There's a hodgepodge post on Jay Rosen's blog that contains a nice start on a succinct definition for Journalism 2.0:
In Journalism 2.0 (the way I explain it to myself) the People Formerly Known as the Audience, safely considered "consumers" during one era, are more involved in production. Interactivity makes daily journalism into a better, faster learning machine, which means it can improve its accuracy many times over. And in the 2.0 era new ways to pay for good work emerge from a variety of directions-- the media industry is only one, and not the most likely solution.
He touches on an idea that I'm beginning to see flourish amongst those thinking about the future: The "former audience" has to become a part of the conversation, but someone still needs to facilitate that conversation, to provide the salon and all its furnishings.
As Dan Gillmor says:
The people we've called the audience play a key role, in several ways. As consumers (I hate the word) of news they have to make some choices. I believe they will pay for quality, to start with. But young readers have changed media. We in the journalism sphere need to innovate on new forms and delivery mechanisms as well as the journalism itself.
We also need, as I've said again and again, to involve the audience in the process. This is crucial. And I want to do it in a way that gives us all a stake in the outcome.
I don't know what it's going to look like in the end. I have some ideas. But I'm in the process of bringing together some smart people I've met in these travels, from the new and old worlds. They're passionate about their communities, the world and journalism. They know that journalism (real journalism) plays too big a role in our checks and balances to go quietly into the night.
This will become a combination of the old and new. I know that I (or anyone) can't figure it out alone.
Comments