1. News consumers now want more than an opportunity to “make suggestions or criticisms” about somebody else’s reporting. They want to contribute to the reporting — and our reporting can be better for their contributions. They want their comments to be heard — and I think we’re often better off when we enter into conversations with them that may indeed shape our reporting. The old “unidirectional monologue” is not the only way to go. We want to help think about other models.

2. What we can no longer count on is the good old reliable notion that we can just do the journalism that will attract the
audience that the advertisers will then pay to reach — which will pay for the journalism that will attract the… You get the picture. That circle is broken. I think all of us have to care now about what happens to the work we do, where it goes, who sees it, and how it’s going to be paid for.

3. Viral content isn’t about the article itself so much as what happens to it. On the Web, for example, it can spread like wildfire — or like a virus.

We’re all just figuring this out. I’m glad you’re along for the figuring.

Tammy

Good to see you back wandering the quiet countryside and rousting the status quo. You’ve got a lot to catch up with.

(1) What does it mean to report the news by having a “two-way conversation?” To me, reporting the news is, by definition, informing others of some (presumably newsworthy) event. The reason that getting news reports is important is that others cannot be everywhere, so they appreciate others (reporters) letting them know what’s going on. I can see the benefit in having readers comment on articles, particularly if the article has a lot of editorial content. I can also see giving readers an opportunity to make suggestions or criticisms about the reporting. But those are, I think, the exception – the primary and essential nature of the transaction IS a unidirectional monologue.

(2) You say that the ‘old business model for news is broken.’ What does that mean? What part of it is broken? What part of it can we expect journalists to put in its place? I think the problem is that ‘news articles’ in the conventional sense, have become a commodity. But that is, I think, due to the basic nature of what a conventional ‘news article’ is – a description of some event. What can a journalist do to change the commodity nature of the thing that he/she produces?

(3) What is ‘viral’ content (relative to a news article)? Is it a different kind of article? Is it a cleverly written news article?

I hope these questions come off in the constructive way they they are intended. I have heard these terms so much, but when I really stop to ask myself what they mean, I come up empty. I hope you can clarify them for me (and perhaps for others as well).

Thanks to all who have made this possible.