The Modern Journalist

Discussion: Technology, Reporting and Where I Went Wrong

I blogged a few days ago about an article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

In my haste (and possibly my annoyance), the post wasn’t as clear as I’d hoped, which Derek Willis pointed out to me in no uncertain terms in the comment section.

With the exception of having my wiki set up, the discussion was everything I hoped would happen on the blog. The conversation was intense but respectful — even when he was honked off at me — and in the end, I think we came to an understanding on the points we agree and the points we disagree.

I posted the discussion on The Modern Journalist social network and Derek found an agreeable soul who seconded his comments that my post was at best unclear and at worst unsound.

The discussion has now moved to the social network — although I hope Derek and I continue to talk.

But the larger point — because somehow I have to find a silver lining in this — is that the blog, the network and the community did exactly what it should do, even if I don’t particularly like it.

My initial post, which was more ranting than usual, took umbrage with the idea that technology can’t supplant journalism. In some manner, I believe that it can. Reporting is delivering data. There are countless sites that deliver that data to people in a way that is usable for them.

What I didn’t make clear was that this data — publicly collected data — could easily be supplemented locally with like-databases that are enhanced by the community. That process is not hard to do. It’s been going on in the game industry for years and years. It’s a pretty well-researched path.

My flip comment — that I could build a cool local database with two interns and a programmer — wasn’t fleshed out enough, clearly, because I’ve seen these types of communities built with less. In fact, we build TechnologyReview.com with 1 programmer and 3 interns.

In less than a year, we’d already won recognition against Time magazine and Businessweek.com in national reporting areas.

But that’s not what I said in the post and that was clearly not how it came off to Derek, who smacked me down with a host of local papers using locally-created databases.

None, we came to agree, had the community component; however, my initial post didn’t make it clear that I was discussing that. Post after post, until I specifically laid that out, he piled fact after fact on my head.

It’s been awhile since I’ve had that type of debate — and certainly since I’ve had my head handed to me. With agreement from the social network I started that my initial post was flawed.

So now those facts sit both on the site for all to read and on the social network for all to participate. The conversation, the facts, the disagreement, the civility (I think) and the resolution.

Is that journalism? I think so. But it’s not the type of journalism that happens at most papers because it involves a complete openness, which means sometimes you’re going to be wrong.

Not that I’m celebrating wrong. Wrong is bad. But wrong happens.

It’s what you do after the wrong that matters.