"Facilitators of online communities though we may be, editors we must stay."

David Murray, the Yoda of employee communications! (The Yoditor?)

Great post, by the way.

Push your luck, you do.

(Shew.)

I would recommend that everyone in this profession read the Alterman article in the New Yorker. It's about the decline of newspapers in the U.S. and their competitive strategy to join 'em if you can't beat 'em with all sorts of devices including blogs, video reports, and chat opportunities for readers. Alterman points out the risk of 'superior community conversation' but the loss of a sense of a larger community.

My local newspaper, for example, now reads like a weekly with in-depth local coverage but national news buried on pages 5 and 6 in short news stories. Every local article invites reader response, and most of that response is inane and poorly conceived. What are the consequences for the larger democratic society and the voting public in a critical national election when they are saturated with accounts of city and county politics while the war in Iraq and the coming election are relegated to the inside pages?

We often conceive of ourselves(wrongly in my view) as internal journalists in our companies. If we emulate the newspapers' strategy, we invite the same ignorance of broader company issues in the marketplace as well as critical leadership issues. A company is a large community, not just a collection of smaller interest groups, and it needs to present itself as that larger community if people are to understand their roles and lives within the organization. Otherwise we risk what Alterman describes as "a cluster of communities, each engaged in its own kind of news..and each with its own set of truths upon which to base debate and discussion." The result, he says, will mean "the loss of a single national narrative and agreed upon set of facts by which to conduct our politics."

Substitute 'company' for 'national' and 'business' for 'politics' in that last quote, and you have the rationale for why we should be wary of losing our corporate community focus while we relegate ourselves to the role of 'facilitators of the conversation.'

Roger, you say we wrongly conceive of ourselves as journalists, and of course we all know (partly thanks to you) that that's an imperfect model in the sense that journalism is reactive while corporate communication needs to be proactive.

But aren't you, like me, arguing that communicators' responsibility IS similar to the function of old-time journalism: To help the organization, as you say, present itself as a larger community?

The article ends:
Just how an Internet-based news culture can spread the kind of “light” that is necessary to prevent terrible things, without the armies of reporters and photographers that newspapers have traditionally employed, is a question that even the most ardent democrat in John Dewey’s tradition may not wish to see answered.

I want to support traditional journalism, because I know that it tries to shine the light of "truth" on issues.

Yes, we could muddy the point by asking what is "truth"; however, people like me--who have had journalism training and experience--appreciate how reporters and editors have been taught to provide a balanced news story that does not skew facts or include unfounded opinions.

I am concerned that people every day are duped by inaccurate "news" created and forwarded by the great unwashed via the Internet. I'm even more concerned about how easy it is to not care about whether something is "true"; but to want to spread it because it's juicy, hot gossip.

My current "support" of traditional journalism is to subscribe to the Chicago Tribune, and receive it on Sunday and three other times per week.

Sadly, but truthfully, the Trib usually goes straight to my recycling bin, without much attention. My wife and kids read the Sunday ads from Kohl's, Target and Best Buy. I read the front page and skim the sports section. Maybe I'll have time to browse through the magazine if an article is extrememly interesting to me.

Hours of work by seasoned journalism pros goes unnoticed. But I fear how much we would suffer as a nation if the free press dissolves into the "free talkers wild west bloggers world."

Professional journalists will find an outlet for their experiences and talents. Will they be supported by people willing to invest in the resources that will be required to build the online news services of the future? Will we see local pockets of journalists band together in online networks that reduce overhead, while expanding resources?

We have many questions, probably more than we have answers, but thanks for expanding the conversation.

The "great unwashed" does indeed rule the New Media. Any idiot can have a blog (nearly for free) and comment endlessly on other people's blogs (for free)--and without divulging his or her true identity. When it was necessary to go through the bother and huge cost of printing or television production, and bylines were attached to stories, the people paying for it cared more (as a rule) whether it was true.

Harry G. Frankfurt, in his lovely little book, ON BULLSHIT, defines bullshit as speech or writing that is not intentionally trying to lie but that also DOES NOT CARE whether it's lying. The Internet is an egregious offender, but I'm not sure it's worse than TV, radio, or newspapers. I think it would take only the fingers on two hands to count the daily U.S. newspapers that practice true journalism. The rest of the media will always pursue the juicy and hot, given half a chance. We're ALL lied to A LOT by all media, new and old. It's going to bite them in the ass someday when they need public support and we don't give a rip any more. In fact, it's already happening: newspapers are dying because their readers don't care enough to pay what it costs to publish.

Who needs truth when "truthiness" is so much easier and more fun?

"It's not a lie if you believe it."
-- George Costanza

Greg