Newsless.org

I just finished giving a talk about my research for the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. Here’s the talk:

Free video streaming by Ustream

And here’s the slideshow, if you’d like to follow along:

Since I’m all about transparency, my notes for the talk are after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

This isn’t really about context or journalism. I spent a couple hours after Obama’s victory speech grabbing full screenshots of a bunch of websites. My little piece of history.

The past week has been a hectic one, between being a good host, polishing off a News Challenge grant application, attending a daylong symposium on CMSes led by these folks, feverishly refreshing my “election ‘08 rock stars” folder in Google Reader, and spending much of yesterday brainstorming about news site structure with my fellow Fellow Jane Stevens.

More consensus, by way of Newsmaven and Journerdism:

• Paul Gillin’s on board: “In the old days, publishing was the end of a process; today, it’s the beginning. Once a story is published, it’s subject to enhancement, analysis, commentary and updates. Journalists need to be ready for the likelihood that they may be called upon to revise and develop a story long after it’s been published. It’s the Wikipedia model gone mainstream. Stories never die as long as there’s some who’s still interested in them.”
• Google’s Marissa Mayer is on board: She echoes what Google senior adviser Richard Gingras had said about the article becoming the atomic unit of news consumption. My quibbles with that contention persist.

The Christian Science Monitor, now in training to become a newsmagazine, sounds like it’s not fully on board yet, but it’s beginning the pre-boarding process:

[CSM editor John] Yemma said he sees planning some of the pieces for the weekly in a way that helps create topics pages for the Web site. For instance, the prototype of the new magazine has a cover story called the “Putin Generation.” That piece would eventually slide onto the topics page of CSMonitor.com for Russia.

“In a sense, the magazine helps us kind of create, over time, a sort of Monitor encyclopedia of the world that will be a living encyclopedia,” he said. “The web is about relatively short, relatively fast updates. The magazine is more in-depth and the two work together on the Web.”

Happy Halloween, Newsless readers. I’ll be dressing up as Jeremiah Wright tonight.

Got a fun email this morning, pointing out that nowhere in my research proposal do I mention “readers,” “ethics,” or “integrity.” All true.

Search this blog, and you’ll discover that I tend to eschew “readers” in favor of words like “community,” “users” and (occasionally) “audience,” words that I hope convey a slightly different or more intense form of engagement. This murkiness of language might reflect the fact that the notion of the “audience” is suffering from a mild 1991 problem of its own.

And while both “ethics” and “integrity” are under-used here, I do try to emphasize “values” and “standards.” More on that in a moment.

You can’t tell from my blogging, but I’ve gotten rather sensitive about the word “Wikipedia.”

Earlier this year, after I’d written my research proposal, I was casting about for a title to communicate the core concept I hoped to pursue. I recalled a whitepaper by Shayne Bowman, Ellen Kampinsky and Chris Willis called “Amazon-ing the News,” which I thought snappily conveyed what they were about. Just before sending it off to the folks at Reynolds, I slapped on the title “Wikipedia-ing the News,” with a little note-to-self to think of something better.

So now, every time my project gets introduced, the word “Wikipedia” is thrust into an expectant void, and opinions are formed before I say the first word about my research. Thus, as I mentioned, I’m a teensy bit sensitive. But it’s probably time to confront the W-bomb head-on.

When I mention Wikipedia, my listener’s full attention turns automatically to the “wiki” part. It’s editable by anyone. All of the tricky issues inherent in the public, anonymous provenance of the site’s information come rushing to mind before we even get to the “pedia” suffix. But that suffix is where my fascinations — and my research questions — begin.

Let’s get the wikinoia out of the way. The news site I’m theorizing will be completely agnostic as to who creates the content. You could make a version of this news site where all content comes from (1) a newsroom of professional reporters and editors, (2) a nebulous and voluntary set of “citizens from the community,” (3) a hybrid of professional journalists and community contributors (more on that much later), or (4) Maureen Dowd. I don’t care. (OK, except for 4, which would be a travesty. I do not in any way authorize the use of my ideas to further MoDo’s influence on the world.)

As I mentioned in my last post, “encyclopedia” is too small and ancient a word to describe Wikipedia. The site has no predecessor for how it organizes archival and contextual information while accommodating breaking news, how it shepherds dozens of competing voices towards consensus, how it manages to make information more valuable over time rather than less, how it incorporates communities, how it became t_{he most search-engine-optimized site on the Web} …

The site has no predecessor, period. There’s a ton for news sites to learn from it. And there are many questions to address for how to translate what we learn to a journalism context. It’s not the only inspiration or example I’ll draw on for this project, but it’s a big one.

Or: The 1991 problem

As I sort-of argue in my research proposal, Wikipedia isn’t an encyclopedia, but that’s the best word we’ve got. (Actually I called it a “useful shorthand,” but I meant that to be backhanded.) Given its unbound, dynamic, hyperlinked nature, we just don’t have the vocabulary to really describe what Wikipedia is, so we use the word encyclopedia as a familiar point of reference.

Call it the 1991 Problem. We’re still stuck with the language of 1991 while discussing the technologies of 2008.

Imagine yourself trying to describe an iPhone to an average Joe from 1991. By calling it a phone, you instantly constrain the fellow’s sense of what you’re describing. “Well, yes, it’s a telephone. But it doesn’t have any wires and you can use it from anywhere. Also, the whole thing is a computer that you operate by touching the screen. And it’s sort of a hyper-charged Walkman, too. Oh, and it can tell you where you are on a map, and which of your friends are nearby, and where the nearest pizza place is. And don’t get me started on visual voicemail …”

The iPhone is to the telephone what Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia.

en · cy · clo · pe · di · a [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] - noun - 1) a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

When we say “encyclopedia,” that’s (^) what’s running through the head of Joe from 1991. Wikipedia encompasses a compendium of fantastically diverse pages, some of which are merely collections of links to other pages, each of which features a thoughtful conversation about the material included or excluded from the page. It’s a set of procedures for organizing vast and diverse subsets of information. It’s a sizeable and devoted community. It’s a Web application. “Encyclopedia” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I want there to be a 1991 problem for news. I want to make a news site so novel and amazing Joe wouldn’t even know what hit him.

In case my research proposal’s too long for you, try this on for size:

I want to shift the focus of news websites from telling audiences what happened recently to telling them what’s happening. I intend to prototype a news website where the latest developments are fed into a living archive of information on a topic, making it easy to get the background and context as well as the current status of a story, rather than posting updates as ephemeral, disconnected articles that fade quickly in relevance.

For some time now, I’ve been thinking and writing about many of the topics I intend to blog about. Here’s a little chronologically-ordered trip through some of my past writings.

• Journalists are so weird (7/04): In which I first implicitly express my disdain for our obsessive focus on breaking news, no matter how trivial.
• Who is a journalist? (3/05): “It’s journalism, not journalists, we should be struggling to protect. I think we sometimes lose that distinction.”
• ErrorPedia (4/05): In which I establish my fascination with Wikipedia, while proposing an interesting-if-problematic model for corrections on the Web.
• The era of slow news (7/05): “The Internet is slowing the news cycle down. Way down. It’s so slow, it’s turning the clock backwards.”
• Three rants on Rick (Part I) & Part II (11/05): Some snarky thoughts on citizen journalism, into which I also smuggle a mention of Wikipedia.
• ‘Pedia still astonishingly awesome (12/05): In which I yet again sing the praises of Wikipedia, including many comparisons to the newspaper. Don’t miss the comments.
• The press’ new paradigm (4/06): In which I discuss Watergate, Enron, and the transition from information scarcity to info overload. (One of Jason Kottke’s favorite links of 2006!)
• The intelligence pyramid (12/06): In which the Snarkmarket commenters and I explore the nature of truth.
• The attention deficit - the need for timeless journalism (8/07): In which I deliver my second major broadside against “the tyranny of recency.”
• Newspaper eulogy - a footnote (6/08): “There’s a lot I won’t miss about The Newspaper. And what I would miss, I firmly believe society can sustain. But to begin to figure out how, we’ve got to move beyond the conversation about rescuing The Newspaper, or saving Journalism, and talk specifically about what really matters.”

Before I get too carried away, I should let you guys in on what I’ll be exploring during my year at the Reynolds Institute, so you can grok my frame of mind. This is my proposal as written, sent to the good folks at Reynolds on 2/28/08.

Wikipedia-ing the News¹

Five years ago, blogger Dave Winer and New York Times executive Martin Nisenholtz made a bet. “In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 02007,” Winer wagered, “weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times Web site.”

When it came time to judge the bet, blogs outranked the Times on four out of the five chosen stories, making Winer the winner. But the real news out of the bet was the site that trounced them both — Wikipedia.

In all that’s been written about Wikipedia, we tend to hear an emphasis on the same few details — the stupefying economics of its army of unpaid volunteers; the amazing order that has arisen out of its chaotic, ad hoc editing processes; hand-wringing over whether the resource is essentially trustworthy or not. But what fascinates me most about the site is its innovative, Web-native structure. “Encyclopedia” is a useful shorthand for describing what Wikipedia aims to do, but that label fails to capture the full reality of what Wikipedia can do. As the New York Times noted last year, the Web site works astonishingly well as a hub for news. In fact, I think it points the way forward for what our news sites should become, and that is what I propose to explore and prototype in a fellowship at the Reynolds Institute.

The online news sites of today remain hobbled by a framework inherited from their forbears. Almost every news site, whether affiliated with a radio outlet, a television station, a newspaper, or none of these, is structured around this one context — the most recent mix of interesting stories selected by editors. Yet users, especially those of geographically focused news sites, approach these sites with a dizzying variety of contexts in mind. What’s happening to my neighborhood? Who won last night’s game? How do I identify and contact my congressional representatives? What’s traffic like on the way to work? Who should I call to fix my faucet? In many of today’s online newsrooms, copious energy is expended addressing each of these contexts, usually one by one in near isolation.

I’m not the only one thinking along these lines. The American Press Institute’s February 2008 report “Making the Leap Beyond ‘Newspaper Companies’” posits the creation of a “localpedia” modeled after Wikipedia. And from my vantage point having worked in online newsrooms and spoken with leaders across the industry at conferences, I have a strong hunch that this idea is the embodiment of what we ultimately hope to create. But in newspapers, at least, we have been working backwards, slowly trying to extend our context of “daily news” into a context that is both timelier and more timeless.

To paint a broad picture: Imagine if the work of the hundreds of reporters dispatched daily to cover a city didn’t merely fade into an obscure archive, but added day after day to the work that came before it. An online news site in the era of Wikipedia would be a living archive, adaptable to suit any context, growing to encompass all aspects of life in a community. Entries would be deeply and meaningfully interlinked to other entries, elegantly situating every news event in multiple larger contexts. The “latest news” on the site could be a kind of changelog, reflecting new additions or edits in the system. The site would be a news commons atop which other narrative presentations of the news — stories, blogs, videos, games — could sit.

In a year at the Reynolds Institute, I would work to fill in the details of this sketch and explore several pathways for how we could get from here to there. This vision of the news presents much to investigate. Among the avenues of inquiry I would likely pursue in a fellowship:

• Workflow and organization: At the Star Tribune, I was the leader of a project to develop an internal taxonomy to categorize all the organization’s content and advertising. So I have a head start in thinking about how I would organize and populate a site that aimed to be the comprehensive information source for a region.
• Presentation: One of the deliverables I would intend to create as part of this fellowship is a prototype of the news site in action, ideally in partnership with students or faculty from the university’s visual journalism program. I’d also explore how such a site could adapt to the increasingly distributed nature of the Web, where information exists not only in Web browsers, but also in RSS readers, mobile phones, “widgets” embedded in other Web sites, and elsewhere.
• Social experience and user interaction: The largest project I have helmed during my time at the Star Tribune has been the creation of the award-winning arts-and-entertainment website Vita.mn, which boasts a staff of about 1.5 — a full-time designer and my part-time duties as editor. The vast majority of the content on the site is created by users. I’ve seen first-hand the power of user contributions as well as the difficulties they present. Given that the pool of potential contributors to a website with a local focus is an order of magnitude smaller than that of Wikipedia, the model for user contributions must be examined. My suspicion is that the minimally directed nature of collaboration on Wikipedia would take a much longer time to replicate on a local scale.
• Business model: Several possibilities exist for creating and sustaining such a site, and each presents different advantages and challenges. Enumerating and investigating these possibilities will increase the magnitude of the project’s impact.
• Storytelling and journalism standards: What does a corrections policy look like on a site that is always changing? How does Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” model align with traditional notions of journalistic objectivity, and is either model appropriate for such a site? How might the site incorporate or interact with the increasing range of storytelling techniques available to us?
• Existing models: Several examples exist of geographically focused sites clearly inspired by the Wikipedia model. What can we learn from these efforts?

As well as a prototype illustrating a prospective news site structured according to this model, I would use my time at the Institute to produce a manuscript elucidating my findings. The document would serve as a roadmap for companies or communities seeking to make the idea a reality.

Journalism faces plenty of pressing questions, and I have an interest in many of them. But this question of what the next-generation news website looks like is one of the most pressing, and more than ample to capture my attention for a year. I would savor the opportunity to partner with you in pursuit of an answer.

1. I hate the title “Wikipedia-ing the News.” I slapped it onto the proposal at the last minute, and everyone who sees it instantly thinks, “Ah, he wants to make news sites into wikis.” I don’t. A wiki might very possibly be the best sort of a CMS to handle a site like this, but I’m totally unwilling to make that presupposition at this point. And as I try to make clear in the third paragraph, I’m using Wikipedia as a model for how it structures its content, not how it develops that content. At any rate, the title is an homage to Shayne Bowman, Ellen Kampinsky and Chris Willis’ “Amazoning the News.” [↩]

Many people use the terms “news” and “journalism” interchangeably. But what is news? I think most folks would say it means what’s new, accounts of the latest developments affecting some corner of the world.

Until recently, newspaper editors defined news as “important developments over the past 24 hours.” Editors of newsmagazines might expand that time horizon by a few days; Web editors will contract it to within a few hours. But there’s no escaping the time-bounded nature of “news.”

My understanding of journalism is broader. To me, journalism is the constant effort to deliver a truer picture of the world as it is. The “latest developments” provide one lens through which to capture that picture. And as long as journalism was primarily delivered by static media, that lens made perfect sense.

The Web, however, makes possible other ways of delivering that picture of our evolving world. It allows us to shirk the tyranny of recency and place more emphasis on context - the information that often gets buried beneath the news.

The title of this blog is a provocative misnomer. I don’t think news is going anywhere anytime soon, and I certainly think it remains a useful way of hooking our attention into the context surrounding the latest developments. But I do want to end the headlock news has placed on journalism. For all our handwringing and speculation, our conferences, our books, etc., news is as old as humanity and will survive us all. What ails in journalism - and what we have the opportunity to fix - is context.

I want to hear much, much less about the future of news, and much more about the future of context. I want to shift the focus of our books and conferences from how we’ll deliver the latest developments to how we’ll help our audiences better understand the state of our world.

For the next nine months, I’ll be at the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri, attempting to lay out a vision of a news website centered around context rather than time. I’ll be blogging my explorations and discoveries here, and welcoming your insights. Journalism has a moment of great opportunity before it. Let’s figure out how to rise to the occasion.