Following Gannett Round Up

Doug Fisher seems to think that Gannett’s new Information Center design, which does seem to emphasis original, local reporting, bodes ill for Associated Press.

Doug was reacting to this E&P article.

Peter Krasilovsky notes that Gannett’s initiative is aimed at better community coverage, which surprisingly isn’t something newspapers have down well of late:

One would think that digging deep into the community is something that newspapers intuitively do. But actually, they don’t. Low budgets, unfocused editing and a desire to avoid controversy sometimes leave many communities feeling alienated from their newspapers – on both the reader and advertiser levels.

Across the pond, Andrew Grant-Adamson says Gannett’s efforts makes the Telegraph’s integrated newsroom look like a toe in the water.

Dan Kennedy is worried that Gannett is just trying to cheap out on content. That’s a complaint I first heard from Nick Belardes a few months ago. I was frankly caught off guard by Nick’s reaction, because it to me it just seems so obvious that newspapers need to open up their publishing platform to everybody in the community. It’s the right thing to do. It’s also nice that it makes business sense, but not because of the free content — but because it will help increase readership.

Jeff Howe offers this round up of blogger coverage. As an example of crowdsourcing in action, he points to this page racking reports of election-day irregularities.

Previously:  Gannett FAQ on the Information Center (which will lead you to previous posts)

[tags]gannett, crowdsourcing, journalism, newspapers, information center, jeff howe[/tags]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged by . Bookmark the permalink.

2 thoughts on “Following Gannett Round Up

  1. Thanks for the link to Media Nation. Let me expand slightly. What Gannett is doing is absolutely necessary. I’ll be watching, and I’m hoping for the best. However, after decades of running some of the tightest, highest-profit-margin newspapers in the country, Gannett deserves to be viewed skeptically in terms of both motive and execution. In the wrong hands, “citizen journalism” could become a two-word description of “getting amateurs to do our work for free.”

Leave a Reply