Starclouds

Over on BuzzMachine, Jeff Jarvis has written an eloquent rebuttal to the notion that bloggers are somehow in competition with professional journalists, or that they are hoping to replace professional journalism with some kind of bottom-up “citizen journalism.” Instead, Jarvis reiterates the concept of “networked journalism” that he first articulated in a post last year:

In networked journalism, the public can get involved in a story before it is reported, contributing facts, questions, and suggestions. The journalists can rely on the public to help report the story; we’ll see more and more of that, I trust. The journalists can and should link to other work on the same story, to source material, and perhaps blog posts from the sources (see: Mark Cuban). After the story is published – online, in print, wherever – the public can continue to contribute corrections, questions, facts, and perspective … not to mention promotion via links. I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as journalists realize that they are less the manufacturers of news than the moderators of conversations that get to the news. … this isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network.

Precisely. The critical phrase here—and the central challenge for the profession—is “moderators of conversations.” Journalists have a not-entirely-undeserved reputation for being lone wolves, while editors have a similar reputation for being autocrats and/or control freaks. Our skill sets, painfully acquired, generally include some combination of reporting, writing, editing, photography, audio and video. But moderating a conversation—with the public—strikes me as a much different, herding-cats kind of skill. How many of us are going to be willing or able to learn that skill? Or be any good at it?