Feb. 18 readings

I want to start off by saying that I will not adapt Jeff's new term of "crowdsourcing" and will call citizen journalism what it is. Citizen journalism. Carrying on...
Jeff uses the term and calls it a "nettlesome" process. Not only is this indeed a word, but he is right. (Nettlesome means causing irritation or annoyance.) From an editor's perspective, I'm sure citizen journalism as an option can be helpful but also incredibly frustrating having to teach people the world of journalism from the ground up for a simple story. For the record, for our imaginary "top 20" Web site, I do not plan on using citizen journalists. I feel like for a start-up site, using my own talent and my friends' talent will be the best idea for a budget standpoint especially, but also for quality. I somewhat feel like Assignment Zero was a lot like iReport: it wanted to get a lot out of its readers without really knowing what to expect. Final note on this one: I find it odd that they used Cincinnati.com's homepage for this example since I'm from there and it's one of the worst media sites ever (considering it's one Web site for the newspaper, magazine, and local Buzz-type weekly).
I think the second one makes a good point, but not necessarily for the reasons it describes. I think that Matt Taibbi had it right when he said that sometimes a reader just wants know the reporter's voice. That's what the blog allows the reader to do -- hear the reporter. Bland news reporting is helpful sometimes, but the blog allows the reader to trust a reporter and feel like they know something about him. I think that setting up a blog for every staff on a news site is a good idea because it sets up a trust relationship for each reader.
Sidenote: do you really spell out Saint in Saint Patrick's Day?
Other than the tidbit about Twitter, the Colonel has a point. Staying in touch with readers gives them reason to stay in touch with you. Too many papers want people to tell them when something is happening but never offer any communication in return.

Bob put it best when he said "Too often we give unjustified credibility to bloggers who are, at best, practicing amateur journalism or simplistic punditry. And news organizations provide that false credibility by equating the bloggers’ observations and views with the rigor of news reporting."
--Yes. We do. Because we can't pay anyone else to do the real investigation. Sites either need to own up that they're using cheap labor or try to get better stuff. At least don't expect to get reporting from someone who knows nothing about reporting. And he's right -- it's not just the writers. Editors ease their standards to get people to come to their sites and beat other sites' page views. Okay, this is the last time I'll comment about Twitter, but if why is Neiman so enamored with it? It's like our grandparents trying to use Limewire to download old showtunes - the technology isn't worth it.
I think that the content is what drives newspapers and magazines. That's why not only is it important to keep the reporters involved, but also the readers. Keeping an open forum about what they want to know about is probably one of the most overlooked technology ideas. I do think, though, that the difference between newspapers and magazines is twofold: somehow magazines have gathered loyal readers, and they know how to advertise themselves (within themselves). If newspapers can use those ideas, they will be much better off as well.
For news sites, I think the best idea is to advertise elsewhere on the web. All it takes is getting someone on another site curious about what you have and then you easily gain readers.