According to AP, Bloggers Are Journalists

Apparently citizen journalists are now just plain old journalists--well, usually unpaid journalists. This from the Associated Press, which announced today that its staff "will recognize bloggers as valid sources of news and credit them in their articles."

They're still one step behind the times, though, because their new stance extends only to blogs, not Facebook status updates or tweets. Seems to me that tweets would be something they'd want to cite as a source, since so much news is broken via Twitter these days.

Not to be like this, but I don't know that I want anyone considering me to be a "valid news source." Part of blogging, to me, means the freedom to answer only to myself. I write what I want to write, if I want to write. Yes, this is probably a half-assed attitude...but that's how I feel.

By the way--and apropos of nothing--did you know this blog is one of the top 100 small business blogs on Technorati now? Number 85 as of today, to be specific.

I don't know that such a designation gets you anywhere in life, but I guess it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Are Hyper-Local Bloggers Going to be the New Mommy Bloggers?

I came across links to two similar posts on Twitter today--both about successful newspaper replacements: websites that rely heavily on user-generated content.

The first was about AnnArbor.com--Michigan's new online daily. It replaces the Ann Arbor News. The website features a staff of 60 (down from 316 when it was a print publication), of which 35 are journalists (called content-creators). It also has "around 80" bloggers - most of whom are unpaid.

The second was about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which folded in March, but kept the website up...a website "heavily reliant on more than 200 unpaid bloggers." According to this article, both audience and revenue for/from the new site are ahead of projection.

On one hand, it's great to see bloggers figuring so prominently in the future of news...but on the other I wonder how long until the bloggers providing free content for these types of sites realize they want some kind of compensation.

If you're experiencing deja vu right now, thinking you've read this post before, you're not crazy--I've blogged about this same thing before. These two articles seem to indicate that the model newspapers are moving towards--more online content; specifically user-generated content--is proving successful.

It also makes me wonder what would happen if these unpaid content generators decided to do their own version of the PR blackout. In case you're not familiar with the PR blackout, mom bloggers are being challenged to eschew all PR stuff--giveaways, paid posts, etc--for a week in an attemp to get back to what blogging is really about: writing about what you want to, on your own terms. (Well, according to MomDot, that is; Resourceful Mommy has a different view.)

Right now mommy bloggers are all the rage, but if it turns out that local bloggers are the thing that turns around the failing newspaper industry, are we going to be reading about local or news blogger blackouts in a few years? Are those bloggers gong to realize, as mommy bloggers have, what a valuable commodity they are and are they going to start wanting to be compensated? Is it reasonable to expect that bloggers will always be willing to provide a never-ending stream of monetizable content for free?

Is Mainstream Media Capitalizing on Citizen Journalism?

I blog about it all the time: citizen journalism is on the rise. Meanwhile, newspapers are folding at an ever-increasing rate.

What's the natural next step as these two trends become more and more prevalent? Online news outlets depending on citizen--e.g. unpaid--journalists to provide content while they continue to phase-out real--e.g. paid--journalists. Not only does this make sense financially, but since user-generated content is what readers want anyway, advertisers are becoming increasingly interested in going where the unpaid--and popular--content is.

A concrete step towards this new model will be rolled out this coming Monday--in the form of a blogroll, that is. The New York Times is launching a local blog network that will feature content from the paper’s editors but also rely on user-generated content from locals readers. Jim Schachter, editor for digital initiatives at The New York Times, explained:

We expect to sell ads to local merchants using our telesales and self-serve ad solution. Our two pilot sites are staffed with full-time NYTimes reporters. That’s not cheap. Obviously, it’s also not a sustainable model.

What a dream scenario for newspapers and online news outlets, right? Not only do they not have to pay reporters anymore, but ad revenue will increase.

My question is this: is relying on citizen journalists a sustainable model? As it stands now, playing on citizen journalists' vanity is basically the model: people want to write and have people read it, and they want to be able to say that their stuff is featured on mainstream, high-traffic websites.

But how long will people be willing to put the time and effort into creating high-quality blog or video posts if they're not being compensated? At what point do citizen journalists basically become freelancers working for free? If I had to guess, I'd say right about the time when statistics start to show that websites are generating a bunch of revenue as a result of the content users are providing for free.

Changing of the Media Guards

A few months ago I posed the question "Will citizen journalism replace traditional journalism?"

I recently came across an article that gives a great example of why the answer is "yes." Roland Legrand, a multimedia newsroom manager for Belgian publisher Mediafin, wrote a great piece for PBS.org's Mediashift, detailing a newspaper's role in bringing a community together. He pretty much sums up the reason why user-generated media is destined to replace traditional media:

"The people formerly known as the readers have now become readers/writers. In the 'good old days' of the print newspaper, we only got a few letters each day. Today, we get hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments on our news articles each day. With the click of a button, readers can easily and instantly post reactions to articles. Furthermore, the readers don't only react to our articles -- they react far more often to each others' comments. The article may start a discussion, but it does not necessarily remain the center of attention."

He likens his paper's new live blog application a soccer game: "One can watch it at home, alone, or experience the magic of being all together with fellow fans in the stadium." He maintains that readers don't want to just read news; they want to discuss it.

I thought about his article when I read my Sunday Washington Post the other day. Front page, above the fold was a story about DC's charter schools. A prominent call-out box to the right of the story pointed out additional features to the story on washingtonpost.com:

• "Interactive Charter Schools Map: Find out how each school measures up on test scores and other data.


• Multimedia: Narrated photo galleries of principals, faculty and students.


• Live Online: Reporters...host a discussion at noon tomorrow."

The thing is this: with newspapers folding like houses of cards lately due to plumeting sales and ad revenue, how long are they going to be able to pay people to generate the same content that's available online in spades online for free? Take this charter school article, for instance; The Post had to pay not only the two authors of the article, but the person/people who created the interactive map and narrated photo gallery--as well as an additional reporter for the live online chat. Not to mention the production and printing costs.

If you search "DC charter schools" on Google blogsearch, you get over 30,000 results--take your pick. Prefer multimedia? Right now, YouTube has almost 50 videos about DC charter schools. Online interaction? Try the DC Charter School Reform group on Yahoo or the "I Love my DC Charter School" group on Facebook.

All I know is this: if traditional media does fall, there's plenty of user-generated content poised and ready to take its place.