Abstract #8

The first article I read this week was “When the Post Banned Anonymous Sources,” from the American Journalism Review. Anonymous sources are definitely something to look at as editors. There has to be much caution exercised when using these sources, as we have seen in prior case studies. As editors, we want to trust our reporters to be telling the truth and using truthful, legitimate sources. Yet, this can also lead to us blindly following our reporters down a wrong road – something that can have harmful consequences as evidenced by the Newsweek Quran story. As Bradlee found out, especially in the area of Washington politics, anonymity can often be the only way a story will get out. There has to be a fine line drawn as to using an anonymous source to expose something in the public interest versus letting someone hide behind a veil of secrecy to corrupt media coverage. As the article states, there has to be more digging on the part of the paper to make sure bogus stories don’t slip through.

The second article I read was “The murky world of conflicts of interest.” This article revisits ideas brought up previously in class as well as in my ethics class, focusing on the issue of perceived conflicts of interest. Are they the be all end all? I think they shouldn’t be. I understand the fact that a newspaper needs to maintain editorial independence to remain fair in its coverage, but when fields clearly do not overlap, why does it still remain a problem? I suppose that part of the rationale is that if you make exceptions to some people it’s only a matter of time before more and more people are being granted exceptions. In this way, I could see how the envelope might be pushed past the limit of what is acceptable. Nevertheless, perhaps this is an extreme example. In the case described in the article, about the LA Times opinions editor using a connection to procure a guest editor, I think that he was OK in what he was doing. How many times have we as journalists used people we have a relationship with to get better access to something? It is often a way to get a better story. However, I think the best way to deal with things like this is to have better editor oversight of the process and more confidence when it comes to a seemingly over-critical audience.

The final article I read was “Ethical considerations of the Web link.” I think the article highlights an intriguing concept that is to become more and more widespread. Linking lies at the foundation of the Web and presents a unique opportunity for papers to enhance their content. Yet, at the same time, you have to decide which links to present from a story. I think the best idea on dealing with this issue is summed up by one of the people in the article who likens links to a gratuitous photo – much discretion is needed in deciding whether to use it or not. If it adds to the story or makes the reader think more deeply on a pressing issue, then I think it should probably be included. In any case, as editors we need to make sure we check each site out and ensure that it is truly relevant to the story.

*Newspaper diversity

I looked at the page on the Orlando Sentinel, and its percentage of minority employment has remained the same at 18.9 percent for the last two years listed. This is higher than most other years for which data was provided.

*Story Idea

My story idea for this week focuses on UF’s sustainability program. I have noticed a rise in the amount of biodegradable plates being used on campus as well as the replacement of white paper towels with brown ones in most restrooms.

This could be a good opportunity to do an update on the program.

Why are the brown paper towels being used now, after white was used for so long? Are there any drawbacks to using biodegradable plates/boxes? Any decrease in quality? How long does it actually take for these to decompose compared to regular Styrofoam boxes? Is the benefit worth any costs involved?

You could also focus on the policies of the Krishna lunch program. Does its emphasis on the environment have an impact on UF policies?

Sources could be Krishna lunch representatives, Gator Dining Services/Aramark, Reitz Union officials (from food court), officials from UF’s Office of Sustainability, Alachua County sustainability programs, etc.

Story could run 10 inches and include pictures from the food court or bathrooms with brown paper towels in dispensers.

Online presentation could include interactive timeline of how biodegradable plates decompose over time, as well as links to sites where readers can learn more and get more involved with sustainability. A chart could also be included showing the difference between old and new materials. There could also be an interactive map that would show which locations on campus adhere to the new policies.

Abstract #7

The first article I read this week was “Who you callin’ ungrammatical?” from the Boston Globe. I thought this was an interesting article about something that is often debated nowadays – who vs. whom. Though we sometimes stress over it in editing class exercises, in the “real world” does it even matter that much? Turns out it still does. The article points out that even though people have been talking about how “whom” is going away like “thou” and “ye,” it is still used in print more often than we realize. One area of contention the article had, which I agree with, was its usage at the beginning of a sentence (especially that of a headline). It just looks plain weird.

The rules of grammar sometimes change to fit the times and I think it is about time to stop making such a fuss over the who vs. whom issue. Stylebooks and different publications are always going to have a preference on when to use whom, but people are going to get the point of the sentence if you use who. I like the term “hypercorrect” when describing the use of whom in sentences. I don’t think it would be incorrect if it was gradually phased out, yet some people insist on keeping its usage a matter of importance, something I can’t quite understand. I know this might seem lazy on my part, but like the article points out, sometimes even the most skilled linguist would have trouble deciding when to use it. If it is so difficult and complex to deal with, will our readers (besides very nitpicky ones) even care?

The next article I read, “Style Wars in Cyberspace,” from the American Journalism Review describes how copy editors are using blogs to talk about grammar, style and other issues that they have faced in their work. These blogs provide a place where the “whom” issue could be discussed in further detail and help get a better sense of where the tide might be going. I think it is a great idea that copy editors are putting common issues online, similar to the ACES forum. This provides a great outlet for editors to see what else is going on out there and for language enthusiasts to know they are not alone in wanting to spread proper language use. Furthermore, it is a place for writers to look for help in improving their own copy. It also gives copy editors a little recognition for the hard work they do – something often hidden behind the scenes.

Yet another area where editors must be mindful is discussed in the final article I read, “Readers flummoxed by runaway headlines,” from the St. Petersburg Times. The article talks about how headlines can sometimes be undone by their attempt at being clever or catchy. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to write a good headline – you have to worry about being accurate yet intriguing at the same time, all the while adhering to strict length requirements (some of which are ridiculously small). So, I can understand how one might resort to puns or be tempted to be a little sensational when writing headlines, but this can ultimately be counterproductive. If someone reads a story because of a misleading headline, their trust of the paper is going to be diminished. Furthermore, overdoing it with cutesy headlines or those with too many puns can turn readers off from reading a story.

*Case Study

The in-class discussion this past week brought up many good points dealing with diversity and sensitivity – some of which had never really crossed my mind before. Issues such as saying “Merry Christmas” seem simple enough, yet have so much more to them. If you put it, you are going to offend someone. If you don’t, you are going to offend someone. With similar issues, it seems there is no clear way out. We as editors have to use our best judgment and try to please as many people as possible. This is also where an ombudsman/public editor becomes useful.

With more concrete issues, such as race, sexual orientation and gender, the goal is not to please people but to avoid using language that can be construed as being insensitive or offensive. More care needs to be exercised when it comes to situations like this.

As far as the Newsroom Diversity Game is concerned, I found it to be a useful exercise and more difficult than I thought it would be. To me, it shows that I still need to work on my critical thinking skills when it comes to diversity and sensitivity, but also that things like this are always going to be tricky and sometimes there is no clear answer.

The thread I looked up on the ACES Web site dealt with how to identify a transgender victim. In the case posted, police had identified the victim as a man, while neighbors had described the victim as a woman. This brings up an interesting situation we might face with as editors.

In this case, the editor decided to go with the police report and call the victim a “he,” but others on the thread thought that it might be best for those who knew the victim well to decide. Often times, neighbors and friends will better know how to identify someone and one post argued that we should respect that analysis, which I thought was a good point. Someone made the point that we often refer to celebrities by their stage names, even though they are usually not legal changes, and should therefore extend the same policy to transgender people.

Some caution must be exercised, as one poster pointed out, in using family as a source. Often, transsexuals are not very close with their families, who might give an inaccurate description of how the person identified him/herself.

This is definitely an interesting issue to consider and one that must require some care.

Abstract #6

The first article I read this week was “Before you publish a rape victim’s name…” from ASNE. I think the author highlights some key points related to the media’s coverage of rape or sexual assault. I do agree with her that these are serious crimes that rarely get the coverage they deserve. Because of the sensitivity associated with reporting such stories, I can see why some journalists would shy away from covering them. However, this is an area where much improvement can be made. As she discusses toward the end of the story, more effort needs to be made to tell a more encompassing tale of these tragic occurrences. Finding victims brave or comfortable enough to be named can help put a human face on these often distant stories. Still, care needs to be exercised so that the victim is not pressured to reveal his or her identity or that the victim is not named except out of extenuating circumstances.

And yet I sometimes agree with critics of such a policy who argue that by not naming alleged victims, they are providing someone with a veil of anonymity behind which to throw out allegations. I recently read “Until Proven Innocent” for my fact finding class, which provides details about the Duke lacrosse rape case. In this particular case, it turns out a woman was doling out baseless accusations of rape by innocent members of the team. The media generally followed its policy of not naming victims, but was more than willing to prejudge and vilify the accused lacrosse players without any sort of independent investigation of the charges. Because of cases like this, I think great care must be taken when reporting about rape cases and deciding whether or not to name victims.

The latter is something that is brought up in the Connecticut Post’s ethics policy, which I think addresses some of the common issues we should be concerned with as journalists. In the policy, a case is made for exercising caution when identifying victims of sexual assault. It says that this should be relegated to “especially prominent or well-known” people and that by doing so, public awareness of the crime can be raised. I think this is an interesting idea, but I’m not so sure it would justify the naming of famous people, regardless of how popular they are. The fact remains that they have most likely been through a horrible ordeal and would probably not want their name plastered all over the news – probably especially more so because of their prominence. I think in such a case, it should fall on the individual person whether or not to use their celebrity to raise awareness of the issue (which, hopefully, they eventually would). I think the Post’s ethics policy contains a lot of useful guidelines that seem to be consistent with most other policies I have seen and with what we have been discussing in my ethics class.

One interesting part of the policy is the refusal to print profanities or obscenities. I think this is an interesting aspect of journalism in general. I know it’s a pretty accepted policy to avoid printing obscenities, which for the most part I understand. I guess it goes along with the professionalism associated with traditional print media, but as the CJR article, “What the F-k Are They Driving At?,” discusses, sometimes when a person uses profanity in a quote it is important to its overall meaning. I know that most editors would exercise caution when deciding whether to print a profanity, but I think that most times it needs to be included, in some form – even hyphenated, to keep the meaning intact. I thought it was interesting how The New York Times deleted the word from its version of the quote and how much I feel it changed the general’s meaning. I agree with the article in that it changes the man’s high frustration with the official to mere annoyance. Although publication of profanity should be a careful process, I think often times it is better to keep the information as intact as possible to give readers the most honest and accurate version of the story.

Abstract #5

The first article I read this week was “Calling for Back-up” from the Boston Globe’s ombudsman. The article brings up an important, but often overlooked, aspect of newspaper accuracy. I have to admit that I often spend less time looking up facts and assertions when copy editing opinion pieces at the Alligator. I guess I just assume – or maybe trust – that the writers, who are often senior editors themselves, know what they are talking about. Yet, I see how this can bring up some serious problems – especially when opinions come in from outside or less credible sources.

I think the solution offered in the article, to add source notes in the initial copy, is a good one. Something we have been doing here in the newsroom is having people who write columns also e-mail the copy desk information concerning their sources. This helps us to verify their facts and makes the whole process a bit more efficient. Keeping opinion columns accurate helps the very people we are trying to influence by making the opinions expressed have a solid backing.

The second article I read was “How the press can prevent another Iraq” from Nieman Watchdog. The article follows a common theme we have discussed this semester: that of questioning stories, reporters and their sources – especially authority figures such as the government. I think the author gives a brief but effective list to look over when writing stories, especially those that deal with such weighty issues as foreign policy and war. Interestingly enough, we were just discussing the Iraq issue in ethics class last week. I was dumbfounded to find out just how many news organizations were willing to simply go along with the flow and plaster one-sided government assertions as front-page headlines. In one instance, Vice President Cheney cites an article in the New York Times during one of his appearances in support of the war. In reality, the tip for the article had come from the government, thus promoting a circular justification for the war.

Things like this really make you wonder how much of this actually occurs on a regular basis. I liked how the author makes his point about being skeptical of authority and that it’s probably best to assume they are lying. Then he says that we should demand proof and then demand proof of that proof. I thought it was an amusing but potentially useful strategy. I agreed with his point that we need to focus on giving more voice to the minority whistleblowers and those whose viewpoint differs from the official word of the government. By doing so, we can hope to at least make people think a bit more before supporting another potentially senseless war, especially since most wars don’t seem to be motivated by public opinion as the author points out. I like his point that we should pay attention to those who got it right last time, as they are likely to have some key advice this time around.

The final article I read was “The Discerning Eye: Truth in Storytelling” from Mother Jones. The idea of a so-called “Discerning Eye” with regards to the media is an interesting one for me, yet one that seems to hold much truth. I thought the author’s analysis of recent media blunders regarding assertion of facts was pretty much on point. Although it would be hard to draw a strong connection between the Eye falling on an organization that has been recently doing well, it does make sense that this would make them a bit careless and thus draw its wrath in the first place. It is an interesting concept, albeit one that is more self-fulfilling than a proven formula.

As I mentioned earlier, it is hard to let laziness get the best of us and not make a concerted effort to check facts as thoroughly as possible – especially on deadline. However, we must do what we can to avoid such embarrassing, false stories being published and the damage they do to newspapers’ reputations. Another useful part of the article was how he related it to James Frey’s memoir and the related scandal that some parts were fabricated. Since some of us are thinking about going into the book publishing business at some point, I think this is an important case to keep in mind. No matter how much money from sales might be at stake, the principles that apply to news accuracy must be upheld no matter what medium we are working in.

Abstract #4

The first article I read was “Math for journalists.” I found it to be a useful read, if a little boring. It seems to be more of a reference to be looked back upon when dealing with percentages and related statistics. However, I do feel that the author brought up some good points when relating math and words. It’s true that as journalists we look at each word, phrase or paragraph with intense scrutiny but often overlook the mathematical part. Perhaps this is because of a fear of numbers, laziness or something else. But it made me think: As journalists we are called to pay attention to all details, whether they be words, grammar, style, tone, connotation, spelling, pictures or numbers. This is something that I feel we too often forget. I have to admit that the sight of math in a story does cause me to get a little bent out of shape. Maybe it’s because it brings back flashbacks of my old major in computer science. I’ve been through calculus 1, 2, 3 and two courses past that, but when I have to calculate something like a percent difference I get a little lazy-math is something that I went into journalism to avoid. But the fact is that it’s unavoidable and is something that needs to be paid attention to.

The second article I read was “Twenty questions a journalist should ask about poll results.” I also found this to be a good read, if a little long. I think the thing I appreciate most about these assigned readings is that they bring up important points that we often overlook or take for granted and help develop our critical thinking skills. I have never put so much thought into polls as I have after reading this article. There is a lot of information to go over here but I think the theme is what’s most important: to question poll results that have become ubiquitous in the media. We always see the neat little graphs, pie charts or other graphics that are supposed to show what the entire country of 300+ million is thinking. However, to have even a semblance of accuracy when dealing with such numbers requires painstaking attention to detail and a reputable, scientific company doing the polling.

The final article I chose this week was “655,000 dead” on the Media Matters site. I think the main point I gleaned from this article was that numbers can have a jarring effect on the public, especially large ones such as this. It’s easy to spout such numbers, air them on specials or print them in bold headlines but what is often overlooked, yet again, is any question or follow up on such a claim. Claiming that so many people have been killed without being as sure as possible can make a huge political statement lack the weight it needs to cause people to pause on the issue and actually care. The author makes a valid point in that perhaps we should care more about what is happening overseas and how many innocent people are dying for no reason. When single-digit numbers of American soldiers are killed, that typically makes headlines but when a family and all its members are killed in a mistaken airstrike, people hardly pause to think about the sorrow and pain that is left in the wake.

Case study

As I mentioned above, numbers in a story can be a source of constant headaches for journalists who are unaccustomed to dealing with much else than words. I think this is the primary reason why an article with bad math and sensational statements actually made it into print. It’s easy for us to sit here and read the article knowing we are looking for mathematical errors, but perhaps on a strict deadline an editor might not be on our same wavelength. It’s understandable how it could happen but definitely not excusable. Basic mathematical calculations are something that all journalists should be comfortable with because in the end it can make the paper look stupid and damage its credibility. It’s easy to toss around crime statistics but sometimes I think it somewhat panders to an audience that is all-to-ready to freak out about increases in crime. To have the math wrong on top of that only exacerbates an existing problem.

Abstract #3

The first article I read was “Covering the Outsiders.” I think it is especially important to think about the issues raised here considering that we are in the midst of the primary season and an election year. It reminded me how the issue of lopsided campaign coverage is still going strong in 2008. Obviously, there are many factors to consider in this election: it is the first time in many years that an incumbent vice president is not running for president, leaving the Republican race wide open. Furthermore, the Democratic field includes perhaps the most viable black and woman candidates ever. So, it’s understandable that coverage is going to be somewhat biased.

However, there have still been some strong candidates in both parties that have been largely ignored as a result. For example, Kucinich was denied a spot on one of the recently televised Democratic debates because producers felt his poor turnout in early primaries didn’t warrant him such attention and instead decided to focus on Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I guess I can understand why the media would want to focus on the leading candidates but by sidelining coverage of the other candidates, it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I liked her point that perhaps the issues that other candidates bring up should be the focus of coverage. Although they may not have a realistic chance of winning, they can at least use their position to bring up relevant issues that may be overlooked by the front-runners. Additionally, I agreed with her point that it’s usually the people who go against conventional wisdom that have the most lasting effects, and I think that we as journalists should at least be willing to give them a fighting chance.

Continuing with the theme of diversity, I found the article talking about accents to be very interesting. This is something I personally have had to deal with when writing my name in a word processor. Typically, I omit the accent over my name for the sake of simplicity, but it does bring up the issue of accuracy-one of the hallmarks of journalism. To correctly pronounce my name, you would need to place the emphasis on the last syllable-something that is uncharacteristic of English. I can wholly appreciate the difficulties associated with putting an accent into a program and having to worry about using the Alt key or character mapping. Furthermore, Norm Goldstein brings up a valid point that we would have to decide where to stop and what languages would be included, though with Spanish being the second most widely spoken language in the U.S. it would follow that it would hold a proportionate amount of clout.

Though diversity is an important theme for journalists, I found the final article I read, “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today,” to be hard to swallow. Though it was on the so-called Accuracy in Media Web site, it screamed of being geared to the right. Perhaps that is just my liberal tendencies kicking in, but I couldn’t help but roll my eyes after reading what issues the author thought were being ignored or not reported “objectively” about. What is this guy thinking? I can understand some of his argument that the news can sometimes lean to the left but I think that is just a fact of the industry. As much as we talk about objectivity, personal beliefs are inevitably going to filter through, despite our best efforts.

The tone of the article was almost sarcastic and most of the topics he brings up go against what most people, including scientists and academics, hold to be true. He speaks of Hugh Hefner as a “dirty old man,” talks of Islam as if there is a concrete interpretation of its tenets, gives undue credence to intelligent design and calls its opponents “secular humanists”, and finally talks of ex-gays as if the idea is something that is normally validated. The list could go on. Last time I checked, journalists wrote about things that had been thoroughly researched and had credibility from the scientific community. Intelligent design is discussed in a fairly objective way, though it is based on religious views-something that is inherently subjective. I guess my point is that ideas of objectivity and diversity can vary, sometimes to an extreme as in this case, but they are still important topics in journalism we need to consider.

Case Study-“Jimmy’s World”

As was the case with the “Eagle snatches dog” story, this is another instance of editors being too trusting or not being inquisitive enough. However, I can’t completely blame them. I’d like to assume that reporters are honest, credible people with good reputations, especially at a place like the Washington Post, but I guess you never know. I can only imagine the reasons why people like Janet Cooke would fabricate such a story, but I know part of it has to do with personal gain and preying on editor trust. I don’t buy her apology that we read in class-I think it’s a bunch of crap. She’s only sorry she got caught. But, I digress. I liked reading the story graf by graf and analyzing what red flags would have gone off in our heads had we been the editors assigned to this story. I felt it was a useful exercise and helps us to hone our inquisitive tendencies. I think egregious errors such as the Cooke case serve their own purpose, however, in that they warn us what not to do and help ensure things like this happen as little as possible.

Abstract #2

 As far as the Skeptical Editing article is concerned, I thought it was a good read. As we discussed in Editing and thus far in Advanced Editing, being a skeptical editor is something that is far too often overlooked in the pursuit of getting something published. I think it’s in our human nature to rush things and be careless at times. We engage in groupthink because we don’t want to cause problems, ask the unpopular question or we wish to avoid an awkward situation. My friend recently asked me how the editing process at a typical paper works. After explaining how many steps and people a story goes through, he asked me how errors still get into publication. The simple answer is that we are human and inevitably mistakes will be made. In reality, however, errors often slip past all the safeguards put into place because many people believe the same, incorrect things or are unwilling to challenge a questionable story. Such mistakes could lead to a correction or retraction at best and a lawsuit at worst. Therefore I agree with the article that we need to be suspicious, if not somewhat paranoid, of what we read.

The idea of joint operating agreements between newspapers is, I think, a useful tool in our business. Although it seems silly or paradoxical at first, it actually makes sense. I think competition, and the differing viewpoints that come along with it, is an essential part of the media. Yet there is the stark reality that news is a business. Without money-saving techniques, such as the joint operating agreement, there would be much less resources available to journalists and, in turn, the public would be less informed. Take the case of the Independent Florida Alligator: Were it not able to use the same presses as the Gainesville Sun, it would simply not exist due to budget constraints and the like.

The last three articles, dealing with hyperlocal or citizen journalism, brought up many interesting concepts-though they were a little dry. The point that stuck with me the most was the one from the creators of iBrattleboro and how they felt traditional journalists were resentful of them. It does seem that the term “journalist” does carry with it a certain weight and most people seem hesitant to apply it to something like a blog or a startup hyperlocal Web site. Yet I do like the idea that it makes traditional journalists a bit uncomfortable with the path news is taking and, in the process, examine where the industry currently lies. In this way, there will hopefully be a collective improvement in the way news is reported such as more community input, more attention on smaller towns and increased opportunities for untraditional stories that may be deserving of attention.

Case Study: Eagle Snatches Dog

As we discussed in class, I think this story highlights the fatal error of groupthink or the notion of “facts getting in the way of a good story.” Going along with the ideas mentioned in the Skeptical Editing article, I believe the blame does not lie solely with the editor or with the reporter. It was careless on both parts; the editor should have had his “BS” meter better tuned and the reporter should have done more … reporting. The story is poorly written. Having only one source, especially one that wasn’t even directly involved with the so-called incident, screams sloppiness. However, as I mentioned before, journalists are human too and sometimes it’s not so easy to avoid making a mistake.

Abstract #1

The article on story ideas seemed mundane at first, after reading the whole list I realized how important the idea was. So often as journalists, or even as members of the general public, I feel we take the news for granted. We rarely think about where good stories come from, assuming at times that they pop up in the heads of editors or reporters. What we fail to truly grasp, I believe, is that finding good story ideas takes a little more time and work than we like to admit.

I remember back in the days of my reporting class (oh, the fond memories) when my partner and I had to come up with a tip sheet for our lab. It seemed easy at first-we were on a large campus and there are 50,000+ students roaming around a small city. There had to be plenty of things going on. However, what seemed interesting to us often failed to take into account the news values on which we have been trained, such as prominence, proximity, conflict and timeliness. Much of what we had were events, poorly thought localizations on stories that weren’t very strong in the first place and similar “fluff.” Though it took some time, and some help from our lab instructor, we eventually came up with something that was passable and hopefully helpful to our fellow lab mates.

I had similar problems in my magazine and feature writing class. Here, we had much more freedom to select stories. However, I felt that this added another layer of difficulty to a process that was already foreign to me. Thankfully, most of my story ideas turned out OK in the end after much head scratching and, at times, frustration. As I mentioned, story ideas take more effort than perhaps we initially assume.

As a result of these past problems, I found the article very useful. My reporting professor had always told us to keep an eye out for stories wherever we were, yet this list brings up some interesting ideas I had not previously thought of. Some of the more interesting places to find ideas for me were: tombstones, classified ads, eavesdropping, the hairdresser and a newspaper’s ad representatives.

I also thought the article brought up an excellent point about writers being unhappy with story assignments even though they were unwilling to think of their own. It seems to make much more sense to pitch ideas that you are interested in and to work with your editor on writing a good story. It has been my personal experience that working on a story that I am interested in keeps me motivated, excited and more likely to write a better story.

The second article, dealing with the flow of news, brought up some thought-provoking ideas. It was interesting to see how a story would go from conception to reality in the past, when there was no Internet, e-mail or related conveniences of modern times. The notion of actually having to look at hard copies of old newspaper stories, watch old videos or using archival radio reports to start research on a story seems almost foreign in this age of rapid information that is available in just a few clicks online.

It was also interesting to see how the basic framework, however, hasn’t changed much in the current flow of stories. It seems the process has simply become more streamlined and, hopefully, more accurate. With the ability to send e-mail or check facts through extensive online sources, the excuse for making mistakes seems to be a thing of past (although things do inevitably slip through from time to time). The current process is also intriguing in that it brings up issues of convergence, as reporters are now being asked to capture audio or video for online components of stories-skills previously associated with broadcast media.

The process that the author thinks will be used in the future is, to me, novel and promising-yet also a little scary. I like the idea of having a forum that would help highlight stories that are of particular interest to the community, as well as serving as a melting pot for potential sources and experts on a story idea. I also like the idea of having community input to help further flesh out a chosen story. What is a little uncomfortable for me, however, is the idea of having so much user input as far as the actual story is concerned.

While I like the idea of users being able to point out corrections and make suggestions, the idea of a wiki where people would actually be able to change the story seems a little strange to me. Perhaps it’s just the way I have been trained, but it seems like it gives average people, whose intentions might be somewhat unclear, a little bit too much control. But maybe I’m just over thinking the situation. Perhaps this process would actually lead to much better stories.

I guess only time will tell if this becomes a viable option that both the media and the general public will enjoy and find useful.