Small team, nonprofit network
By Barry Johnson
To view the print-friendly version, download the PDF.
To add a comment or see what others are saying, go to the comments section below.
Add a Comment:
Bill Lascher
8th Nov 2009
This proposal took steps toward a creative approach to nonprofit journalism. I don't think I've heard this discussion of networked journalism groups before. Overall, it's a fresh approach, and I look forward to discussions on this topic at the conference.
To start some of the discussion, I am somewhat skeptical of this model. Let me say this first, though, I commend Barry for putting this forward and realize some of my thoughts will be hashed out.
I like the idea for its discussion of the resiliency of networks, especially as contrasted with monolithic media organizations. It seems pragmatic to start with a few groups and grow organically from there, and the paper's emphasis on a democratic approach is inspiring.
On the other hand, I think there are some contradictions in the paper. In section V "Start-up and sustainability," a statement is made that it's crucial to ascertain the true costs of the teams ..." I agree, but how would this allow, then, these groups to expand and contract to meet journalism needs and accommodate the skills and level of interest within the community? Likewise, how do you keep the organization democratic while developing a board of directors or developing some sort of centralized journalism oversight?
Fortunately, Johnson seems to anticipate some of these questions. I appreciated his recognition, for example, of the need for training in collaboration and team building. Perhaps we could add ongoing training in standards too?
But could standards diverge between the different interest areas proposed? I'm not sure. would there be a centralized idea of journalistic standards shared within the group? If so, would that remain in line with the democratic standards? Also, if the network reached the point where there were competing groups within a subject area (overall a good thing, I think), could that generate conflicting standards?
One idea along this topic of conversation might be to think about having some sort of collaboration in physical work environments. Maybe the network could have a collaborative space with some sort of common research area, library and technology. In addition to allowing for shared resources, such a space might allow for informal communication as occurs in a traditional newsroom. Similar to coworking environments, the space might be one where members of the network can still communicate. I've heard some informal discussion of such ideas in other locals -- it's not my idea -- but it's something to bring to the table during the conference.
I agree with the idea that winners wouldn't have to be picked in a networked environment, but again, I wonder if that is contradicted by the idea that firm planning would be needed to secure funding and direction from the outset. I guess what I might be saying, is maybe we need to think about just how democratic this can actually be.
I also agree that a Web site doesn't have to be too fancy. It's not just a resource efficiency issue, either. Too much journalism is focused on too much glitz, on too many features and not enough substances. It's distracting if it's not done very well.
On the tech front, though, I don't think it's problematic if partnerships mean we post after our items are posted on other Web sites or broadcast elsewhere. What we might lose a bit of in currency we'd gain in focus for each group: audiences or users or whatever we want to call them would know they can come to a specific site for one of these specific groups for the specialized information that journalism group is focused on.
Despite my critiques, Johnson has clearly provided the foundation of an idea worthy of further discussion.
Barry Johnson
16th Nov 2009
Bill, thanks for the thoughtful reading! I think the tension between "democracy" and "standards" is fairly easily resolved: Reasonable and rational people will agree that the most useful sort of journalism applies is rigorous and open-minded. They might disagree about how rigorous or how open-minded a particular example of journalism really is, but not the principles. They also will agree that as a practical matter, it's necessary to delegate that judgment, at least in the short term, to editors.
I think of the board of directors as "community organizers," more than an oversight committee. Their ability to develop support for the team in various ways and encourage participation and communication from the community is crucial to the success of the team. It's even possible that the community would elect some or all of them.
Standards WILL diverge in the network -- they diverge in our news organizations now. That's why a Citizens News Council might be useful to help them identify typical journalism problems in their work.
Establishing revenue streams large enough to fund a group (which could be only 1 journalist, though that's not optimal) is crucial, if we want to attract and keep professional journalists. The revenue streams will expand and contract over time, I suspect, meaning teams will grow or shrink accordingly. If the health team I describe helps produce better health policy, then it might attract substantially more funding from foundations eager to find out more about the process, for example.
Michael Andersen
21st Nov 2009
So I've finally decided that (assuming we get to choose) this is the breakout session for me. I really like the nuts and boltsiness of it.
One worry I have about the workflow Barry imagines, with teams of reporters feeding stories to multiple media outlets: seems to me it overemphasizes content expertise at the expense of audience expertise. Different media and different content niches attract different audiences; successful local TV stations, for example, know their audience does not consist of news junkies and is mostly uninterested in in-depth explorations of local policy. And somehow I get the feeling that a hypothetical outlet founded by Ron Buel would cultivate a totally different audience. More power to both ventures! But it might be hard (or, worse, inefficient) for a single reporting team to understand the different needs of each audience as they create their content.
Also, in what way is this really different than the current freelance model? People develop expertise, they develop relationships with outlets, they try to package a single piece of reporting for multiple outlets. Is this more than "wouldn't freelance be great if it had better pay and more support structures, thanks to a few donors?"
Finally, I don't think for-profit outlets are inherently obsessed with exclusive content. Most for-profit Web startups seem to understand perfectly that a site with outbound links is much better than a site without them.