On transparency: part 4
All right, this is it for the transparency series for a while, but I needed to clear my system before I could get to some other topics.
The other day, Newsmaven made another point worth repeating. In the context of an ongoing story, transparency takes on a new significance:
In this model where facts are added to event and issue topic pages which are continually augmented, corrected and edited in a Wikipedia-like database, there is no single point where the ’story’ is finished and published, so you can’t define a point where the process is ready to be revealed. The process is open, and part of the ongoing story.
In today’s world, once a story is published, criticisms from readers can draw only one of two responses: defense or apology.1 But if we reinvent a story as something dynamic and evolving, sharing our work and inviting comment offers us an opportunity to constantly improve it. Not just to “get it right,” but to constantly get it more right.2
When I wrote about the idea of a separation of powers in journalism, I had in mind this notion of a transparent newsroom, where the acts of gathering and filtering information are actually outputs of the process of journalism, not just components. I finished that post by asking what news might look like if we published more of the raw materials of the process — interview transcripts, raw video, and things like that. Let me broaden that a bit to say we should air not just our materials but our methods.
- Don’t get me wrong, we learn lessons from these criticisms as well, but I’m purposely discounting our promises to do better next time. [↩]
- My friend Rex had a great idea that never came to fruition while he was working at MSNBC. He was toying with the idea of placing a slider at the top of every news story, to allow users to see the history of revisions on each story. As you pulled the slider from left to right, you could see how the story evolved over time, as new facts were added and old ones removed or deemphasized. One day we’ll see this idea in action. [↩]
Related posts:
- On transparency: part 1 I’ve been mum for the past week because I’ve been...
- On transparency: part 2 I was all set to jump in and make some...
- On transparency: part 3 Or, How Wikipedia talk pages are like newsrooms. As Newsmaven’s...
What are some actually realized examples of this from traditional news organizations? What lessons do they teach?
One example I can think of is the (in)famous May 2007 WSJ editorial board meeting on the immigration bill. Pretty much blew open the doors on that story among different factions on the right — quite possibly changed the course of the party and the election.
Tim
24 Oct 08 at 3:05 pm
The first prominent example was probably this one, where Slashdotters managed to completely reshape an article on cyberterrorism before it ran in Jane’s Intelligence Review magazine. (Recounted here.)
The WikiScanner didn’t start as a big-media project, but it turned into a big story after Wired pointed its readers there and asked them to point out conflict-of-interest edits.
For a while now, beat-specific bloggers at news organizations have realized the power of tapping into their commenting audiences. Jay Rosen’s been leading the effort to make this a more formal part of the reporter-blogger dynamic.
Matt
24 Oct 08 at 4:07 pm