etherpad for multiple edits on this session —> http://etherpad.com/5z9A1QEXOB
Aaron & Rick (& betsy of @ourpdx) - how to get bloggers to do better practices to have trust, integrity & accreditation as journalist, and how to get old media to enter into fray w/ bloggers to engage reader feedback on-line.
for old media folks: tell us at what point does a story go from rumor to verifiable source/evidence?
[suggested sub-title to this session by @yuetsu — “or … does this oregonian make my ass look fat?!” see —> http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/tech_entrepreneurs_defy_recess.html]
suggestion of “wikinews,” who had reporters at tribeca film fest this year.
steve woodward - 30 yr. journalism veteran & heavy on-line (20 years w/ oregonian). credibility w/ bloggers story. hiring doctorate in edu. graduate - over research by him turned out story was something else entirely than he originally wanted to print, big lesson. “if you want to find the story you're looking for, you'll find it. if you want to find the truth, that's something else entirely.”
neighborhood notes guy - importance of editing source to be digestable. found that in being better verified in checking sources & stories, more readers and advertisers came.
@ahockley does #getoffmylawn rant about problems in old media where the supposed “pros” have headlines that don't match body of story, this is what gives rise to bloggers who think they can do better.
portland media lab/portland sentinel - a whole structure of best practices to check sources and ask back and forth, does this constitute news & a public service discussed before publishing even on-line. print credibility considered much higher before publishing, on-line can rescind & correct quickly, so not so much current fact checking.
yuetsu - orig. question - when does story go from follow up still to lets print. what makes it a verifiable story?
ktvu rep. - verifiable sources vs. anonymous sources. swine flu example this week of media not letting facts get in the way of a good story.
yuetsu - take @ahockley 's complaint a step further - lead/headline sometimes does not match story, feeling that it's sometimes marketing ploy to capture eyeballs.
journos - problem of having scoop and time to publish vs. verifying sources or communicating full story. get it right vs. get it right NOW.
@pdxsays - getting it out fast did not necessarily start as biz decision, but as mission to get news to public as quick as possible, breaking news.
@turoczy - made a choice in his blog to not be “breaking news” - not the fastest ear-to-ground inside story, but what is the story that is public service, researched and the story people need to hear.
problem of true news analysis vs. just blog opinion.
steve woodward - points out that surveys have shown public doesn't care who gets story out first, only print/tv/old media care.
ktvu rep. - true, but it matters to adv. internet search engines (like google) by having the first story people reference out there.
yuetsu - agree, but only true if story is well fact checked. if not, and people catch on, then it falls off in favor of better story. better story makes _more_ money over time.
@verso - FTW by being the first to ask question about wrong leads by calling it “shameless attention whoring.”
further sources - portland media lab, steve walling, next wed. 5:30, @aboutus, on verifiability of wikipedia, news innovation portland google group, http://bcniphilly.com/ - has journalist info at a bar camp there and videos from sessions, nwdocumentary.org, http://portland.indymedia.org/
@sh1mmer need for a bloggers press credential accreditation site.