"Would have LOVED to be at the editors meeting where this project was hashed out ... ." That post on SFGate.com -- by a reader who criticized the San Francisco Chronicle's allocation of resources to "Alicia's Story," a seven-day, first-person account of a copy editor's struggle with cancer -- raises the question of how far MSM will go in engaging readers in discussions about news coverage and play.
The Spokane Spokesman-Review, which already is blogging its news meetings, plans to begin webcasting them late this summer. The Daily Briefing, the S-R's news meeting blog, isn't attracting many reader comments yet. I'm not being critical of the effort, as the paper clearly is striving to be more transparent. The lack of comments may be because most of the posts reflect the positions editors have staked out at the news meetings, rather than inviting readers to help shape the decision-making. (Many of the other posts are of the Monday morning quarterbacking variety.) Webcasts won't be much more engaging unless they include a live interactive component, such as a chat that enables readers to comment or question during the meeting.
Fortunately, the Spokesman-Review's means of being transparent go much further: The comments are more lively in another S-R blog, News is a Converstion, where five readers lead a discussion about "what they like, what they don't like, and what they'd like to see more of." That blog just started in May, and online publisher Ken Sands reported that after its first two weeks, it was one of the most-read blogs on the site.
Sands' ideas on the "Transparent Newsroom" appear in a couple posts at morph (American Press Institute's Media Center blog).
For a look at how a non-MSM site lets readers drive coverage, check out NowPublic.com, where users can suggest story ideas and vote on which stories deserve more attention.
So, do the readers commenting on "Alicia's Story" in the Chronicle get heard? Some do. In response to the reaction to "Alicia's Story," the Chronicle on Sunday published an article that summarized the emails, message board posts, phone calls and letters.
Because the SFGate message board simply strings the posts chronologically, the 1,000-plus comments on Alicia's Story are daunting. It's a place for readers for vent, but doesn't feel like a place for interaction with editors.
Where do you find responses to the critics -- who took issue with the amount of space devoted to the series and the focus of attention on a newspaper employee? In the blogosphere, of course.
Gary Goldhammer, writing at Below the Fold, says:
Why focus on just one cancer victim when there are so many?
Well, I’ll tell you why: Because Alicia Parlette works for the San Francisco Chronicle and she has cancer. And because of that, thousands of other cancer victims will gain confidence, find courage and muster strength to continue to fight.
Some of that criticism may have been softened had the Chronicle and SFGate used the series as an opportunity to highlight the plights of others who wanted to tell their stories. The message board is a good first step, but isn't an adequate filter for quality content when so many people post. Other options: Set up blogs for a few other readers with cancer, selecting them based on message board postings that resonated with readers: or create a separate moderated section of the message board for those people to share their stories.
Goldhammer also has some interesting comments about the style of the Alicia series:
The story is something else, too – a bridge between traditional and modern journalism.
Alicia’s Story reads like a long blog post or e-mail to her closest friends. Yet here it is, on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle. It’s hard to see where the AP style ends and the freestyle writing of a blogger begins.
The comment brings to mind another option: The Chron could have had Parlette blog the entire series online, while the paper published excerpts and promoted SFGate.
Comments