Media observer offers 'powers-ful' advice to 'citizen journalists'

Interesting. A proffesional journalist telling a new media how news should best be gathered, reported and disseminated. Are these the same folk who rely heavily on wire services, engage in pack journalism, subscribe to the journalistic "gate-keeper" theory, and mostly wouldn't know how to put together an investigative piece if it came to them gift-wrapped? They fail to realize the scope of dissolutionment with the traditional media in how and what they report, and to what degree. People are increasingly turning them off or not reading them, simply because they have lost their way and their credibility - things very important to news coverage. Do they think that simply because the technology for the citizen journalist has arrived, people can't decide for themselves what is content? So many stories from the traditional media that are international, national and local in scope go unreported due to lack of time and resources and the convenience of wire services. There is an ever shrinking presence of "feet on the ground" in the mainstream media.

Sure, citizen journalism might be filled with some extraneous reporting, right now. But this is also true of the disco reporting of the mainstream media. Paff & crap. But look down the road and you will see that people, not news corporations beholden to different commercial interests, will eventually control the content they WANT to see and read. It's in its infancy and the mainstream media should be scared as it grows and improves.

Interesting question. Does this media "have" to pay for itself or does it "have" to become profitable? Any specific business goals in mind? The traditional route to these things on a web-based platform is through advertising by those excited by the hit-rates. The problem becomes that advertising eventually dominates any media and content becomes beholden through reliance on those who advertise. Eventually you see little criticism of the likes of GM, Dow & even Time-Warner when a medium gets too big. The most successful media outlets tend to either be privately owned and funded or are semi-public. Broadcasters like the CBC, BBC and PBS often have more depth of content because they are mandated to provide a public service, and are not soley controlled by commercial interests. Advertising does pay some of their freight for new program development, but often takes the form of sponsorship in one way or another.

This media has low overhead already & by nature does not rely on paid staff for contributions. The reach is tremendous for readership and contributions. I imagine limited advertising would work - but in a controlled and structured fashion that doesn't let ads dominate over the content. Let companies sponsor sections of news perhaps, according to international all the way down to regional. Secure public funding as well from existing programs that promote arts, culture, literacy, news, etc. Establish aboard of governors to oversee the business aspects of the media, on strict guidelines that they regulate business only and not editorial decisions. The traditional news media is becoming more aware of this mode of reporting and often have their own people monitoring it and reporting on it. Do they pay a dime for it, like they would a wire service? Not likely. Strike a deal, leveraging the shear numbers of feet on the ground all over the world who are on the scene, offering a different perspective from the journalistic pack or official government sources. Leverage the strength.

Whatever model takes shape, make sure that it is not an IPO to publically traded commercial company beholden to the profit expectations of shraeholders. As I have said, the idea is to have a big point of differentiation from traditional media with a totally unique selling proposition. Always remember that this is what will make it successful in the first place. Its a big world with lots of voices, and we are tired of getting served the official line through the media - no questions asked. I read apiece today by some Time Mag reporter who thinks the public should share the blame for accepting the Iraq War. Given that the government wasn't exactly telling the truth and the media wasn't questioning it (oh ya, they just report the "facts" - without follow-up or further investigation), what do they expect the public to believe without alternative sources and viewpoints? It's a shame the media can't own up to the fact that it was they who didn't do their job, and leave it at that.