When being an online journalist or blogger there are elements that you have to make sure you have and then there are some questions that you have to consider: Do you have the time to always be updating the blog? Are you citing creditable sources? Do you know enough about multimedia to be able to do everything that is required to run a successful blog?
Being a blogger or an online journalist, one has to keep the blog and updated as much as possible. Not only that, but having other social media sites to spread the news more rapidly, could really help with increasing the viewers. A Blogger needs to know how to use the multimedia tools and sources that are creditable enough that people know what you are reporting is the truth. Sometimes journalists use a term called open-sourcing. Open-sourcing is when a journalists opens up the idea of a story to a group of people to get their input on what is going on.
The video below, Gabrielle Coleman, talks about open-sourcing:
With technology advancing at a fast pace, and journalists and bloggers are trying to keep up with the changes. One must wonder whether journalists and bloggers should consider getting the public involved in helping with the news.
With all this new technology being developed it gives anybody who is anybody the ability to put things on the internet. In
Nieman Reports, David Turner, talks about the difficulties of what is found on the internet. In this article, there is questions about whether or not a YouTube video is real or fake, or if a post on Twitter or Facebook could be truth or false.
Some news organizations have their own online website, apps for smartphones, and social media sites like Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, pod-casts, and blogs, streaming their news faster to their viewers.
Open-sourcing is when journalists open the news up to the public. The public then has the opportunity to send in pictures and comments about what happened. Is this a reliable way to get more news?
Journalists and bloggers must have good judgement when it comes to
open-sourcing.
In the link above, there is an article about open-sourcing; and it this article it states: Readers who care about issues should be given the opportunities to become directly involved in the process of gathering, processing, synthesizing and publicizing news. Not only that, but the purpose of our journalism here is to challenge, to provoke, and to demand answers from entrenched powers, and as long as this is done in a productive and documentary manner, this is something that the public should be involved in as well.
However, by letting the public be apart of the involvement, journalists and bloggers need to use their skills and judgement to make sure the information they are getting from the public is accurate and true. It is journalist's responsibility is to weed out the bad information and leave in the good.
That is the trouble with open-sourcing, it is not one-hundred percent reliable and that becomes trouble for journalists and bloggers. However, open-sourcing can be important because unlike the experimental
crowd-sourcing. According to "Journalism Next," a book by Mark Briggs, open-sourcing is where a reporter is asking more specific questions that are asked to the public for more information.
Briggs says that, "Whether or not people respond, opening the process helps journalists increase their credibility and social capital." This is basically saying that open-sourcing can be helpful when it comes to distributing accurate information. It gives the freedom to the public to participate in the new way of journalism.
Policy
If I was a part of a online news site, I would make sure there were a set policy when it comes to open-sourcing.
There is a part of me that wouldn't want to include the public in the news stories that we cover. However, the other part if me says, that it would get us more viewers and the public participation would keep them interested.
If I had to choose, I would include open-sourcing on the site. I would want to do that mainly to keep the viewers interested in the news we provide.
However, there would be a policy:
1. Not every story should be open to the public. To figure out which stories should and shouldn't be open to open-sourcing, should depend on the amount of information we already have on the event. If one of our journalists has a good amount of information on the event, there is really no need to open the story to open-sourcing.
2. If a story just doesn't seem to have the "oomph" we are looking for, that could be a reason to open to the public to see what they have to send in and say about it.
3. If the story includes the public I would want a few journalists to look the comments over and decide as a whole whether the information sent it is trustworthy enough to put in the story. If there is any doubt, a journalist should find out more information, by seeing what other people wrote to compare. If there is any contact information left, they should follow-up with that person.
4. If any information that is doubtful, then don't use it for the story.
Open-sourcing is not always necessary in a news story. It would be nice to get the public involved in some of the news, but not everything should be open to the public.
I would not use the information from the public to be the main source of a news story. I don't think it should be used as the most reliable source, because if for some reason something in there is false and it wasn't caught by one of the journalists then some may start to believe that what we are reporting can't be reliable.
This is another video on open-sourcing by the Corbett Report:
This video talks about the history of journalism and how in the beginning of time journalism wasn't really a thing. The only people to read and write were scribes who would write everything out long hand and the process was a lot longer. This was not considered journalism, it isn't logical to write a newspaper out long hand. This video goes on through some of the history and how far journalism has come; from scribes, to town criers, to reporters, newspapers, and websites. This video talks about what a journalist is and what they are thought to do. What some people see as a journalist now could be different from what others will see as a journalist 10-15 years down the road.