"We've reached a point where we have to go beyond user comments as the sole means of interaction on news articles," writes
Steve Outing. "It's time to integrate staff content and eyewitness reports supplied from your community."
User comments all too frequently don't add to a story. "Comment threads in many newspaper Web sites are filled with bad behavior, crude humor, and uncivil discourse, punctuated by the occasional worthwhile tidbit that adds to a story. We must do better," writes Outing.
Gawker recently suggested cutting comment boxes all together; however, readers can add value - perhaps we just need to look outside the comment box.
In
his latest Editor & Publisher column, Outing argues, "most newspaper Web sites remain largely stuck in the we-tell-you mode of news," and that it's time to "get past that outdated strategy (and) integrate staff content and information from your community."
In its current form, reader-created content "is shuffled off to the side in its own area, set apart from the professional journalism."
Outing suggests that for any - and every - story, along side the reporter's piece is an "info-box sidebar ask(ing) people who were eyewitnesses to the accident to share any photos (or video) they may have taken, and to describe what they saw. Any content shared by eyewitnesses would be posted on the same page as the reporter's story."
Further, this feature should be included for all stories, big or small. "I argue that it's actually more interesting when applied to the smaller headlines," wrote Outing. "Because it serves the people for whom a 'small' story is actually big to them. Small stories often are reported by a small number of news organizations at a shallow level, so expanding them provides a powerful public service for those who want or need to know more."
For example, recently a local paper reported about a bear spotted in a neighborhood. Six users left comments, but most fell into the "smartass category." Outing writes, "By asking for eyewitness accounts... we'd actually get a look at that bear. After all, if you live in that neighborhood, you will be interested in that story... A wildlife expert reading the story might be prompted to post advice on what to do if you spot a bear foraging in your garbage cans."
Outing also suggests adding an story-specific email alert feature, so that as content is added, interested readers can stay up-to-date.
Reader involvement can even allow "big" stories to simultaneously be local, "for example, for the essential hurricane preparation story, local residents can be asked what they are doing to prepare... Retailers can be asked to report if they have essential preparedness materials like plywood available, to spare residents the hassle when trying to find something that everyone in town wants... For a personal-interest story about a specific family's losses, a call can go out -- accompanying the story -- to neighbors or friends of the family who may have additional information to share."
Outing cautions against creating "community content ghettos" and instead highlighting user-generated photos, videos, tips and opinion. "This stuff is important and can be important to the overall coverage of a story, so don't bury it."
Last, Outing addresses
quality control. "How do we know that the eyewitness account is for real? Has the user-contributed photo been doctored in Photoshop? If the submission is written really badly or is riddled with factual errors, are we supposed to run it anyway?"
Outing recommends both user registration (so editors may contact contributors to verify information) and a vetting system, perhaps run by the story's reporter, who filters any community-created content and can moderate these reports. Outing also suggests ranking incoming submissions, so that the most valuable contributions get put at the top of the page.
An interesting point Outing makes is not to "cherry-pick." "If you gain a reputation of only picking the best stuff that community members contribute (the old "letters to the editor" model), you may see contributions dry up. My answer to that is to publish everything that looks to be legitimate and doesn't violate your terms of service, but for the lesser stuff hide it behind a 'more' link for those who want to dig a bit deeper. Present the best stuff at the top layer."
Source:
Editor & Publisher