You honestly think the only good journalists are the ones that get paid? That your average joe on the street is so corrupt, and so stupid, that he cannot tell a story straight?
Maybe you got things mixed up, because I could swear current media corporations do the very thing you say only joeblow reporters would be capable of. Agenda? Check. Spinning the facts? Check. Too politically correct? Check.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think that someone who actually has the communications, research, and social skills to be an actually good journalist, and wants to devote a full week of their waking hours to that activity, pretty much has to make it a paying career so that they can eat and whatnot. There are plenty of dumb, idealogically motivated, lazy, and other-bad-things people paid to write/produce "news"-ish material. You'll notice I didn't describe the
Re: (Score:2)
So...WikiNews? (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page [wikinews.org]
Reputation (Score:4, Interesting)
Though the anonymity of the net blows up the problem of whether a source can be deemed credible or not it is not unique to the net. If a 'meatspace' reporter screwes up his face will be associated with that screw-up. (Likewise a screen name will become stigmatized.) A good reporter, though, will consistently supply good stories, so his reputation rises and he becomes more popular.
The same should hold true in cyberspace. A color code could be used to indicate the credibility of the author of that particular entry and s/he will get bumped up on the credibility scale as soon as his information can be verified as authentic. This way freelance jounalists could even remain anonymous and use unverifiable/secret sources - as long as they consistently provide truthful stories they get bumped up; in time more people will read them (and check) and in turn everybody will be better informed.
I really hope this sort of alternative independent media becomes mainstream one day, but I fear that many governments will make them illegal to use because of "national security"(tm) reasons.
Its all about Timing (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue here is timing. If you want events as they are unfolding to be reported accurately you can do it in an open source format, but if you want them to be in "CNN" realtime, you can't rely on a non-paid community to take the time whenever it is required. They will do it, but that evening, or the next day when they are online. Even with "always on" internet connections, your coverage of events will still have a time lag in most instances.
We need to pay people who will be both neutral, and available at a moment's notice, if we want a reliable news source. If we had a major news outlet, such as CNN or NYT online (or a new one), paying for up to date information with attached mobile phone photos, then we might be getting closer to a freelance/opportunistic approach to a paid open-source news outlet. But we would still have a problem with reliability and neutrality. That would be hard to solve without a large number of entries which you could "average" into a story.
wIrEd (Score:2)
Too bad they didn't have this for Wired Magazine in the 1990s. It would have been fun to write in 17 different fluorescent-colored fonts per page.
I know that this was done in the tech area but.... (Score:2)
In a community news site, there will be a core few who actually do a lot of the work.
At the end of the day, yep, if there is enough there it will probably take off, but there will be a few people who do
This sounds awfully familiar... (Score:1)
Built using Drupal (Score:2)
missed the obvious? (Score:1)
Not the same standard journalists are held to (Score:2)
Crowdsourcing journalism vs. editorial tasks (Score:2)