readwriteweb.com — Is the web really killing journalism? Or is it allowing an entirely new type of journalism to emerge? David Cohn (DigiDave on Digg) would probably argue it's the latter. For 5 months now, his crowd-funded journalism project, Spot.us has been providing local reporters with ways to get paid while researching the stories the community wants to read.
Apr 6, 2009 View in Crawl 4
jimbob200Apr 6, 2009
STOP right there. I won't even read the article. "...the stories the community wants to read."Which community is this? Smart people who are concerned about world events and politics in general? Cause that's all that really matters, and I fail to see paying to people to print "what the community wants to read" is going to pay for people to go to China, Zimbabwe, and other countries around the world to report on human rights abuses, corruption, and the like. This idea is a fail. You need real journalists to maintain democracy; of that there is no question.
Closed AccountApr 6, 2009
Yeah, but when you spend 30 minutes on a site like Digg (that a lot of Diggers actually call the future) you get BREAKING news stories that happened 18 hours ago that was reported on ALL the news programs last night. And on other so called "news" sites, you lso get a lot of ridiculously biased bulls**t from people who think that George Bush personally piloted both planes into the WTC, jumping out in an invisible parachute just before they hit.You are also comparing it to morning news which is generally more light hearted banter than news.
Closed AccountApr 6, 2009
How can I donate money if I can only expect the journalists to be biased? Journalists typically support state funding because they are "liberal artists" that generally have a hard time finding a job outside of a Barnes and Noble. I think it's unethical to use force against people to fund something that they may not want funded. Very few journalists accept this position.How can I expect you guys to not be biased?
dannykeeneApr 7, 2009
People take whatever they read on the internet as truth. In print journalism, the writer had to have several sources. Print journalism was thought to be trustworthy based on the reputation they made for themselves over the course of time. Now some blogger in his basement with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda carries the same amount of credibility as a mainsteam news institution that actually checks it's sources and backs up it's publications with actual proof. The future of journalism is misinformation. Good night and Good luck.
coinspinnerApr 8, 2009
Maybe it will be honest in the future then?After all, when the University of Virginia Medical College announced on 19 April 1974 that a government-funded, peer-reviewed study showed Marijuana cured cancer in mice, no real paper carried the news.So I'd say that something really needs to change.
buckrogers1965Apr 9, 2009
A statement can be true or false. The dialog presenting every side of an issue will allow people to get all the views around a "fact."
digidaveApr 9, 2009
Nonprofits are looking for money to be sustainable - yes. But even if Spot.Us is a wild crazy success - I won't make more than a living salary off it. ie: I'll never be able to sell this to Google, because nonprofits can't be sold. That's the point I was making. As for the skepticism - yes, the world is a place filled with spin doctors. Traditionally .0001 percent of the population set the news agenda. They were called "editors" and they were the only ones with a freelance budget. So if you had the right spin doctor - you could convince that .0001 percent of the population and be in the door. What I want to do is increase the percent of people that make the news. I have faith that the more people who help set the news agenda - the less bias it will be.
digidaveApr 9, 2009
WTF knows what is going to be around in 2011? Anybody that claims to know this is incredibly full of it. I don't claim we will be around. But I think we have a shot. At the very least - we will learn something - and THAT is the most important thing.