Posted by John Burke on October 2, 2006 at 1:06 PM
One of the biggest debates in American journalism is over the strict division between fact and opinion. Although some would contend that all writing inherently leans one way or another, the fear of bias in American media has caused a suppression of journalists' views in order to maintain objectivity. But on the other side of the Atlantic, opinion is regularly mixed in to newspaper articles. Could this eventually change?
If you talk to any media watcher nowadays, they don’t hesitate to tell you that the globalized world of 24-hour news stations and humongous international news organizations means that smaller newspapers
need to focus more on their immediate communities. They also won’t flinch in
mentioning that most local newspapers are doing a poor job. A
few models of the “new newspaper”
exist to which they refer enthusiastically. But a recently launched local website has joined the fray and could become the new reference point. The difference is, it’s not a newspaper.
Editor & Publisher reports that South Dakota's
Argus Leader has launched a
Los Angeles Times-style user generated op-ed feature, or
wikitorial, on its website. LAT's experiment with the model was nixed two days after its launch due to profanity and pornography being posted on the site. But the Argus is taking a slightly different approach.
Despite the sudden end of the "wikitorial" page at the Los Angeles Times last week (see previous posting), reader enthusiasm and high levels of participation have encouraged the daily's editors to give the experiment another go. General manager of LAT interactive Rob Barrett said optimistically "As long as we can hit a high standard and have no risk of vandalism, then it is worth having a try at it again." The original experiment was met with both praise by those who champion newspaper innovation as the saving grace of the medium, and criticism from traditional editorialists who staunchly opposed the idea of a "collective intelligence" op-ed piece. For the "thousands" of curious readers who checked out the experiment, the Times' editorial page editor Andres Martinez, said "I was heartened by how seriously people took it... It's not a total shock it ended up this way. Now we will evaluate what this means." If launched once again, LAT wikitorials may be limited to a specified group of contributors or a member of the Times' staff may be assigned to monitor changes to an article before they are posted.
Sources: Los Angeles Times and The New York Times
Despite the sudden end of the "wikitorial" page at the Los Angeles Times last week (see previous posting), reader enthusiasm and high levels of participation have encouraged the daily's editors to give the experiment another go. General manager of LAT interactive Rob Barrett said optimistically "As long as we can hit a high standard and have no risk of vandalism, then it is worth having a try at it again." The original experiment was met with both praise by those who champion newspaper innovation as the saving grace of the medium, and criticism from traditional editorialists who staunchly opposed the idea of a "collective intelligence" op-ed piece. For the "thousands" of curious readers who checked out the experiment, the Times' editorial page editor Andres Martinez, said "I was heartened by how seriously people took it... It's not a total shock it ended up this way. Now we will evaluate what this means." If launched once again, LAT wikitorials may be limited to a specified group of contributors or a member of the Times' staff may be assigned to monitor changes to an article before they are posted.
Sources: Los Angeles Times and The New York Times
The Los Angeles Times’ experiment with wikitorials continues to develop, as LA Observed reports that the paper has taken down its first wikitorial entry from its website. The Times explained, “Unfortunately, we had to remove this feature, at least temporarily, because a few readers were flooding the site with inappropriate material. Thanks and apologies to the thousands of people who logged on in the right spirit.” It is rumored that someone kept posting child porn on the website. Instead of functioning efficiently like a true wiki, a website on which the facts posted by readers are then refined, the wikitorial experiment unraveled into a war over its existence. On another note, in Sunday’s opinion section, one LA Times editor promised that the new design would soon be reveled.
Source: LA Observed
The op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times are poised to go "wiki," using the technology of Wikipedia to integrate its readers into the opinion process. The section's editor, Michael Kinsley has already made a few changes to his staff and the way in which it functions, even allowing its writers a once a year opportunity to publish a column contradicting the papers editorial stance. The introduction of "wikitorials" is being met with mixed reactions from the daily's former Washington bureau chief Jack Nelson who exclaimed "it's absolutely crazy to have outsiders writing editorials," to Jan Schaffer, executive director of J-Lab at the University of Maryland who is refreshed by the idea that a newspaper is "creating new entry points for readers to weigh in with their collective wisdom and enrich the journalistic commentary." Still others, including Kinsley himself see it simply as an experiment that "may be one of those things that within six months will be standard." "It's the ultimate in reader participation," said Kinsley. With waning circulations and seemingly apathetic youth, Mr. Kinsley and the Times may be starting an experiment that could give newspapers the boost of innovation they need to remain competitive with new media.
Source: The New York Times
The op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times are poised to go "wiki," using the technology of Wikipedia to integrate its readers into the opinion process. The section's editor, Michael Kinsley has already made a few changes to his staff and the way in which it functions, even allowing its writers a once a year opportunity to publish a column contradicting the papers editorial stance. The introduction of "wikitorials" is being met with mixed reactions from the daily's former Washington bureau chief Jack Nelson who exclaimed "it's absolutely crazy to have outsiders writing editorials," to Jan Schaffer, executive director of J-Lab at the University of Maryland who is refreshed by the idea that a newspaper is "creating new entry points for readers to weigh in with their collective wisdom and enrich the journalistic commentary." Still others, including Kinsley himself see it simply as an experiment that "may be one of those things that within six months will be standard." "It's the ultimate in reader participation," said Kinsley. With waning circulations and seemingly apathetic youth, Mr. Kinsley and the Times may be starting an experiment that could give newspapers the boost of innovation they need to remain competitive with new media.
Source: The New York Times
