Wondering if you’d noticed that Steffen Konrath is inviting discussion on Twitter about a ‘Liquid News’ concept (#liquidnews). Considering the numbers of followers he has, I’m surprised more people aren’t participating. Themes he’s sounding in his proposal sound familiar – they remind me of the tagline on this blog: “Journalism is a process, not a product.” I am interested because he’s trying to address the end-game of the process:

“A liquid newsroom would challenge the constant of space (the site) and organizational form (the editors involved, the publication etc.). Instead of a given organisational type (a publication, newspaper, blog, etc.) the news site (not page!) will come into existence the time someone decides to open a topic. “Liquid” like liquid design means that the topic will determine place, team and time and not vice versa.” [sorry 'bout the bad formatting on the quote]
— http://www.nextlevelofnews.com/ –

While such an idea may be a little ‘pie-in-the-sky,’ it’s still intriguing. Online news to me gets hung up on issues of editing / quality control in the writing itself (and issues of how to verify the testimony and assertions of the writer) — and also in how to get the good stuff where it needs to go. The Huffington post for example seems driven by the strong personality of its creator and the quality of the site’s curation. How can other markets identify their ideal ‘curators’ for news? How can those curators be compensated?

Would you or any of your readers be able to point me to relevant discussions or recommend any reading for me on these issues?

Thanks as always for your tolerance of my lengthy posts (not always OT) on your fine blog!
Anneke

Is this the working definition you’re going with for ‘transparency’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency

This is a good question. There are a few potential answers. Again – I don’t claim to know which one is right, just pointing out possibilities.

1. The straw man: You allude to this re: it’s a matter of definition. I could simply say “oh no, those people aren’t doing journalism – they aren’t participating” journalism IS distributing information that is true.

And in some respects – that is how I define journalism.

But I think that’s a weak argument. It works only for people that are consciously lying. There is a good chance that many people will be participating – have every intention and earnest belief that they are informing – but it could turn out later that they are wrong.

In some respects I use a Shirky argument here: With the good comes the bad.

With cars comes pollution.

With loads more solid information comes disinformation.

But it is open for debate and further inquiry.

“More people participating in the process of journalism means more people being informed.”

Is this true? I don’t know. You have defined journalism in terms of its end, so let’s keep that definition: the end is informing. But can we assume that everyone who attempts an act of journalism actually succeeds? If everyone who participates succeeds in informing, then the above claim is true. But I think that some will participate without informing. I may pass on a rumor without checking it out. I am participating, am I not? But I am not informing, I am confusing.

Perhaps it’s just a matter of definition. You may want to define participation as informing. But I want to define participation as trying to inform.

And I TOTALLY agree. I think this is just one argument for transparency. As noted in part I – it is because I see a connection between transparency and participation.

But certainly transparency has its own justification outside of its relation to participation – mere accountability.

Also: I miss Ben!!!

The ethics of journalism, by any standard, require factual information. This requires full transparency in order to allow participation by, at minimum, inspection of both the process and the product. Participation and transparency are necessary because no other audit than one that anyone can do, see, and try to reproduce can have sufficient legitimacy.

Also, though late, happy birthday!