Ciao!

On "open source" journalism

09.14.2004

My latest Western Herald column came out today. It's on "open source" journalism & the recent CBS meltdown. You can read the online version; below is the rough draft version.

-----

We are currently witnessing a revolution in journalism. It’s driven by a combination of people and technology. Some have already called it “open source” journalism. Journalism for the digital generation. It’s a media revolution driven by people who no longer think along the analog lines of old TV or newsprint wonks.

Why call it “open source” journalism? Simple. Because it imitates open source computer programming. Any single news story can be started by a single person, and then quickly modified by others as they see fit. Readers can add more information (tweak the code), then pass it along the chain. By the time the story’s “finished” it’s been assembled by hundreds (if not thousands) of writers, and into multiple variants. Think Mozilla-based open source browsers. Better yet, think Linux and it’s ability to crush the world’s largest corporation.

Don’t believe me?

Over the weekend, a now-infamous CBS “60 Minutes” story about Bush’s Vietnam records has imploded. The story was backed by a handful of photocopied memos are now overwhelmingly believed to be forged. So says the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, ABC News, the UK’s Guardian, and Germany’s Der Spiegel, and the list goes on.

But this isn’t about Bush. Or Kerry. Or their war records. Or who exaggerated or pulled strings. Is anyone surprised that politicians lie? Is anyone shocked that rich, white, well-connected men pull strings (the 90s term was “networking”) to get ahead in life?

This is about the hundreds of little fish that, within twelve hours after Dan Rather signed off his story, had assembled enough evidence to argue that the memos were forgeries. They did what CBS should have done before going on air — they fact-checked. In twelve hours, hundreds of amateurs around the US (and some beyond) had leant their brainpower to correct the mistake of a multimillion dollar news conglomerate. Bloggers of the world unite, indeed.

It’s not the first time it happened. And it won’t be the last.

The digital revolution has produced so many tools, it’s impossible for Big Media to maintain a monopoly over information. Almost anyone can build a website — for free even. And with a few simple tools, anyone can be their own internet news media. Yes, even you.

Have an opinion? You can write a weblog. Write as often as you want. Link to other bloggers. You can write about news that interests you, offer movie reviews, or post your favorite recipes. Ad the power of RSS (really simple syndication) and you’re your own AP stringer. After all, isn’t the AP write service nothing more than a centrally controlled, analog version of RSS?

Have a digital camera? Now you’re a photojournalist. Go to protest rallies, take pictures, upload them to your website. Even if your local paper won’t show up.

Have a digital camcorder? Just upload the files in Quicktime or Real Media. Now you’re an internet television station.

You think small, independent bloggers can’t compete with CNN or Time magazine? Think again. Any single website has, in theory, the same chance of being seen as any other. Try googling a news item. How many of the matches are to news sites? How may are to weblogs? And now that Google News includes weblogs in its RSS indexing, that number will only increase.

How much does it cost CNN to maintain its web presence? How much does it cost you? Anyone with a simple understand of market economics will tell you — CNN’s cost per unit of served information is lower higher than any single bloggers. My website costs me $99 a year to host. That’s my entire yearly capital (split three ways with my brothers, mind you) for potential news gathering. Who’s more cost efficient, me or CNN?

Ah, but what makes bloggers so powerful is the “open source” nature of their news gathering. See, it’s not just me out there blogging. It’s me and thousands of others, from all over the world. Each of us writing our opinions, first-hand accounts, posting pictures of events. And all of us linking to each other, feeding RSS feeds, increasing traffic.

How much does the Associated Press pay in salaries to each of its stringers? Or to staff their various bureau offices? Now compare that to an organic blogosphere, where each member writes open source news — sharing freely with other members. And there are more bloggers than there are AP stringers, spread out even in countries with no AP presence, immersed in the local cultures and politics. Which is more efficient a news gathering organization, the blogosphere or the Associated Press?

But this is a revolution in news media not only because the gathering of news becomes decentralized, but also because it’s an open communication line. Unlike television, newspapers, or even radio. Weblogs allow comments. Think of these as letters to the editor in your local newspaper. Except there’s no editor restricting who can or can’t comment. And other readers can comment on the comments of others. And as often as they want.

The closest thing to this in the analog world is talk radio. But even that’s limited. First of all, you can only call in during the hours the show’s on air. There’s someone screening calls, and limiting you to a few seconds. With weblogs, you can comment on a story from yesterday. It’s an actual conversation, not a lecture punctuated by questions from the “audience”. Why? Because open source news doesn’t have an audience to begin with — everyone involved comes on equal footing, everyone’s part of the conversation, everyone else provides content.

And that’s something Big Media can’t give us: news of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Posted by Miguel at 12:43 PM

Comments

Posted by: sam at September 15, 2004 11:19 AM