You’re right. The ability for readers to comment on news stories will be soon be the norm, but I don’t think it adds as much value as you predict. I read sfgate.com quite a lot and it has this feature, and I can’t say it plays out anything like what you describe. It usually seems like a place for people to let of steam, make off topic statements, make insults, argue amongst each other, show their stupidity, etc. Theoretically there could be someone with enough facts and writing ability (let’s face it most average people don’t have these skills, that’s why we value trained journalists) who can build on and extend the reporter’s work, but more often than not comments come in the form of attacks on the reporter’s skill, credibility and relevance, with the assumption that the reporting system is bogus, and flawed in the first place. I don’t think the kind of facts, corrections, counterbalance and perspective you describe will be produced.

Here’s a story from back here. How would I have known of this development without them? I called in to the talkradio for more info please.

Our Miller Group (radio & newspaper) reported about 6 months ago and a new episode yesterday of Landlords arrested and buildings up for confiscation by the legal system for allowing illegal drug activities.

What I don’t get is why the illegal activities are ongoing – can’t Law & Order break the loopholes – and why now it’s the Landlords duty to evict these types from the neighborhoods? IMO very dangerous precedent fellow citizens.

Eh? Other newspapers don’t seem to have a problem doing this. Here’s just one example from a local paper in Staunton VA:

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/NEWS01/70823001/1002

Maybe the LAT needs a new webmaster. Jeff: Is your son available for consulting?

I don’t think you get it, Mr. Healey.

Let’s say company X stonewalls, and then comments as you say … well, why do you think that ends the conversation. Company X just made news by their comments, not matter how untruthful. Your story just got better. The reporter goes and writes a story about the comments and debunks them. More truth is illuminated. Readers are better informed, and they have a clearer picture of who company x really is.

This is better journalism. This is better civics.

Google is HELPING you. And us. If it works (and I’m not sure it will, but I appreciate the effort).

One of the main things that really bugged me about the LAT piece, and I still don’t think you get based on the above, is that you think readers are not smart enough. That’s the common journalistic hubris. If we aren’t there to guide readers and make sure their information is properly filtered and balanced, they won’t really be able to figure out things on their own and separate fact from spin, etc.

But, how good has journalism done at that over the past couple of decades anyway?

First, readers are smarter than most journalists give them credit for; Second, thanks to blogs and such, they’re getting smarter. The thing about the new information economy is we all have to be smarter, and that’s happening, because we’re largely on our own for filtering news and opinion. I, for one, thing that’s a good thing. It’s actually BETTER for democracy.

Sometime you might want to walk across the hall and have a long conversation with Matt Welch about all this. It would help a lot.

It’s at least a little encouraging that the LA Times recognizes theoir authority is under attack, even if they’re not quite realistic about the nature of the threat.