serial consign

I first came into contact with David Cohn through Jay Rosen's newassignment.net, an experiment in crowdsourced journalism. I had originally sought to interview Jay for my thesis research, but ended up talking to David instead. This ended up working out quite well as David provided me with an engaging view into the world of contemporary journalism and the potential for a sweeping reconfiguration of the profession in light of connectivity, social media and new business models.

David was kind enough to indulge me with another interview and it fits perfectly into the evolving series of posts I'm assembling on journalism, space and media. What follows are some great insights on distributed journalism, social bookmarking, and the economy of information on the net today.

--

You recently completed graduate studies at the journalism school endowed by Joseph Pulitzer while actively participating in many facets of contemporary net culture. How has your understanding of emerging trends in online participatory culture informed your perspective on journalism and vice versa?

Graduate school at Columbia was an interesting experience. Especially because coming into it (and leaving) I felt I was a little more net-savvy than many of student-colleagues. This is because I began my journalism career at Wired, not because of any special intelligence on my part.

Columbia is a great graduate school. It is the pillar of old school journalism standards and while they are trying hard to gear up with new media courses -- I believe the mindset is much more important than the skill set and they do not attempt to teach this.

I learned flash, dreamweaver and photoshop -- yes. But far more valuable is an understanding of what a web 2.0 community consists of. The feel for a web community and how they evolve and define themselves. I did not learn that at Columbia. I think being able to manage a live web community will remain valuable in years to come. The skill-set (Flash, Dreamweaver, etc), however, will sadly be outdated in a few years.

So yes, emerging trends did shape my perspective of journalism. But why?

It has convinced me that journalism is stronger than ever. It's the newspapers that are failing - and it's the "profession" that has yet to redefine itself. But acts of journalism are everywhere. When I think of Digg -- I see the role of "journalist as guide." I submit things to Digg because I think people will want/should know about them. That is a journalistic service. It's just too bad "professional journalists" (at least the cliche of this) or newspapers haven't incorporated that into their everyday activities.

The job description is changing. It includes being a community manager, a moderator, a guide, among other things.

Another lesson: There is a "generation gap." It is not defined by age, hence the quotes, but again by mindset. I think the thing that separates these generations is an understanding of the job description of a "professional journalist." I see journalism as "engaging in the exchange of information.

Journalists can do their job even if they just create a space for journalism to happen. In other words: At Assignment Zero I did absolutely no reporting or writing. But I did help produce 80 full length interviews. In some respects this is like the role of a managing editor - but it's important to remember that my "employees" weren't paid and I couldn't fire them. I was a cheerleader, a mentor, a guide. In doing so, I did achieve the same ideals that traditional journalists want to achieve -- educating the public. As long as I am enabling a healthy and honest exchange of information - I believe I am acting as a journalist.

As for the Vice/Versa: There are aspects of journalism school that are absolutely irreplaceable that will inform my activities on the web. Things like thoroughness, ethics, laws (how not to libel anyone), etc. Writing is not a science, it is a craft and it needs to be practiced wholeheartedly.

[networked journalism summit / courtesy of the CUNY graduate school of journalism flickr image stream]

As a participant in numerous experiments in new journalism (see newassignment.net, offthebus, and beatblogging) what are your thoughts on the integration of citizen journalism into traditional modes of news gathering? Do you think we'll see crowdsourcing employed by a major American daily or network in the near future?

Recently I helped Jeff Jarvis organize the first Networked Journalism Summit. In it -- if you go to the "know each other" section you'll see that I conducted 64 interviews (some via email) with both media professionals and indy media types.

The two are beginning to converge and that was the whole point of the networked journalism summit. This is an emerging art. It is NOT being practiced methodically yet.... yet. But through this conference I am certain that mainstream media and indy media are no longer fighting, they are embracing each other. It benefits both. That is in relation to "citizen journalism."

Regarding crowdsourcing (I am also Jeff Howe's research assistant for his upcoming book on crowdsourcing) is a little more complicated. To me it has a different meaning than just "citizen journalism" -- although it's easy to argue that the two are interchangeable. But here are my thoughts.

Is there a future in "crowdsourcing." Yes. Will it look like Assignment Zero? No.

Crowdsourcing comes in both active and passive forms. Journalism sites like Assignment Zero, Now Public, or Helium - use active crowdsourcing. They make direct open calls. "Write this story!" (I call this citizen journalism).

Citizen journalism by itself works fine. Sites like OhmyNews, and NowPublic are testament to that. This is when individuals are working alone.

When you are asking people to donate to something that is part of a larger news organization - a few things to keep in mind. Unless writing is a passion or hobby - asking people to write a news article might as well be asking them to re-write their college midterm paper all over again. If you rely on this too much, you need to be prepared to either pull teeth from contributors. So the first thing news organizations need to learn is, how to do the proper "asks."

Believe it or not, this is something journalists can learn from politicians. Political groups have asks all the time: Hey voter X - donate your time, money, vote, etc. It is an art. If journalism organizations want to get help in news gathering from citizens, they need to learn the art of the ask. If they are asking for full articles - it better be a good ask. If they are asking for them to fill out a 2-second form, they can be sloppier about it - but either way. They need to get that down.

Or, news organizations need to learn how to provide incentives. This can be some money, but it can also be as easy as community clout. Organizations like Boston Now and Northwest Voice have shown that citizen journalists don't necessarily want money -- they want to be recognized by the community.

But crowdsourcing can be passive too. In terms of journalism, this is the type of "crowdsourcing" that I think of -- it is a bit different from active crowdsourcing, which is basically just asking for citizen journalists to contribute.

Here are two passive examples of crowdsourcing from Google: Crowdsourcing as game (if it's a good game, participants don't realize they are doing work): Google has a game about tagging their images (Google Image Labeler). Go ahead -- play the game and ask yourself if it feels like "work." Guess what -- it is! Or, even more passive, the algorithm that Google relies on rests mostly on the internal links that people give each other on the internet. Google hasn't organized the world's information - the collective WE did - Google was just able to tap into that.

The question is - how can newspapers tap into passive crowdsourcing. What information does the crowd have that we can organize and exchange?

That might sound a bit 'out-there' - so here is another way to think of it.

You asked how citizen journalism aide news gathering. Well, citizen journalists are also the people that news organizations are reporting FOR. So the question is - what information is a part of their lives that news organizations can organize and spit back out at them with added value? The next question is - how can we get that information from them actively (asking for it) or passively.

[digg interface]

This past summer you moderated a conversation between top digg users Andrew Sorcini, Muhammad Saleem and Reg Zaibatsu on The Drill Down podcast. In that discussion you pointed out that top social bookmakers have as large of an audience as the editorial staff of the New York Times. What are your thoughts on the relationship between social bookmarking and news gathering?

For one. I often wonder if participating in a social news site is an act of journalism. It's actually a very valuable service if you consider the information overload that we are experiencing. In fact, I work for a social news site - Propeller, which decided to pay "expert social bookmarkers" because they see a value in what we do.

Again - the job description for journalism is changing. Journalists are moderators. Journalists are now community managers. Perhaps another job is "journalists as guide."

That's why there are sites like brijit.com and NewsTrust.net now -- which are social news sites -- with a focus on quality news (as opposed to Digg which is voted on based on a rubric of "we think this is cool news").

That's sort of a broad answer. You asked specifically about news-gathering.

I'd say a two major things: First -- I used to use Digg as a way to find fresh stories. When I first joined, it was a small community and I was freelancing for Wired and Seed and Digg was a source of small, yet interesting stories. Today - I wouldn't use Digg as a source to find new stories -- because once it's on Digg, everyone has read it -- and nobody wants a freelance writer to do an article on something that everyone has already read.

BUT - The relationships I have on Digg are real. For example I am friends with another top digger named Roy Schestowitz. Roy is an open source maniac. The guy knows everything that is going on in the hardcore open source software movement. If I want to know what's going on in the OS world. I look at Roy's page.

If I want to know about the environment - I turn to either Aidenag or Tomboy501. If I want to know about science, I turn to Hanksname.

I think most people follow me on Digg if they want to know what's going on in citizen journalism/blogging. If you are a reporter on a specific beat - it behooves you to find the Roy Schestowitz of that beat.

[stamen design / digg stack visualization]

On the topic of digg, you are a dedicated participant in that social news community as well as a vocal critic of some of the inconsistencies in the site's policies. What do you feel are digg's key strengths and shortcomings and what other social bookmarking sites do you find provocative?

It's strength right now is actually the critical mass it has achieved. This, I believe, makes the voting mean something. On Propeller, we have less voting activity, so if I story gets 30 votes, it might go to the front page. The question is... was 30 votes really enough of a marker to deem this story worthy of being on the front page?

As far as crowdsourcing goes - Digg was very smart in the beginning in terms of creating an incentive. Getting on the front page of digg is like "winning." It's a huge ego boost. You also used to get ranked. I am unofficially ranked 38th on Digg -- which is just cool to say.

This is connected, however to a weakness. Digg is a game, not a place to necessarily share valuable news. In addition to being slow and annoying, the last redesign has changed the ethos of the community to highlight this gaming culture. I almost quit completely. The new social networking tools allow for user-to-user interaction, which is great - but it has also led to a slew of new "game-approach" users.

These voters employ two tactics:

The first is blind voting. I've seen new users, only weeks into the system, who have voted for 5000+ stories. I have been on the site for 2+ years and have only voted for 11,000 -- and even I can admit I didn't read them all. This blind voting is just to get your name out there. There is nothing wrong with it, but then I question (a the value of diggs in general and (b. the reason this person is on the site.

The second strategy is instant-messaging and emailing stories around. In the last three weeks I have been approached by lots of new users who just want to make friends and share Digg urls. It's cool. I'm always nice -- and I like meeting new people, as long as we talk too -- otherwise I feel like I'm an empty vote and the social networking aspects of Digg are a waste.

That said, what's great about social news is that it has spread very rapidly. There are lots of social news sites out there: Reddit, Propeller, StumbleUpon and the other big three.

What I want to see more of are sites like NewsTrust.net. Which I've wrote about in the past:

Social news sites like Reddit, Digg and Netscape tend to judge submitted news articles by popularity. Often the snarkiest headline wins. As sites develop niche communities, stories that are promoted often cater more to the wants and whims of the group. If the first generation of social news sites ranked stories in order of popularity, then the next wave would do well to find a new rubric of voting to separate themselves from the crowd. Enter NewsTrust, a social news site that rates stories based on “quality journalism.” The beta site is up and running for public testing and is worth checking out.

So NewsTrust is obviously catering to a journalism crowd. But why not have a social news site dedicated to serving people who are interested in the environment? Sports? Under-water basket weaving.

Social news sites have yet to develop niches. Instead what we have are the big four (mentioned above) who are really like large national papers. I see Digg as the large national gossip magazine, Propeller is more like USA Today, StumbleUpon (which has an interesting algorithm to determine what's hot, not Digg-like voting) is the local major metropolitan with national appeal (your Chicago Tribunes, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.). Reddit -- well, I never understood Reddit so I don't know what the community is like.

Each site has its own feel -- but not a niche.

Journalism meets technology philosophizing aside, what are you up to now that you are done grad school?

After finishing Columbia I moved back to San Francisco for a few reasons. One of them is that I want to engage in entrepreneurial journalism. I think we need more entrepreneurial journalists.

What keeps me busy: I am working on a new newassignment.Net project, Beat Blogging which asks the question can beat reporting improve if we equip the journalists with social networks?

I continue to blog at newassignment.net and digidave.org

As for what I am doing personally (as a hopeful entrepreneur), I have two grant proposals in the second round in the Knight News Challenge grant. I was just able to sneak into the "young innovators" section (25 and under).

I'm really excited about both and if anybody wants to fund me, then I would get started on them right away (hint hint Mr. Rich reader).

I also am partnering with a citizen journalism network called Broowaha. Currently the site has a small but passionate network. I hope to help grow that network into something meaningful that can partner with large news organizations.

The folks at Assignment Zero must be in high spirits as yesterday marked the first publication of their crowdsourced content at Wired. Assignment Zero is a project that evolved out of the work of citizen journalism advocate and NYU associate professor Jay Rosen. I've been following Assignment Zero from the moment it launched as Jay Rosen and editor David Cohn were both quite helpful with my thesis research.

For the uninitiated, crowdsourcing is distributed content creation. In the context of journalism, think Wikipedia meets the newsroom. The project cultivated and mobilized an instant community to produce over 80 interviews with luminaries in numerous fields. The goal was to prove that an informed, turned-on populace could produce high quality journalism.

The term crowdsourcing term was first coined by Jeff Howe in a June 2006 article for Wired. The piece concludes with the following:

Technological advances in everything from product design software to digital video cameras are breaking down the cost barriers that once separated amateurs from professionals. Hobbyists, part-timers, and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts, as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn’t always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It’s not outsourcing; it’s crowdsourcing.

Fast-forward a year to Jay Rosen's introduction to the crowdsourced content in Wired:

I wouldn't say it's easy for widely scattered people working together voluntarily on the net to report on a big story unfolding in many places at once. But we know a lot more about it now than we did when we started.

While not as overtly optimistic as Howe, Rosen is certainly allowed to be a bit more cynical now that his project has moved from speculation to logistics. It will be interesting to see how Assignment Zero informs Rosen's Off The Bus project which will deploy a community of bloggers to cover the 2008 presidential race for The Huffington Post.

I encourage you to take some time to examine the archive of material collected under the Assignment Zero umbrella. Some interviews that I've noticed thus far: David Butler's interview of Frank Piller (a mass customization expert), Marla Crockett's interview of Jimmy Wales (the developer of Wikipedia), Kristin Gorski's interview of McKenzie Wark (the author of Gamer Theory) and Malcolm Levy in conversation with Angelo Sotira (the founder of Deviant Art).