Passionate about technology, media and chocolate eclairs, I've worked in web and print for over twenty years and now run a digital media consultancy in Scotland.
The Guardian has announced a plan to reveal its newslist before it researches and publishes its content.
This is a move that will send shudders down the spines of many a news editor, and could potentially backfire.
Asking the public for input before writing a story just seems like common sense - but will it work if journalists have to go against one of their firmly-held beliefs.
The newslist is the document which outlines potential articles and ideas for the news team to follow up, and The Guardian is hoping that by opening up to the public, it will allow a better story to evolve through collaboration with those that have something to input.
The Guardian is well-known for its open stance on information. It has already opened up its content network for application builders through its Open Platform project, and it campaigns for public data to be freely available through its Free Our Data column.
But this is different, the content of the newslist is normally a closely-guarded secret, and its publication will certainly be of interest to competitors who are likely to pick cherries from it and initiate their own stories. And this is where it may backfire.
If it doesn’t work, The Guardian will be giving away tips on its content and jeopardising its lead on potential stories.
But let’s try and understand why it’s doing what it is. It says it is to: “…encourage people to get in touch with reporters and editors via Twitter if they have ideas.”
It remarks that people are quick to get in touch after articles are published and argues that in doing this, it is potentially reaching out to sources that it could never have reached without doing it. Social media put to good use. Crowdsourcing.
Social networks have been crucial and extremely productive during rapidly breaking news stories such as the recent riots, and it appears The Guardian thinks by stimulating this idea, it can bring the public closer to the newsroom every day, not just during public uprising.
Publishing the newslist is essentially publishing the story and whatever comes after that is just ‘development’. If nobody bites, perhaps there will be no story, and journalists won’t need to waste time on it, but at the other end of the spectrum, they could end up with a story that has ‘legs’, and still publish first.
It will all come down to ‘engagement’ and how willing the public are to come forward to contribute. And if they’re as willing to come forward before the articles are published, as they are after, then it should work! If The Guardian, or any publication, can generate this type of engagement from its social networks, they’re onto a good thing.
But as PR agency 10Yetis points out (Will PRs ruin the Guardian newslist for everybody?), over-zealous PR people could spoil the broth if they all jump on the bandwagon to try and get an ‘angle’ that fits in with their clients’ products. The Guardian are not so stupid that they will let that happen, but it will make it a thankless venture nevertheless.
If news organisations are using a mixture of media to publish content, they’re giving themselves extra resources to generate and research news and publish it when it breaks, develop it and follow it up in print.
But journalists are a coy bunch when it comes to sharing what their working on, and as long as they think they have a scoop, nothing on earth will make them give it up to their competitors.
So I can’t see any newspaper rushing out to copy The Guardian on this one, not until it proves it works significantly well - the idea is good in principle, but it’s just going to be one of those things that the Guardian does because it believes it’s the right thing to do.
