The new world of open journalism
The Guardian newsroom is trying to turn the journalistic model on its head, allowing its audience to help contribute to the production of news stories.
It means, mainly, that reporters keep readers informed at every step along the way – usually over Twitter – as they develop stories.*
* See the Guardian’s Open Journalism section, which tells people how to get involved in the news process
It also means that every morning the paper posts its news list, that traditionally secret inventory of stories it’s working on for the following day’s paper. So if a reader has information that might help advance a story, they know how to pass it on. On Wednesday, the paper was working on a story about payday loans, and asked readers to fill out a confidential form on its website with details of their own payday loans.
This is tough. Most journalists believe secrets are the currency of their trade. In some newsrooms, reporters don’t even share information with their colleagues.
Many newspapers are gently experimenting with open journalism, but The Guardian has made it the house religion. Last week, it also sought to make open journalism a central part of its brand, with a flashy two-minute TV ad that reimagined the Three Little Pigs fable as a contemporary news story that develops with the help of social media.
The Globe story notes the Guardian’s success with crowdsourcing in the British MPs’ expenses scandal, but adds that the phone-hacking stories initially targeting the Rupert Murdoch-owned News of the World was strictly old-skool reportage.
Along with asking for help on reportage or telling you how the news is going, the Guardian is open to you helping distribute its content. It’s too exhaustive to describe, but check out the Open Platform section.
J-Source recently ran two articles on this:
- March 2 – Guardian’s Open Journalism approach to collaboration goes beyond Canadian experience
- March 4 – Time to give up on newspapers, says MacPhail
I’ll try to address points raised in them later.
Responding to the J-Source articles
A point ignored by both Rob Washburn and Wayne MacPhail, who authored the above articles, is that the Guardian is operated as a trust. It doesn’t have to make a profit.
More to the point, its losses are subsidized.
As I’ve long argued, if all one has to do is spend money and not make any, you can operate one hell of a website.
Washburn concluded with the following:
Journalism in the 20th century was based mainly on models where a journalist’s job was to inform, explain and interpret. It has changed. For now and in the future, a journalist should educate, engage and empower people, just as the Guardian has chosen to do.
But what about the money that for-profit businesses must make in order to survive? Washburn didn’t address the issue of whether this open journalism model will lead to greater profitability for news organizations.
MacPhail had this to say:
And, while I’m heartened to see Open Journalism principles being adopted by The Guardian, it is as much an industry outlier as a banker who shows up to work in cargo pants and Tommy Bahamas prints.
So, I’ve given up on newspapers. Back in the days when I worked in newsrooms, and later, when I spoke about what was coming, I cared about newspapers a lot. I loved them. I don’t love them anymore. If I’m honest, I don’t even much care for them. I love great stories, I love good long form journalism. I’m seeing that work come from elsewhere now, a science journalism startup MATTER being a recent, Kickstarter-funded example. I backed MATTER with my own money. I bet on it. With the exception of the Guardian, there’s no other paper I’d do the same for right now. And I’m sorry, newspapers, but it’s not me, it’s you.
MacPhail doesn’t much like the mainstream media at the best of times (the left-lib Guardian is probably the English-language title closest to his personal leanings). However, in some ways, his frustration with the slow pace of change is quite justified.
But if one’s newspaper is still profitable, that buys time in shifting the business model. What MacPhail in particular seems to be saying is that economically and creatively, every paper should be like the Guardian.
Unfortunately, the Guardian, for all the innovative things it does, does not make money. If it can solve that problem and show how its innovations can lead to to economically sustainable journalism, it will be a much better model for the profit-driven side of the industry to follow.
Hi Bill:
Thanks for your thoughts. I’m not certain that The Guardian is alone among newspapers that are not making money, not making enough money for its shareholders or losing print revenues faster than digital gains. A lot of papers are in the same boat. The Guardian, at least, is jumping feet first into a digital future. That’s superior I think to a grumpy, grudging attitude exhibited by a lot of papers. Not sure what you’re arguing for here. Better that the Guardian didn’t adopt an Open Journalism stance? Or, since it doesn’t have to make money it can do it blithely? I get the sense, on the contrary, the shift was made out of urgency and with due consideration. I wish the same fire was lit under the butts of other publishers.
Hi Wayne:
Thanks for stopping by.
I guess my tone was prompted by a belief that many journalists sigh and say to themselves, “Why can’t we be more like the Guardian?”
Economic structure is part of the reason why, one that doesn’t get mentioned in these debates.
The Guardian isn’t alone in facing economic troubles. The shrinkage in U.S. newspaper revenues is astounding.
I’m not sure if the situation in Canada is as dire. Maybe we have better-run papers or that our time of reckoning isn’t fully here yet. That being said, major papers such as La Presse and the Toronto Star have suffered serious cuts; how much of that is recession-driven vs. structural is something I can’t say.
In any event, I would agree the future is digital. It’s a question of how best to get there, meaning with the least pain. You could be right that many newspaper companies have been too slow and conservative.
I remember suggesting to a Toronto Star person that its online classified should be beefed up. “Why?” he asked. Well, because you charge money while Craigslist is free, and Craigslist is better.
During his speech in Toronto, Digital First Media CEO John Paton blasted, as he put it, lousy newspaper executives who have done more to harm the industry than anything the Internet has wrought.
I’m supportive of open journalism. I just think that a trust newspaper has more room for experimentation — and that fact should be noted.
Your explanation that the move is borne of urgency might be more valid, but I would note you can be closed and digital (look at Apple).
In any event, thanks for the opportunity to converse on this.
Bill D.