YouNews
What if the news of the day came directly to you, without any editors filtering it? What if you could go online and get websites, or RSS feeds, or whatever, that just gave you the stories most likely to interest you? What if– Well, what if I stopped talking about this as a what-if notion? It already exists, of course, in myriad places. Think of Digg, or Reddit, or the automated headline-gathering done by Google News. They don’t have editors actively organizing stories in an order that they think will be most important or interesting to you. Their content is chosen or prioritized in some way by you, the user. The phenomenon is growing–The New York Times has just announced a self-selecting service, though one of the options on "My Times" is "Journalists’ Picks." The AP has a piece about the use of such so-called "widgets" by newspaper websites; you can read it HERE. But back to the original question: what happens when online readers pick the stories? The Project for Excellence in Journalism, founded by former Washington Post reporter Tom Rosenstiel, spent a week over the summer (June 24-29) surfing the major user-news sites, and REPORTS that the diet of stories was was very different from what one would find, say, on our site. Whereas the mainstream media did a lot that week on Iraq and immigration, the PEJ report says, users of Del.icio.us and Digg picked a lot of technology and science items–the introduction of the iPhone, for instance–as well as news-you-can-use stories, such as how to avoid blood clots on long plane flights. "If a new crop of user-news sites–and measures of user activity on mainstream news sites–are any indication, the news agenda will be more diverse, more transitory, and often draw on a very different and perhaps controversial list of sources," says the PEJ report. The PEJ found people going to blogs, YouTube, WebMd and other sites that may not describe themselves as news sites. They chose less overseas news than news editors generally do, and they changed topics more often. Witness Monday night. While "World News" here at ABC led with health care, Digg.com’s top item over the previous 24 hours was "How tourists, hikers and fisherman can avoid conflicts with Grizzly Bears." (Take a look–there’s a punchline.) What do you think? I promise not to tell our editors.
Email
TechBytes (02.10.12)
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 




RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I had a taste of what that would be like, during the first Gulf War. My big dish picked up raw, unedited feeds from the correspondents embedded with combat units. Most informative and interesting, particularly for the fact that only a miniscule amount of the footage taken was ever aired. It gave me one heck of an insight both of the war and the correspondents’ daily travails.
Posted by: Andy | September 18, 2007, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm
I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with one of the premises of today’s blog, which is that news the end-user wants can come to him or her unfiltered. I’d prefer to say that the consumer can select the news he or she wants (much like setting aside newspaper sections which are of no interest) in the order he or she wants, but it will always be filtered in some way.
Unless the news stories write themselves, there will be editorial decisions as to what news is convered, when it is covered, and how much attention is paid to the coverage, no matter which news-gathering organization you consider. (Even the Associated Press and Reuters don’t cover everything that is happening in the world.) Although topics of interest can be set by the user in the news aggregators mentioned (whether or not widgets/gadgets are used in the process), an editor has by the time the story appears already decided that a reporter would write about a particular subject or incident worthy of coverage. So, I think there will always be someone making editorial decisions; the end-users can validate those decisions by which stories they choose and in what order they choose them.
And as for the choices in this brave, new world, I have decidedly mixed feelings. I think it’s wonderful that I can choose just what I want to know about, but I’m afraid I’d focus too much on the areas in which I have an interest and not on something which might be important. As vital as information about grizzly bears is (and I thought the punchline was great!), I’d probably want to know about health-care reform a bit more.
The PEJ findings aren’t too surprising, since people who use technology are probably the ones who want to read about it more than the average person, despite all the iPhone hoopla of recent weeks. What does trouble me is the reliance on blogs as news sources (where the blurring of opinion and fact is prevalent) and the diminished interest in foreign news.
Posted by: chuck | September 18, 2007, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
Just goes to show you that one man’s news is another’s cure for insomnia. I think the important thing is that we do have an incredible amount of news to pick from. There’s enough out there for everyone’s tastes, intellectual or pedestrian.
Posted by: Andy | September 18, 2007, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm