When one quotes, forwards or retweets a reported fact (or opinion, for
that matter), I believe it is considered good journalistic practice to try and
reference a source as close as possible to the original event, observer
or report.
David Weinberger's "transparency is the new objectivity" would support
the suggestion that such practice is just as much required on the Net
today than it has been in the press and public discourse traditionally.
(And BTW, Just like professor Weinberger does, I should really apologize for the cliché of “x is the new y.”)
Dan Gillmor appears to support this principle as well by recommending
that we should be skeptical of everything (while not equally skeptical of everything) we read and always consider the
trustworthiness of the source and the verifiability of its claim.
And while I agree that the transparency and verifiability of a story's
origin is an important attribute of its credibility, I also observe a
dilemma here:
With the proliferating practice of reblogging and retweeting, it often
seems increasingly cumbersome to track down the original source.
Amplification is the new circulation.
As we move away from the lecture model to the conversation model, facts
and opinion spread through the social graph as by "word of post".
Tweet: http://ping.fm/F2TxI @jayrosen_nyu Is it reasonable to expect from everyone who amplifies a message that they link to the origin?
Jay Rosen, I believe that this is a challenge for the rebooted news system and I would love to learn your take on it.
Let me offer an example.
My wife, Minnna Ojamies, is a native Finn, who follows the
Finnish mainstream media closely. She serves as my "human filter" to
the news in Finnish. She uses Google Reader to share the news
reports which she considers most interesting. I subscribe to her shared
reading on Google Reader.
Also I happen to share stuff I read; articles, posts and tweets which I
think may be of interest to others and/or which I would like to capture
for possible future reference.
What I share on Google Reader flows into an RSS feed (edited on Yahoo!
Pipes to include the string "[Reading:]" in front of the headline),
which is forwarded by notify.me via Ping.fm onto a number of "social" web services including my account on Twitter.
The other day, she shared this article published on Taloussanomat,
reporting that the 100-dollar laptop, for which Nicholas Negroponte has
been campaigning, had arrived.
I hadn't seen this news in any of the other RSS feeds that I subscribe
to. Unfortunately, the article was rather poor on source references.
Also, it didn't mention much anything about the timing of availability
of the laptop in question, nor about its competition.
In other words, there was little transparency and verifiability to go
by. Yet, when it comes to overall credibility as a news brand,
Taloussanomat finds itself - in my perception at least - in positive
territory. Therefor I shared it.
The topic interests me and if the report turns out to be "new and
true", I will be happy that I captured and amplified it. If not, I will
be disappointed in Taloussanomat and regret amplifying noise rather
than signal.
I could have done my own background check, of course. A simple web search would probably have done the trick. And services like Techmeme are helpful, too.
But my point, really, is that it may not be realistic to expect "amplifiers" to routinely carry out verification checks.
Personally, when I am in "reading mode", catching up with my RSS
subscriptions, I don't necessarily want to allocate much time to
verification. My priority is to read, capture and share (and
amplification is a by-product which serves the rebooted news system).
So, I'm kinda wondering if it would be acceptable that we simply link
to where we read the news - in my case the article by Taloussanomat -
and perhaps trust that the rebooted news system will somehow take care
of verifying the origin itself.
That, across all these chains of amplification, some people
will actually go back and refer to the origin of the story - especially
when doubt or controversy (combined with a lack of transparency or
verifiability) pass a certain threshold.
There's another remark or two that I wanted to make around amplification being the new circulation.
If we accept this framing of the new news system for a moment, it might
lead us to believe that paywalls a la Rupert Murdoch constitute indeed
an act of shooting oneself in the proverbial foot.
Let's assume for a moment that the way to reach people online is less about signing up subscribers and more about amplification.
In a sense, the newspaper sales model can be associated with "push" and
the amplification model with "pull". Through subscription and sales outlets, stuff is
pushed to people on certain terms, but only after recieving the package
will they find out what they appreciate and what not. What they subsequently do
like and decide to amplify is what they have pulled out as signal from
the noise.
You can't put it back into the tube, Rupert!
In such a world, where pull trumps push and amplification trumps circulation, any content behind paywalls cannot be amplified.
Or rather, of course the message can be amplified - Washington Post
readers also have Twitter accounts - but the paywall discourages the
referencing of the original source.
So, if amplification is the new circulation, perhaps the amplifiers
(that's us) won't always take the trouble of reading and verifying the original source,
especially when it's made cumbersome to do so. If important enough,
we'll do the fact-checking somehow routing around the paywall. Perhaps
we'll find our own sources.
Hm, Dave Winer, perhaps it's not only that sources are going direct,
(@davewiner, what would be the best link to this theme?), but also readers will go direct, namely directly to the source.
Tweet: http://ping.fm/F2TxI @davewiner Seems to me that not only sources, but also receivers go direct, namely to the source.
(When sources go direct, they become senders. And if senders can go direct, so can receivers or readers.)
Finally: how about if the half time of news is approaching to zero, much
like the cost of storage of digital content is approaching to zero?
In
a variation to Chris Anderson, will it make best business sense to give
the news away for free and sell something else? Some type of premium
content? Live experiences?
In such scenario, high-quality news including investigative reporting
will merely be a brand builder, an investment rather than a business of
its own.
