Friday, February 12, 2010
Go Pro-Am, but don't ask for money
In "Journalism Next," Mark Briggs describes the evolution of Pro-Am journalism as a "do it yourself" mechanism that turns anyone into a reporter.
Pro-Am is also called "participatory journalism," in which newspapers and Web sites ask the public to contribute content (writing, photos, videos) to their publications.
Neighborsgo is one example of both print and online Pro-Am journalism. Neighbors started in 2005 and neighborsgo.com in 2007.
Here is an excerpt about its movement to add an online component to its work:
"In April 2005, we began as a 100-percent, user-generated newspaper called Neighbors. People e-mailed, faxed (!) and mailed (!?!) their stories, news releases and photos to editors, who then published their material in print. Some editors received between 100 and 500 e-mails a day, with multiple-megabyte attachments that often shut down their e-mail. If only we had a Web site where readers could post their material directly online …"
Neighborsgo.com says their content exploded with the online component, and sometimes it receives double the content they could publish in any one print section.
But from Briggs' definition, it's difficult to determine whether a publication can be Pro-Am, if journalists are paid.
Examiner.com was rated as the fastest-growing Internet news site in the U.S. in August and has more than 24,000 individuals throughout North America covering a particular geographic or subject area. (Time.com) Examiner.com pays their contributors based on the size of their audience per article.
(Click here for my posts on SanDiegioExaminer.com.)
Maybe we can be Pro-Am and be paid, even if it's "cheap-to-free-content." (See below.) I think I gained a few dollars from my work with Examiner, but I've only posted nine articles.
In his new book "Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape The News You Get," Ken Doctor says, "the economics of user-generated content are a potential godsend for media companies, big and small. Media can compare the costs of well-salaried editors, producers and reporters to those of 'cheap-to-free content,' eagerly offered by some pretty good writers."
It seems Pro-Am journalists work for free.
Briggs mentions NowPublic as particularly successful example of Pro-Am journalism, with over 100,000 contributors.
In an interview with NowPublic's director Leonard Brody in 2007, the online content editor of SignOnSanDiego and the blog Pushing News Online, Tom Mallory asked how NowPublic pays its contributors.
"We pay them in love," Brody replied.
Still, the site has a partnership with the Associated Press that allows the AP to use photos from NowPublic freelancers and pay them too.
But Doctor also asks if there is any "compensation beyond exposure."
Although the money question persists, and most of us studying to be journalists have more competition from Pro-Am journalism, to its credit it exposes an increase in the number and diversity of news sources.
Pro-Am is also called "participatory journalism," in which newspapers and Web sites ask the public to contribute content (writing, photos, videos) to their publications.
Neighborsgo is one example of both print and online Pro-Am journalism. Neighbors started in 2005 and neighborsgo.com in 2007.
Here is an excerpt about its movement to add an online component to its work:
"In April 2005, we began as a 100-percent, user-generated newspaper called Neighbors. People e-mailed, faxed (!) and mailed (!?!) their stories, news releases and photos to editors, who then published their material in print. Some editors received between 100 and 500 e-mails a day, with multiple-megabyte attachments that often shut down their e-mail. If only we had a Web site where readers could post their material directly online …"
Neighborsgo.com says their content exploded with the online component, and sometimes it receives double the content they could publish in any one print section.
But from Briggs' definition, it's difficult to determine whether a publication can be Pro-Am, if journalists are paid.
Examiner.com was rated as the fastest-growing Internet news site in the U.S. in August and has more than 24,000 individuals throughout North America covering a particular geographic or subject area. (Time.com) Examiner.com pays their contributors based on the size of their audience per article.
(Click here for my posts on SanDiegioExaminer.com.)
Maybe we can be Pro-Am and be paid, even if it's "cheap-to-free-content." (See below.) I think I gained a few dollars from my work with Examiner, but I've only posted nine articles.
In his new book "Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape The News You Get," Ken Doctor says, "the economics of user-generated content are a potential godsend for media companies, big and small. Media can compare the costs of well-salaried editors, producers and reporters to those of 'cheap-to-free content,' eagerly offered by some pretty good writers."
It seems Pro-Am journalists work for free.
Briggs mentions NowPublic as particularly successful example of Pro-Am journalism, with over 100,000 contributors.
In an interview with NowPublic's director Leonard Brody in 2007, the online content editor of SignOnSanDiego and the blog Pushing News Online, Tom Mallory asked how NowPublic pays its contributors.
"We pay them in love," Brody replied.
Still, the site has a partnership with the Associated Press that allows the AP to use photos from NowPublic freelancers and pay them too.
But Doctor also asks if there is any "compensation beyond exposure."
Although the money question persists, and most of us studying to be journalists have more competition from Pro-Am journalism, to its credit it exposes an increase in the number and diversity of news sources.
# posted by CourtneyH @ 2:31 PM 1 Comments
Comments:
<< Home
I agree with you completely. Pro-Am journalism creates more competition and makes it harder for us to get paid. But we didn't get into this industry for the money, right?
I don't see how Pro-Am journalism projects like the ones you cited can pay their contributors, which sucks for everyone. What's good for them (and bad for us) is that most people are willing to contribute for free or minimal compensation. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but those of us looking to make a living just need to go to other entities.
Fundamentally, I think Pro-Am journalism is necessary and I welcome the participatory nature. Like you, I just hope we can still make money as journalists, at least somewhere.
Post a Comment
I don't see how Pro-Am journalism projects like the ones you cited can pay their contributors, which sucks for everyone. What's good for them (and bad for us) is that most people are willing to contribute for free or minimal compensation. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but those of us looking to make a living just need to go to other entities.
Fundamentally, I think Pro-Am journalism is necessary and I welcome the participatory nature. Like you, I just hope we can still make money as journalists, at least somewhere.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
