In a move that could serve as a model for the next generation of journalism, Google has announced that it will allow people to comment on stories indexed in the Google News search engine.

A lively debate sprung up on the Internet earlier this year when Jason Calacanis refused to conduct a telephone interview with a Wired editor out of concerns over being misquoted. The on-the-record interview is a staple of journalism, of course, and the idea that a source would want to publish a paper trail of his or her comments goes against the grain of most journalists' thinking.

However, I think Calacanis had a point. The existing model of journalism, in which a reporter interviews a source and then decides what is relevant about what that source said is based upon outdated assumptions. Until a few years ago, individuals had limited ability to publish. That left the job of deciding what to publish up to the people with access to printing presses. This model is error-prone and shot through with subjective value judgments. If someone was misquoted, which happens more often than a lot of journalists would like to admit, their only recourse was to ask for a correction, which might run days after the original article appeared.

Today, we have a new model. If someone interviews me for a story, I can post my version of the interview on my blog or publish an audio recording. I also think it's reasonable to ask the publication to link back to my comments or recording. After all, neither of us has anything to hide, right? This new approach to reporting would reduce the chance of error and provide readers with the option of reading a more detailed version of the information presented in the story.

I can't see anything wrong with this. A reporter's job is to get the facts, and if an error is made, the original source should have the option to present his or her version of what was said. I believe that over time this is the model of new journalism that will take hold. It will force reporters to pay more attention to accuracy and it will force publications to be more accountable. It also provides a service to readers by adding depth and perspective, if they choose to read it.

I'm sure this idea won't sit well with a lot of journalists, though. What do you think? Is this the start of the new approach to journalism, and are there downsides I'm not seeing?

Labels: journalism

¶ 10:03 AM