Comments on: 3 Steps to Building a Distributed News Organization

By: Kalthras

Kalthras — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:22:30 +0000

Ok, so making the incoming data public and showing people what data has been checked and which hasn't been checked. producing stories based on checked info is indeed what journalists do, so if I understand you correctly the only real change would be two-fold, showing people what the raw data is and how the journalist processed it.
I have to say, that sounds pretty neat :)

By: Brad_King

Brad_King — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:58:15 +0000

well I hope you don't think I am not. I have been a journalist since 1994.

Here's what I would suggest to you. This data feed exists whether journalists want to acknowledge it or not. My contention is that by not pretending it doesn't – but bringing it into the newspaper (for example, by setting up search and filter terms that pull streams to the site) and then adding a context layer to it later (e.g. stories) that point into the stream, pull out the checked information — you have actually done a more accurate job of reporting than if you don't.

I think the aversion to this (not our conversation, but the move to data-driven journalism) is more psychological than physical. Because we do this every day anyway.

By: Kalthras

Kalthras — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:51:52 +0000

If I seem to have made up my mind in advance I apologize. This might be because I am deeply concerned with the quality of journalism on the internet. I agree that setting information within it's context will give readers a good grip to make up their own mind.
However, I think that a reporter will need time to judge the value of data. My biggest fear of a continuous data feed is the lack of time to do so. Of course mistakes are made and will be made all the time, how to minimize this is something I've been pondering for a while. Can't seem to find another answer then time to verify. I'm straying off-topic though, so I'll conclude with saying that I do agree with the idea of presenting news in a way that it's bundled into different subjects and categories. Refining those would definitely offer more chances for specialized journalists to use their knowledge and thus enhance the quality of reporting.

By: Brad_King

Brad_King — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:28:10 +0000

Actually it seems like you have made up your mind about this before you read my comment as I think I addressed the concern. If we begin to look at data and information differently (because they are – one is without context and one is with), and we label them as such – we see that they have different uses and expectations.

We see this all the time with data, just not in journalism.

Oh, and journalists make mistakes all the time. Every day. So your premise that there is a way to NEVER make a mistake with anything is flawed. You have set up a scenario that is both impossible to achieve and doesn't exist currently.

By: Kalthras

Kalthras — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:55:13 +0000

Being transparent won't prevent mistakes, it sounds more like shifting responsability from the editor to the reader. A “legal loophole” instead of solving the problem.

By: Brad_King

Brad_King — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:30:43 +0000

Hello Jonathan:

Thanks for reading. I think that's an interesting way to approach journalism. Certainly one that is used at BOINC (the place where SETI and the Genome were broken). Breaking down tasks — finding ways to fill in gaps and information in specific ways — re-integrate them together.

By: Brad_King

Brad_King — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:29:14 +0000

Hey Wilfred:

Thanks for reading. Let me start by saying that your point is a good one, but I believe it rests on a premise that we can never make a mistake. In fact, real-time information will be wrong at times.

The key, I think, is clearly marking areas. Streams, for instance; moderated data; contextualized data. If you are clear to your readers What is What -- my sense is you have eliminated the problem.

In other words, be transparent (a buzz word I dislike) -- and make sure the data stream is useful (e.g. provide tools for readers to parse through information).

By: Kalthras

Kalthras — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:25:03 +0000

My question here is the following; How do you create time for fact-checking if your sitting upon a continuous data-feed? It could easily happen that editors let false information slip through onto your main “news page”. It might even be conceivable that some true data might prove so incredulous that editors will dissmiss it without having time to investigate properly, since the next 50 messages have already arrived within the timespan they needed to read, judge and categorize the data.
Sincerely yours,
Wilfred Raterink
The Netherlands

By: Jonathan Stray

Jonathan Stray — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:43:12 +0000

Enjoyed this, and I think there's a lot of insight here.

You may be interested in another theoretical exploration, where I try to understand how to divide work between the newsroom and the community by breaking down the journalistic task into its component pieces.

It's an orthogonal approach but I come to similar conclusions in terms of the type of software needed.

http://jonathanstray.com/social-journalism

By: wristbands

wristbands — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:34:45 +0000

This 3 step is the best way to create an organization. Have you try wear a wristband in your organization?