Interaction = Connections = Relationships

An old colleague, now a major daily metro editor, once asked me: Why? Why would an editor want to engage in civic journalism? Why bother to seek community input, try using it to enrich coverage, invite feedback?

“I want to decide the stories,” she declared. “That’s why they pay me the big bucks.”

In truth, I knew what she was saying. I had been there, done that. Even enjoyed it.

But after eight years of helping newsrooms experiment with new models, I’m convinced there is no one-size-fits-all journalism. The survey, “Journalism Interactive,” done with APME and NCEW, more than affirms the Pew Center’s observations.

Editors tell us they are responding to technological, territorial and even taste shifts by changing what they cover and how they cover it.

They have developed some new tools, new definitions of news – and some new aspirations.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in a newfound level of interactivity with readers – and nine out of 10 editors say they want more.

Today’s journalism, unlike that of the 80s and early 90s, has entry points for readers. Space not just for the stories we journalists want to tell our readers but also space for the stories readers want to tell us.

And today’s technology gives people the opportunity to talk back, via e-mail, voice mail, phone or fax. Now, in many newsrooms, you can e-mail a reporter, tip off the assigning desk to potential news, participate in a community conversation, even write your own story.

Civic Journalists are More Interactive
Cutting across survey results are difference between editors who say they use civic journalism and those who say they don’t.

What has emerged is a rapidly developing appetite for many more direct connections between newsrooms and the public. And these interactions are evolving in imaginative ways, beyond polls and focus groups, and into clickable maps, tax calculators, videoconferencing, Web cams and survey kiosks. Not the stuff of traditional man-on-the-street interviews.

We weren’t certain what we’d find when we implored harried editors to fill out a long (35-question) survey. Many had to dig deep into their paper’s institutional memory to get the answers.

But their responses confirm that fundamental changes have happened in journalism in less than a decade.

The editors say that the future of journalism is about more than just coverage, more than convergence. It’s about connections; it’s about relationships with the community.

As one editor commented: “Newspapers are an emotional, not an informational, experience.”

While editors are not abandoning investigative stories, they say they must do more than add another scalp to their belts. They must explain in a way that could build some capacity to solve the problem. And government reporting must deal with community-wide issues, not just meetings.

As newsrooms face even deeper cutbacks, it is ever more important that we nurture connections with the public. They are valuable eyes and ears that can replace some missing feet on the street. They can help us get the story right – and get the right story.

Going forward, we hope these findings will be a valuable yardstick to measure even more change.

For us civic journalists, the findings echo a decade of civic innovation. Indeed, the philosophy and tools of civic journalism enjoy broad acceptance by nearly half the editors surveyed. But like most journalists who flinch from labels applied to themselves, fewer editors – one out of five – like the term civic journalism.

“What will civic journalism be called in the future?” a workshop participant asked recently.

Weeks before the survey was finished, I found myself quipping a quick reply: “Civic Journalism will be called simply Interactive Journalism.”