Comments on: The people formerly known as sources http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/ How to survive and thrive in the digital age Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:37:09 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mr. Smith http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-16698 Mr. Smith Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:42:07 +0000 http://www.journalism20.com/blog/?p=536#comment-16698 Another thing to keep in mind is the source. For a non-profit agency, the information has more reliability than an agency that has potential benefits from placing a spin on the story. For example, at an oil spill I would prefer less bias boots on the ground. Another thing to keep in mind is the source. For a non-profit agency, the information has more reliability than an agency that has potential benefits from placing a spin on the story.

For example, at an oil spill I would prefer less bias boots on the ground.

]]> By: Brian http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-7976 Brian Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:10:22 +0000 http://www.journalism20.com/blog/?p=536#comment-7976 Another point is that consumers of this information are now able to get the information directly from the source. If I am uninterested in the latest fashion trends or celebrity gossip I simply don't follow their tweets or their rss feeds or make them friends. I am not forced to filter through that info on news websites and or in print. Sort of like subscribing just to the Discovery channel vs. getting all cable channels. I agree there are issues with making sure organizations are held accountable for good as well as bad. Having vigilant followers who will hold these organizations in check will help. Ultimately it's boils down to where people want to focus their attention. There are certainly plenty of distractions and noise. I believe those who can adequately synthesize the information they receive and filter out the junk will be those most valuable to their organizations and customers. Another point is that consumers of this information are now able to get the information directly from the source. If I am uninterested in the latest fashion trends or celebrity gossip I simply don’t follow their tweets or their rss feeds or make them friends. I am not forced to filter through that info on news websites and or in print. Sort of like subscribing just to the Discovery channel vs. getting all cable channels.

I agree there are issues with making sure organizations are held accountable for good as well as bad. Having vigilant followers who will hold these organizations in check will help.

Ultimately it’s boils down to where people want to focus their attention. There are certainly plenty of distractions and noise. I believe those who can adequately synthesize the information they receive and filter out the junk will be those most valuable to their organizations and customers.

]]> By: Winchester Journalism http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-7793 Winchester Journalism Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:08:17 +0000 http://www.journalism20.com/blog/?p=536#comment-7793 This is a consistently excellent blog, I read it frequently and track content via the editorial pages on journalism.co.uk This is a consistently excellent blog, I read it frequently and track content via the editorial pages on journalism.co.uk

]]> By: Curt Milton http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-7792 Curt Milton Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:50:13 +0000 http://www.journalism20.com/blog/?p=536#comment-7792 The lesson is also that there was a huge amount of activity over ... nothing. This only works if the people on the ground are reliable. We need to tread carefully, I think. The lesson is also that there was a huge amount of activity over … nothing. This only works if the people on the ground are reliable. We need to tread carefully, I think.

]]> By: Joey Baker http://www.journalism20.com/blog/2009/06/12/the-people-formerly-known-as-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-7790 Joey Baker Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:10:22 +0000 http://www.journalism20.com/blog/?p=536#comment-7790 Mark– Like your point. It helps dull the roar of the 'but we need boots on the ground' argument from many journalists. If you have the people you were reporting on doing their own … reporting, the need to have as many newsorg employees on the ground decreases – you can have reporters paid for by the people who are already there. For that matter, the reach is greater – there's no way this Coast Guard story would have been reported as quickly without the help of the Coast Guard themselves doing the reporting. Now, if we can just implement some guarantee that they will report the bad stuff with the good. Perhaps transparency is the answer? Mark–

Like your point. It helps dull the roar of the ‘but we need boots on the ground’ argument from many journalists. If you have the people you were reporting on doing their own … reporting, the need to have as many newsorg employees on the ground decreases – you can have reporters paid for by the people who are already there.

For that matter, the reach is greater – there’s no way this Coast Guard story would have been reported as quickly without the help of the Coast Guard themselves doing the reporting.

Now, if we can just implement some guarantee that they will report the bad stuff with the good. Perhaps transparency is the answer?

]]>