1 An individual or journalist creates a pitch that outlines an untold story in a local community.
2 Members of your community vote, with their money, on what stories are most important to them.
3 A journalist researches the facts and puts together an article. Editors provide check-and-balance on the story.
4 Spot.us publishes the story in its news feeds and works with local media outlets to have the articles published more widely.
------------------------------------------
위의 프로 퍼블리카의 누리집에서
ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that will produce investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.
Investigative journalism is at risk. Many news organizations have increasingly come to see it as a luxury. Today’s investigative reporters lack resources: Time and budget constraints are curbing the ability of journalists not specifically designated “investigative” to do this kind of reporting in addition to their regular beats. This is therefore a moment when new models are necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy.
The business crisis in publishing and — not unrelated — the revolution in publishing technology are having a number of wide-ranging effects. Among these are that the creation of original journalism in the public interest, and particularly the form that has come to be known as “investigative reporting,” is being squeezed down, and in some cases out.
ProPublica is led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Stephen Engelberg, a former managing editor of The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon and former investigative editor of The New York Times, is ProPublica’s managing editor.
Lead funding for this effort is being provided by the Sandler Foundation, with Herbert Sandler serving as Chairman of ProPublica; other leading philanthropies also providing important support. A Board of Directors and a Journalism Advisory Board have also been formed. ProPublica is headquartered in Manhattan.
Why Now?
The business crisis in publishing and—not unrelated—the revolution in publishing technology are having a number of wide-ranging effects. Among these are that the creation of original journalism in the public interest, and particularly the form that has come to be known as “investigative reporting,” is being squeezed down, and in some cases out.
Profit-margin expectations and short-term stock market concerns, in particular, are making it increasingly difficult for the public companies that control nearly all of our nation’s news organizations to afford—or at least to think they can afford—the sort of intensive, extensive and uncertain efforts that produce great investigative journalism.
It is true that the number and variety of publishing platforms is exploding in the Internet age. But very few of these entities are engaged in original reporting. In short, we face a situation in which sources of opinion are proliferating, but sources of facts on which those opinions are based are shrinking. The former phenomenon is almost certainly, on balance, a societal good; the latter is surely a problem.
Investigative journalism, in particular, is at risk. That is because, more than any other journalistic form, investigative journalism can require a great deal of time and labor to do well—and because the “prospecting” necessary for such stories inevitably yields a substantial number of “dry holes,” i.e. stories that seem promising at first, but ultimately prove either less interesting or important than first thought, or even simply untrue and thus unpublishable.
Given these realities, many news organizations have increasingly come to see investigative journalism as a luxury that can be put aside in tough economic times. Thus, a 2005 survey by Arizona State University of the 100 largest U.S. daily newspapers showed that 37% had no full-time investigative reporters, a majority had two or fewer such reporters, and only 10% had four or more. Television networks and national magazines have similarly been shedding or shrinking investigative units. Moreover, at many media institutions, time and budget constraints are curbing the once significant ability of journalists not specifically designated “investigative” to do this kind of reporting in addition to handling their regular beats.
In all, this seems like a moment in our history—the history of our country and the history of journalism—when new models are necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy.
What We’ll Do
We have created an independent newsroom, located in Manhattan and led by some of the nation’s most distinguished editors, and staffed at levels unprecedented for a non-profit organization. Indeed, we believe, this is the largest, best-led and best-funded investigative journalism operation in the United States.
This newsroom will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. In so doing, in the best traditions of American journalism in the public service, we will stimulate positive change. We will uncover unsavory practices in order to stimulate reform.
We will do this in an entirely non-partisan and non-ideological manner, adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic impartiality. We won’t lobby. We won’t ally with politicians or advocacy groups. We will look hard at the critical functions of business and of government, the two biggest centers of power, in areas ranging from product safety to securities fraud, from flaws in our system of criminal justice to practices that undermine fair elections. But we will also focus on such institutions as unions, universities, hospitals, foundations and on the media when they constitute the strong exploiting or oppressing the weak, or when they are abusing the public trust.
We will address one of the occasional past failings of investigative journalism by being persistent, by shining a light on inappropriate practices, by holding them up to public opprobrium and by continuing to do so until change comes about. In short, we will stay with issues so long as there is more to be told, or there are more people to reach.
We will be fair. We will give people and institutions that our reporting casts in an unfavorable light an opportunity to respond and will make sincere and serious efforts to provide that opportunity before we publish. We will listen to the response and adjust our reporting when appropriate. We will aggressively edit every story we plan to publish, to assure its accuracy and fairness. If errors of fact or interpretation occur, we will correct them quickly and clearly. We will create a working culture that embraces all of these principles, and insist that they infuse all that we do.
How We’ll Do It
Our operating plan calls for a newsroom of 27 working journalists, all of them dedicated to investigative reporting on stories with significant potential for major impact. Paul Steiger is our Editor-in-Chief, Stephen Engelberg is Managing Editor.
Each story we publish will be distributed in a manner designed to maximize its impact. At the outset, at least, that means that many of our “deep dive” stories will likely be offered exclusively to a traditional news organization, free of charge, for publication or broadcast. (After an appropriate period of exclusivity, each story will also be published on this site. This site also features outstanding investigative reporting produced by others, sometimes with our annotation and follow-up, thus making our site both more of a destination and a tool to promote more good work in this field.)
We are very confident, based on soundings we have taken with editors and broadcast producers and drawing, in no small measure, on the reputation of our top editors, that leading news organizations will be more than willing to publish or broadcast our stories on this basis. We will support each story we publish with an active and aggressive communications effort of our own, including regularly contacting reporters, editors and bloggers, encouraging them to follow-up on our reporting, and to link to our site and our work.
How It Will Be Funded
The Sandler Foundation has made a major, multi-year commitment to fund ProPublica. Other philanthropic contributions have been received as well, and more are welcomed.
It is hoped that, over time, once stories begin to be published, and a “brand” built, other sources of sustainable funding, including possibly from readers, viewers and users, can be developed. The non-profit form, of course, meaningfully reduces the necessary revenue for sustainability.
From a philanthropic perspective it is also worth noting that this model will assure an unusually high level of accountability for a non-profit. One quality test for our stories is built into our model: these stories will have to be sufficiently compelling to convince editors and producers to accord them space or time. If they do so consistently, donors will be able to be confident that professional standards are being met and maintained, and that important work is being undertaken.
Governance
ProPublica is a non-profit corporation, and is exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(3). It has its own Governing Board, chaired by Herbert Sandler. Mr. Steiger is a member of the Board. A Journalism Advisory Board of leaders in the field has also been assembled.
-------------------------------------------------
위의 어싸인먼트 제로의 누리집에서
Why We're Doing This
Welcome to Assignment Zero.
Inspired by the open-source movement, this is an attempt to bring journalists together with people in the public who can help cover a story. It's a collaboration among NewAssignment.Net, Wired, and those who choose to participate.
The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is voluntary; contributors are welcome from across the Web. The people getting, telling and vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as "pro-am."
The "ams" are simply people getting together on their own time to contribute to a project in journalism that for their own reasons they support. The "pros" are journalists guiding and editing the story, setting standards, overseeing fact-checking, and publishing a final version.
In this project, we're trying to crowdsource a single story, and debut a site that makes other such reports possible down the road. But we don't know yet how well our site and our methods work. Our ideas are crude because they are untested. By participating, you can help us figure this puzzle out.
An outstanding fact of the Net era is that costs for people to find each other, share information, and work together are falling rapidly. This should have consequences for reporting big, moving stories where the truth is distributed around. By pooling their intelligence and dividing up the work, a network of journalists and volunteer users should be able to find out things that the larger public needs to know.
James Surowiecki, who wrote a book on the subject, says that "in smart crowds, people cooperate and work together even when it’s more rational for them to let others do the work." What professional journalism says to its audience is that you haven’t the time or inclination to hang around the halls of government or go where news is happening. It’s more rational to let us, the press, do that for you. Go out there and live your life, we’ll keep you informed.
Except it doesn’t always work that way, does it?
We know that pro-am journalism can work only if people are persuaded to give their time, lend their knowledge, pool their intelligence. Those are donations, but not of money. Often they are more critical than money.
To succeed in this, we have to persuade several hundred people to donate good work to one big story -- and to swarm around so it gets really good. We plan to modify this site for use in future stories, more sprawling and more difficult. Maybe about the environment. Or the schools. Or -- who knows? -- the war.
A professional newsroom can't easily do this kind of reporting; it's a closed system. Because only the employees operate in it, there can be reliable controls. That's the system's strength. The weakness is the organization knows only what its own people know. Which wasn't much of a weakness until the Internet made it possible for the people formerly known as the audience to realize their informational strengths.
Our site was designed for the "open" mode of news production. That means anyone can wander by and check out what we're doing. And if we do this right, anyone who is interested can find within minutes something useful to do. We're betting that openness of that type has editorial advantages bigger than its well-known weak points.
This is not just an open, but also a pro-am, project. Some things will be decided by editors, others will be left to participants. We don't know what the optimal mix is yet, but in the course of the project we'll find it.
One place that is likely to happen is The Exchange, Assignment Zero's discussion forum. That's where you can talk about the project, float ideas and tell us what's working, or not. Anyone can start a thread. The editors watch The Exchange and of course participate.
One day, stories with a thousand people on the masthead might become routine, and we'll know how to do them. For now, we just need hundreds, acting in the spirit of the enterprise, to help us take apart and put together a single, sprawling story.
Assignment Zero is a starting point, a base line. Who knows where we will end up. But if reporting in the open style ever comes into its own -- at our site or someone else's -- that might very well change journalism and expand what's humanly possible with the instrument of a free press.
Jay Rosen is the Executive Editor of Assignment Zero and the founder of NewAssignment.Net. This letter adapts material from an earlier post at Comment is Free... Journalism goes pro-am. (Sep. 20, 2006) See also his letter to readers at Wired.com, Citizen Journalism Wants You! (March 14, 2007). 
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기