by Mark Frauenfelder
September 8, 2004
Dan Gillmor, a nationally syndicated columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, is one of the first journalists to run his own weblog. In fact, I interviewed him for a 1999 article I wrote about blogging. Even then, Gillmor was intrigued with the idea of mass media as conversation. I wrote: "In his blog, Gillmor occasionally tells readers what he's working on in an upcoming print column, even asking them for their ideas. 'It's almost a liberating idea,' he says. 'It's not something that journalists ought to be afraid of.'" Five years later, Gillmor remains as excited as ever by the possibilities that open up when you combine old media with new technologies. I interviewed him about his new book, We the Media, to find out more.
|
About the Book 
We the Media:Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People By Dan Gillmor 320 pages, $24.95 US |
Boing Boing: What's the basic idea behind We the Media?
Dan Gillmor: Technology has collided with journalism, with dramatic consequences for just about everyone:
For journalists, the craft is evolving from a lecture into something resembling a conversation or seminar, or a combination of those. We have to listen more, and learn that the publication of a story isn't the end of the conversation; sometimes it's just the beginning.
Newsmakers, the people and institutions we cover, are discovering that people at the edges of networks are creating a new kind of information flow about what the newsmakers say and do. This is disorienting, because old methods of controlling the news (or trying, anyway) aren't as successful anymore. But newsmakers can and should use these same tools to be more forthcoming and transparent.
The "former audience" is seeing some of the biggest changes. We can create better news reports for ourselves, mixing and matching from a variety of news sources. And we can become part of the journalism process if we choose--talking with professionals and, in some cases, becoming professionals as well.
BB: How often do you find yourself updating something you've published because you get feedback from your readers? It happens to me at least daily with Boing Boing.
Gillmor: Fairly often, though not always because of feedback. Frequently, I notice something missing without prompting, but it's great to get more nuance and facts from readers.
Some of the best feedback, though the most humbling, is when people persuade me I've gotten something wrong or that my interpretation is faulty. That's part of the value of this medium. You can correct things quickly.
BB: What's you favorite example of the power of grassroots journalism?
Gillmor: I don't have any particular favorite, actually. There are so many examples that illustrate a small piece of this phenomenon beautifully, and none that I can cite that capture a large piece. I will point to the explosion of Iranian blogs as a heartening sign, though--something that grew from one man's work a couple of years ago.
BB: Has the responsibility of the reader changed in any way as a result of grassroots journalism? By this I mean, do readers need to approach this media with a different set of mental tools?
Gillmor: I think so. The responsibility is to be more than a couch potato. That's hard work. The mental tools include careful skepticism, a low tolerance for blatant unfairness and, I'd hope, a willingness to hear more than one point of view. The echo chamber effect can be bad enough in our choices of traditional media these days; but it can be amplified online.
BB: One problem I've discovered with turning news stories into conversations is that the conversations can quickly be ruined by spam and trolls. How do you keep things open while at the same time keeping a lid on the bad stuff?
Gillmor: I just went through one of these situations. I have one particular troll who has twice caused me to shut down comments briefly. His goal is plainly to disrupt things, because while he occasionally offers an intelligent comment much of his stuff is juvenile insults that do nothing but detract from the conversation. He also changes his name from time to time.
So, the answer is that I don't always keep it open. I'm at a loss how to handle people who are this antisocial. I'd welcome some good ideas.
We use the spammers blacklist and shut down comment postings after a specific period for any post, so we have that pretty much under control. But I never assume the spammers, who are clever as they are creepy, will be deterred for very long. At least that's an arms race where the enemy isn't doing it just out of spite.