<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The challenge washingtonpost.com isn&#039;t meeting: How to connect the dots between words and action</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 69.139.144.49</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/#comment-1583</link>
		<dc:creator>69.139.144.49</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1621#comment-1583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jane, thanks for your comment. We are at odds on one thing and one thing only: Your decision to ignore the myriad examples of our work that match precisely what you suggest we do.

The store with our obesity series is not merely a pretty graphic, it&#039;s an interactive tool with which people engage and participate to learn and take control of their diets.

We didn&#039;t just parachute in to our schools or our slumlords. If you&#039;d looked at publication dates you&#039;ll see that we have gone back repeatedly, and will continue to do so, building community conversation and involvement along the way.

More: Our OnFaith and PostGlobal features offer provide some of the largest, sustained conversations on their topics on the Web. Our Giving Map allowed potential givers to find the best outles for their philanthropy. We have more blogs than any comparable news organization, some of which have writers/contributors from the community.

Are we satisfied? Hardly. Do we intend to do more and better? Yes. Can we benefit from ideas from people such as you and Tom? Absolutely.

But across the spectrum of engagement, building community and participation, we are doing a fair amount and have in fact been industry leaders. And large and growing numbers of readers are participating.

So I wondered why you and Tom would insist otherwise? I surmised that Tom was perhaps   urging a higher level of advocacy journalism than we are ready to embrace, though as I said it&#039;s a great and important debate to have.

I guess the other conclusion is that our work simply doesn&#039;t fit the narrative of hopelessly out of touch, old media types who simply &quot;don&#039;t get it.&quot; I submit that the facts get in the way.       ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jane, thanks for your comment. We are at odds on one thing and one thing only: Your decision to ignore the myriad examples of our work that match precisely what you suggest we do.</p>
<p>The store with our obesity series is not merely a pretty graphic, it&#8217;s an interactive tool with which people engage and participate to learn and take control of their diets.</p>
<p>We didn&#8217;t just parachute in to our schools or our slumlords. If you&#8217;d looked at publication dates you&#8217;ll see that we have gone back repeatedly, and will continue to do so, building community conversation and involvement along the way.</p>
<p>More: Our OnFaith and PostGlobal features offer provide some of the largest, sustained conversations on their topics on the Web. Our Giving Map allowed potential givers to find the best outles for their philanthropy. We have more blogs than any comparable news organization, some of which have writers/contributors from the community.</p>
<p>Are we satisfied? Hardly. Do we intend to do more and better? Yes. Can we benefit from ideas from people such as you and Tom? Absolutely.</p>
<p>But across the spectrum of engagement, building community and participation, we are doing a fair amount and have in fact been industry leaders. And large and growing numbers of readers are participating.</p>
<p>So I wondered why you and Tom would insist otherwise? I surmised that Tom was perhaps   urging a higher level of advocacy journalism than we are ready to embrace, though as I said it&#8217;s a great and important debate to have.</p>
<p>I guess the other conclusion is that our work simply doesn&#8217;t fit the narrative of hopelessly out of touch, old media types who simply &#8220;don&#8217;t get it.&#8221; I submit that the facts get in the way.       </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jane stevens</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/#comment-1582</link>
		<dc:creator>jane stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1621#comment-1582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sigh? What Tom&#039;s pointing out so nicely is that the Washington Post is still stuck in NewspaperLand. It does GREAT journalism. But it&#039;s old fashioned, and in Webworld, not very useful to its community.

By its nature, the Web is participatory (collaborative), interactive (between jurno and community members, not just interacting with a graphic), and solution-oriented, or, as Tom put it, action-oriented.

Solution-oriented doesn&#039;t mean the jurno provides the answers. Solution-oriented means that the jurno provides links to all people and organizations who are attempting to solve the issue. It means providing a way for members of the community to interact virtually to discuss, address and solve the problem. It means following through until the issue is resolved. The days of parachuting in, doing good work, leaving, and not returning for a year or two or three are over.

A news organization&#039;s community knows that the Web is a continuous beast, and if its journalists don&#039;t serve its needs, the community will turn willingly to someone who is.

A good example to follow is the WestSeattleBlog. It&#039;s run by a wife-and-husband team who serve their community better than any other news organization whose journalists parachute in and out of that community. (If they had to do it over again, they wouldn&#039;t call themselves a blog. As Tracy Record says, they&#039;re not bloggers; they&#039;re journalists using a blogging format, which, by the way, IS the format every jurno should use.

I&#039;ve gone on ad nauseum about this on ReJurno.com, where you can find some guidelines on what the Web demands of journalists and journalism. Clearly, Tom gets it and Jonathan, whom I know is very smart, doesn&#039;t yet or isn&#039;t being allowed to.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sigh? What Tom&#8217;s pointing out so nicely is that the Washington Post is still stuck in NewspaperLand. It does GREAT journalism. But it&#8217;s old fashioned, and in Webworld, not very useful to its community.</p>
<p>By its nature, the Web is participatory (collaborative), interactive (between jurno and community members, not just interacting with a graphic), and solution-oriented, or, as Tom put it, action-oriented.</p>
<p>Solution-oriented doesn&#8217;t mean the jurno provides the answers. Solution-oriented means that the jurno provides links to all people and organizations who are attempting to solve the issue. It means providing a way for members of the community to interact virtually to discuss, address and solve the problem. It means following through until the issue is resolved. The days of parachuting in, doing good work, leaving, and not returning for a year or two or three are over.</p>
<p>A news organization&#8217;s community knows that the Web is a continuous beast, and if its journalists don&#8217;t serve its needs, the community will turn willingly to someone who is.</p>
<p>A good example to follow is the WestSeattleBlog. It&#8217;s run by a wife-and-husband team who serve their community better than any other news organization whose journalists parachute in and out of that community. (If they had to do it over again, they wouldn&#8217;t call themselves a blog. As Tracy Record says, they&#8217;re not bloggers; they&#8217;re journalists using a blogging format, which, by the way, IS the format every jurno should use.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve gone on ad nauseum about this on ReJurno.com, where you can find some guidelines on what the Web demands of journalists and journalism. Clearly, Tom gets it and Jonathan, whom I know is very smart, doesn&#8217;t yet or isn&#8217;t being allowed to.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Grubisich</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/#comment-1581</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Grubisich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1621#comment-1581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonathan, you cite very good things that washingtonpost.com does.  &quot;Shining a light&quot; (the term, I believe, was coined by Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book &quot;Public Opinion]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonathan, you cite very good things that washingtonpost.com does.  &#8220;Shining a light&#8221; (the term, I believe, was coined by Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book &#8220;Public Opinion</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Krim</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/the-challenge-washingtonpost-com-isnt-meeting-how-to-connect-the-dots-between-words-and-action/#comment-1580</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Krim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1621#comment-1580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sigh. Tom, I&#039;m not resisting understanding anything. I think, rather, that you are being selective in seeking to make your point.

So please tell us: What would &quot;connect the dots between words and action&quot; more than the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/childhoodobesity/store/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; interactive store&lt;/a&gt; we did with our obesity series, with which people can learn to take control of their diets? You ignored that one.

Likewise, we had precisely the school-by-school discussions you recommend in the charter schools portion of our Fixing DC Schools series.

What would connect the dots more than a full FAQ, maps, survival alerts and answers to individual reader questions on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/inauguration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inauguration logistics?&lt;/a&gt;

Or the multitude of other examples on our site. (One last one: We have one of the largest &lt;a href=&quot;http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sustained, interfaith conversations&lt;/a&gt; on the Web about religion.)

You seem to want to define engagement and building community in one, narrow way, which is investigative journalism that ends with highly prescriptive and call-to-arms material that, by definition, goes beyond simply shining a light and effectively seeks to campaign.

That&#039;s actually an interesting journalistic debate to have. But how about we engage it with open minds? We might not even be too far apart at the end.

We are hardly perfect, and have miles to go before we sleep. But building community and engagement happens in any number of ways and in multiple venues, and is hardly limited to that type of journalism.

All best,

Jonathan Krim
Assitant Managing Editor/Local
washingtonpost.com

    ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sigh. Tom, I&#8217;m not resisting understanding anything. I think, rather, that you are being selective in seeking to make your point.</p>
<p>So please tell us: What would &#8220;connect the dots between words and action&#8221; more than the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/childhoodobesity/store/" rel="nofollow"> interactive store</a> we did with our obesity series, with which people can learn to take control of their diets? You ignored that one.</p>
<p>Likewise, we had precisely the school-by-school discussions you recommend in the charter schools portion of our Fixing DC Schools series.</p>
<p>What would connect the dots more than a full FAQ, maps, survival alerts and answers to individual reader questions on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/inauguration" rel="nofollow">inauguration logistics?</a></p>
<p>Or the multitude of other examples on our site. (One last one: We have one of the largest <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/" rel="nofollow">sustained, interfaith conversations</a> on the Web about religion.)</p>
<p>You seem to want to define engagement and building community in one, narrow way, which is investigative journalism that ends with highly prescriptive and call-to-arms material that, by definition, goes beyond simply shining a light and effectively seeks to campaign.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s actually an interesting journalistic debate to have. But how about we engage it with open minds? We might not even be too far apart at the end.</p>
<p>We are hardly perfect, and have miles to go before we sleep. But building community and engagement happens in any number of ways and in multiple venues, and is hardly limited to that type of journalism.</p>
<p>All best,</p>
<p>Jonathan Krim<br />
Assitant Managing Editor/Local<br />
washingtonpost.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>