Basically, while I’m skeptical on the notion that you’re going to be able to make great news content from random readers (I could be convinced, I guess, but it just seems really, really hard), but it seems like NYT, along with all of the other newspaper companies I cover, has to evolve into some kind of content platform for lots of different kinds of contributors. In other words, they need to ’spin off’ their reporters, columnists and editors and make them into their own P&Ls. Something like About.com. But good.

—

I’m not an expert, so full disclosure: But my guess is that the future of The New York Times — and any other content business where the individual content thingy can be made by an individual or very small team (ie., like writing an article or recording a song — but, not in the near-term, like creating a broadcast-quality television show or a big video game) — is to become a platform for independent experts, pundits and assorted content-makers.

Again, I’m guessing, but this platform needs to provide distribution, publishing tools, revenue sharing, and some way of letting readers have an expectation for the quality of the contributor. There’s probably a bunch of other stuff the platform could provide also — as the comment about Friedman mentioned, the revenue streams should go way beyond advertising (and even include Fred’s worst enemy, premium content). But the platform should not employ any of these content people as employees and it should not try to control their brand or content.

Now, I’ll admit that I don’t go there much. Okay, never. But from the other comments it sounds like the current About.com product is not a 100% perfect fit for this future platform — not so great brand; not so great content.

But on the other hand it’s probably pretty useful if they want to get to the future faster: it seems to have a ton of distribution through Google and some kind of bloggy publishing tools. And an ad sales force. And, as Fred said, real revenue. And, most importantly, a framework for working with independent content people. So it’s a start.

So, basically, I don’t think selling About.com makes a ton of sense, since my guess is that they would end up needing to build something a lot like it. Maybe they should change the About brand or fire the current writers. And they should definitely run the numbers on winding down the paper version, but I’m sure they are and it probably doesn’t make sense yet.

If the NYT asked readers to report gas prices and then put that on a site saying here’s what readers report about prices at gas stations, fine. But if that information is used in a story about price gouging, that’s not fine.

K has an interesting point: the way newspapers are currently conceived, the idea of reporting that the reservoirs are full will not get written unless it is a very slow news day. Because it’s not going to sell papers. In a collaborative world, there might be a place on the Arizona Republic site where readers can post pictures and measures of water depth at the reservoirs.

The reservoir story is like global warming, or Y2K or the hole in the ozone layer, or other “end of the world” stories. It’s a story when the reservoir is dry, when the winter is warm, when the computers will crash. It’s not a story when there is water, or there is more snow cover in North America than there has been since 1966 (which there is now), or when the computers get fixed. Using readers as reporters, with cameras and the ability to collect and report data, might relieve that.

No story was written. Perhaps reporters were not interested in the topic? Who knows. But a reporter or editor could have taken the time to acknowledge the detailed email I had sent. Instead, silence.

If the MSM wants to succeed, it needs to stick to topics and perspectives that resonate with readers … as well as respect their readers. This is a simple concept. Ordinary small businesses go out of their way to make customers feel welcomed and served. Do newspapers serve? Do they welcome reader input? I think not.

It’s hubris. If reporters honestly believed their readers had ideas to offer, they’d listen. But they don’t respect their readers opinions. They’d rather game them. Reporters must regard readers as sheeple — “poor, uneducated and easily led,” as a Wash Post reporter once characterized evangelicals.

Until reporters desire the appreciation of their readers, they won’t be able to write for them. Until they “know their audience,” they can’t serve them. Until they respect them, they won’t be respected.

I think making sure the public knows how and where to submit their video, story ideas and newsworthy events is a good starting place.

Also, I’d like to have a website or blog I could go to that posts topics that the Times (or whoever) need more information or coverage for, as well as a place where people can suggest what they want covered, or what they have information on that may be newsworthy.

Thanks,
Cinda Hocking
Internal Energy Plus Consultant
Advisor, Children’s International Obesity Foundation

It comes across as patronizing.

(and yes, it may be that most? all? the community-submitted ideas are crap - but if you haven’t tried the experiment, you don’t know.)

But what, specifically, should journalists at the Times ask its users to do? Let’s hear some very concrete next steps.

One thing to note here is that the journalists at the Times don’t necessarily have to ask anything of their users nor of their *readers*. But the Times itself could (this is what we’re trying to discuss) better itself by outsourcing some work to its users. I realize the distinction there is small, but it is worth noting clearly: the journalists can keep on keeping on. The investigators can keep on keeping on.

* Think about a traditional tip line, now scale it up.

Now it seems like a novel idea because it’s still in the gimmick stage.

You clearly dislike the concept of Bill Keller’s “data” collection. What are your thoughts on CNN’s I-Reporters or entities like backfence.com?

I do not believe it is helpful to think of this from the perspective of journalists vs. users or MSM vs. citizen journalism vs. blogs vs. social networks vs me vs. you.

Newspapers in some form have always utilized their users/readers: Letters to the editor, witness accounts, tip lines, Zodiak code breaking, identifying the Unabomber, etc. So now we’re wondering if there are even more ways to put the user to work, if you don’t think this is possible, this discussion is not going to be fruitful for you.

Recently in Calif, a city was sued because they’d striped the edge of a street for pedestrians but it was wide enough that it looked to drivers like another lane - with unfortunate consequences for the pedestrian(s) using it.
So give readers a Google map and let them mark it - perhaps with photos too - to show spots on their city’s streets that have the same flaw.

And beatblogging-type suggestions and offers to help seemingly go nowhere.

I was a regular commenter there for a couple months, until the low ROI became apparent.

I don’t think they want to change.

I’d like to see a list of the offers and suggestions people *have* made, to the Times; it’d shed some much-needed light on what they’re *not* interested in doing.

(sorry for the tone of this comment, but it’s been a disillusioning experience)

Or, maybe you could point me to an instance where it was used convincingly, ie, it produced information without qualification. (BTW, you’re confusing data with information, IMHO.)

In the Lehrer experiment, differing neighborhood pricing policies is not evidence that businesses are price gouging. By using this pejorative term in the study description, it appears the conclusion was reached before the data were collected.

Why do the journalists need to depend upon me? I just want to load the Web site and read well-written, adequately researched stories where I don’t have to be skeptical of every assertion made.

I think the reality is, the MSM are feeling the pain of having to produce content at an alarming rate, while trying to save costs by getting rid of editors, proofreaders, et al. User-generated content is supposed to be the panacea.

Pretty soon Web 3.0 will be here with a whole new set of ideas supposed to be the next big thing.

“Um, these bunch of people said they were gouged by business X, so we published it, but you shouldn’t necessarily believe it because it was an unscientific survey.”

Bill Keller’s “the story speaks for itself” concept rapidly falls apart as you need to add caveat upon caveat for everything you publish.

How could anyone act on the “data” produced by crowdsourcing? This technique is easily corrupted, and has no safeguards that attempt to validate the results. It’s GIGO (garbage-in, garbage out) tool that’s way too unreliable, eg, WhoIsSick.org.

The facile, unscientific, unsafeguarded tools you’re promoting do produce eye-catching stories in a hurry, but at what cost to accuracy? Now it seems like a novel idea because it’s still in the gimmick stage.

Do you really want the NY Times to become a megaphone for whatever party with a speciall interest that can hack this apparently open system?

Why not have the NY Times provide a phone number that you can call and have your voice transcribed into an article that is published instantly? You could call it the NY Twitter Times.