Yet another hotbed of citizen "journalism" is being tested, this time in Austin, TX. The new Austin Post
www.austinpost.org is online in an "alpha" version.
An invitation to potential writers notes nearly anything reasonably believable will be published. Actually, that's not what the site says -- it is my interpretation. What it really says is that submissions pass through "a light editorial vetting process." The pay? Zip, zero, nothing but there may be "high rewards" along the way.
Writing that they believe in the "critical role" newspapers play in a democratic society -- guiding discussions and encouraging "informed debate and decision-making," the Post producers add they believe an Internet site can provide the same role "perhaps even more effectively."
Instead of relying on a paid staff, the Trilogy Employee Foundation, which has provided seed money and guidance for this new venture, notes most of its writers have a passion "borne of personal involvement" and "are engaged in the action."
But how does one get from "passion" and engagement both of which implicitly suggest pre-formed opinions to "informed debate?" What happened to the need to present a balanced view? Is objectivity too old-fashioned a concept for the likes of a site like this?
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the Austin Post is just the latest in a string of online news sites that have gotten the popularity of reality television confused with informed debate and the role of newspapers and magazines to help guide those conversations.
There's no question that the news business must morph from traditional print practices which sees the Internet as a threat to embracing the Internet as a complimentary media outlet, but dismissing professionally-trained writers and the objectivity they bring as irrelevant, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is the "business model" that must change, not how and why the content is developed.
Continue reading "You too can be published -- but can we believe you?"