I Can Has Cheezburger‘s Scott Porad has written an interesting article for Journalism 2.0 about how it has evolved the crowd-sourcing ideology of sites like Digg to a filtering process that gives it the best of both worlds of receiving citizen content and using an editorial team to choose what’s the best.
The journalism world is facing the same challenges as does his media outlet, albeit without adorable kitty cats, he says. The challenges have changed: once, reporters struggled to find good sources. Now, there’s so many sources, one has to filter out the best.
By way of example, let’s refer to the recent “man overboard” report on a Washington State Ferry. Within moments, Twitter was alive with real-time reports. All the news reporters had a million sources, including the US Coast Guard which was tweeting events as they happened.
But that didn’t mean they were all quality sources: yes, a report was made, helicopters were dispatched, and a search was on. But, there was no man overboard; it was a false alarm. Suddenly, the job of the news reporter changed; no longer was it “where or how can I find someone who will tell me what’s going on aboard the ferry?” Now it was: “of all these people reporting what’s happening on the ferry, who is telling the truth?”
Is crowd-sourcing alone the future, or should an editorial team help pick the best content? Should we even consult the crowd at all, or are experienced journalists best for choosing the most important content? Or is Porad dead on: should news orgs use both methods to create the best editorial product?
The Washington Post’s
One of the best aspects about online journalism is the fact that readers are able to comment on the story. Literally the second after a story is posted on the internet any person from any walk of life is able to comment back and say exactly what they think about the piece without going through any filter. I feel this is a really cool way to get people more involved in the news that they read.

