Just the name, Asheville Citizen-Times, conjures thoughts of citizen journalism. However, it's a stretch for this Gannett paper to apply that term to its publication of work from a select group of local columnists:
... The AC-T is about halfway through our year with this round of citizen journalists (we call them local columnists), and so far, I’d have to say it has been an overwhelming success. ...
About 40 people submitted material to us. All four of us here in the editorial corner read each piece and picked eight, then we got together and talked and talked about it. I think we had so many good candidates that we could have picked eight different people out of that 40 and still had a group with similar talent.
Keep an eye on this space. If you don’t see eye to eye with a given day’s local writer, there’s a good possibility the next day’s submission will be a bit more agreeable.
I give the paper credit for bringing more voices into the mix; it's certainly in the spirit of citizen journalism. However, as people are commenting here and here, the Citizen-Times is applying the traditional gatekeeper role when it could have used its web site as a true citizen journalism playground. Matt Duffy suggests on PJNet Today, "Why not publish all 40 of them on their web site and allow readers to determine what they want to read. Perhaps they could pick the most read or most favorably judged (by readers) to determine which columnists get into print."
Even the paper acknowledges that these writers are simply "local columnists," the kind of material newspapers have included for years.
The newspaper does show signs that it is views journalism as a conversation. Executive Editor Bob Gabordi has been engaging CitizenTimes.com readers in a discussion about followup reporting on the selection of Asheville's new city manager. That back-and-forth is what's reshaping how journalism is done.
Comments