Recently, I was duped into believing that I could work for a revolutionary kind of journalism. I should have known better. The terms “revolutionary†and “journalism†are only sporadically related, at times like the French Revolution or the radical sixties, if they’re related at all.
My misadventure with the apparently fraudulent USA Voice is over for me now, and, reflecting back on it, I’ve given some thought to the allure, the idea that suckered me into almost falling for it. It’s a nice idea – democratic journalism. An incredible number of people out there seem to agree with me, and many of them were also tricked, because they, too, were excited about the idea.
So why not do it? Why not actually make the publication USA Voice claims to be? I’ve begun to seriously consider the idea. First, I decided address a call-to-arms to the people I’ve met because of the USA Voice debacle. Couldn’t we do this the right way; couldn’t we make an independent, democratic publication using internet technology? Of course we could! What are your thoughts on the subject?
Then, I decided to see if anybody else is doing this. "Anybody else", I mean, aside from the usual suspects, the major news outlets, the established internet publications, etc. I found one, very interesting project called The National Gazette. The project does seem to be slower in development than the initial plan indicated, but I think the final product will be interesting, worthwhile, and even legitimate! The Austin-American-Statesman newspaper reports:
The National Gazette is a new on-line newspaper slated for publication this summer. Dan Croak, the publisher, states on the paper’s website that it aims to continue the tradition of the defunct paper of the same name started by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791 to spark public debate. According to Croak in the Prediction Markets Google Group the publication will include information market coverage.
“The National Gazette editorial board strongly believes that goal is best achieved using an ‘architecture of participation,’ the business model best exemplified by Wikipedia, eBay, and Amazon.com,†states the pre-registration e-mail (hyperlinks added).
Coupling modern communications technology with Jefferson’s and Madison’s desire to harness public opinion to influence policy should add an interesting flair to the current offering of user generated news and debate sites like digg, Newsvine, and Gather along with wikis and blogs.
For more information about and to pre-register for the National Gazette visit its website at www.nationalgazette.org. To learn more about Croak visit his Blogger profile that lists the blogs he contributes to. Previews of the site’s layout are posted at Jason Santa Maria’s blog post “ In Progress: Site Design†and Cameron Moll’s blog post “In Progress: Logo Design.â€
I like that the National Gazette reflects an era when “Freedom of the Press†was popularized. I like its appeal to the people. For instance, on the Gazette’s photography page (hosted by flickr, no less) the Gazette has this to say:
Submit your photos to be published in the soon-to-be-launched National Gazette! We’re looking for talented, original photographs from the community. This follows exactly the philosophy behind the National Gazette, which encourages the best upcoming writers to submit their work to our weekly publication.
We place a high emphasis on design, which is why we hired two well-known graphic designers to build a beautiful, emotionally engaging web site that is easy on the eyes and tugs on the heart. You can let them inspire you at their sites as well: Jason Santa Maria and Cameron Moll.
We place a high emphasis on empathy, as well. Our content at the National Gazette seeks to understand what makes our fellow men and women tick, and we do our best to care for others.
We love playfulness and whimsical prints as well. A central aspect of our publication is its futures markets game, which allows our community to participate in a zero-sum game of predictions and probabilities, pitting everyone’s knowledge and opinions against one another in an attempt to aggregate the collective wisdom of the crowds into a prediction of the future.
Most of all, we love photos that show meaning about the world. Beauty is one thing. Purpose and transcedence are something else altogether.
I am confident that two respected professionals like the designers mentioned above would only be involved in a top-notch publication, and for that reason I’m willing to overlook the long absence of any public developments from this project (the last was 139 days ago). Honestly, I’m also tempted to beat them to the punch, though I think that would be a bit tricky.
I am excited about the prospect that there might be a National gazette, and newspapers like it. I wonder if anyone out there would be interested in starting one, or something like it, or even in partiipating in that one. What would such a publication be like?
As with all start-ups capturing impulse or imagination is the main desire.
Then there is the revenue side of things. This is when things usally get ugly.
The best does not always rise to the top, as we all can attest, but good intentions are never a bad thing. It is idealistic no doubt to suggest that revenue must be a latter consideration, while the noble cause will rise and lift all related boats. It’s safe to say that a good business plan is central to what works on the web. Linking to other success is one path, but that success will want something awfully pretty to take a chance, and then probably scrub any odor of originality from it; we must recognize the stock holders after all….
The thrust of your idea has potential, I have no doubt. The web has redeemed itself from the corruption that seemed poised to take it down to a tawdry and degenerated level. I will always believe that good intentions do prevail, and those who are looking for content on the web that will move them, and “make a difference” are plentiful enough to make this kind of idea work. Web 2.0 as they call it is happening now, but remains pragmatic. There was that bust thing awhile back after all. So what makes a good biz plan in light of this? Ad revenue, getting people involved; youtube, digg, so on.
I trust your going to be getting some ideas flowing in, it should be interesting.
don
competition for regional editorial posts, imagine federal representatives being contributing editors in this scenario. Borrowing from the digg pattern, to a degree. The competition would or could catch a press buzz, and the attention of writers, photogs, so on. Challenge is, who judges, how to publicize this nationally, and after the voting what happens… Do the editors continue to offer spots for smaller regional positions via the competition route? Are there two year terms? usavoice.org was like multi-level-marketing in their attempt to have you sacrifice you contacts to their cause. Voting for editors would induce the candidates to build a constituency, building readership, legitimately.
don
You bring up two major points here, about the operation of an electronic publication — content selection, and people selection. These two selections can be made exclusively, or inclusively. You’re proposing an interesting blend of the two, a “voting onto the island” approach. (Although server statistics, I think are a better indication than user feedback.)
What about the money?
In the traditional newspaper model, you’ve got a person or (small) group whose job it is to create the content on a regular basis, and another person or group whose job it is to oversee that content. These roles are fairly static. They’re full time employees after all.
Link-sharing services like digg or del.icio.us are more inlusive. While somebody might have been paid to create an article for the New York Times, and somebody else was paid to edit it, no one was paid to share the link. Also, there is no small group of people sharing links, its often an enormous group of “volunteers”, and the “editors” are simply numbers that determine which links are most popular, and popular items get the equivalent of “front page” exposure. Don, I think that’s what you’re calling “voting”.
Publications like the ones we’re talking about here, things like the wikipedia: they’re trying to find a blend of these two models.
here are three examples
content and people seletion:
wikipedia: anyone can include anything
slate: editors and staff choose contents
usavoie: almost anyone can include almost anything
del.icio.us: there is no “content” exactly, anyone can include links to content
who gets paid:
wikipedia: content produers are unpaid
slate: staff is paid
usavoice: the jusry is out on that one
del.icio.us: content producers are unpaid
In all cases, when ads are present, somebody’s getting paid for that, but who gets paid for what?
Dylan
Create a defined # of postions, and tiers, ad revenue could then be distributed in some proportional way (not by hits, but by total revenue), contributors, or letters to editor, photo contribution would not be paid, but could be viewed as a lobby to gain votes in future the cycle. The regional editor position would have to be viewed as a position that would showcase the writers work for the term of their position, there would be a need to avoid competition in the traditional sense in order to escape suppression of creation. The idea could become far too bogged down, if there is any merit here it would have to remain focused on the parrell of a government model, and media, i.e., elected editors who by a sort of mandate, would best serve the interest of the reader.
don
I’m still unsure why it would be a good idea to vote for editors. Why not let the readership do the voting by deciding which content to publish? This can be done simply by reading and analyzing the server’s record of what is read and how often. Its a fairly common practice, and a useful one.
I’m literally sitting here crying. Why? Because I have been unable to work since July of 2001 due to a debilitating panic disorder. It has been a dream of mine to write and I thought I finally found it. I did my phone interview on September 20th and was told 1-3 days for editor to contact me. It’s been 10. I can log into my backoffice, but can not access my profile, add stories, etc. My email to the generic questions@usavoice.org has gone unanswered. This has not only devestated me, but just affirmed that I’m destined to be jobless or, at the very least, not doing something I’ve always wanted to do.
I don’t like to read junk, nor do I like to read strictly what the herd thinks is good, or entertaining. Perhaps I lack depth, but I would rather have content vetted by someone I trust, or at least have a feel for where those who choose content are coming from. It’s like democracy vs. the republic.
Who edits? Everybody? An editorial emporium, and the cream rises to the top for who? The rest of the people? Wouldn’t this be digg with a twist?
The notion of putting editors in a distinct position to bring us the content, and cut out the b.s. seems to me important, but how to qualify these editors?
don
Dylan,
My name is Dan Croak and I am the publisher for National Gazette. I love the line of thinking you and your commentors have going here. It parallels very closely my rationale for founding National Gazette.
We are currently in a \”closed beta\” period, and probably will be for the next two to three weeks. We will launch publicly afterwards.
Our concept is this:
Anyone who registers for an account can submit an article, a photo, or an information market. Editors (real humans) evaluate the work and determine whether it fits in our community. They make sure it isn\’t plagiarized and that it is well-written. Then, they publish it. We have a single advertisement on every page. We keep track of how much profit National Gazette, Inc. makes from each article and photo. We then share the profits on a percentage basis with the editors, photographers, and writers, keeping enough for ourselves to do it full-time, pay for the servers and programming, and expand.
Please send me an email at dan.croak@nationalgazette.org if you\’d like to be involved and I can send you a link to the beta site. Your writing and thoughts are excellent and look like it will be a good fit for the Gazette.
Hope to hear from you!