Dan Gillmor points to Jeff Jarvis using a speech by [Martin Nisenholtz] as inspiration for a new architecture for Journal Ism. This gets down even to the level of how you'd write a news story. There's no longer any need to write in the background; you can link to it. Ditto analysis. There's no such thing as a deadline or an edition; you add to the story as you find out more. It's friendlier because it's briefer and easier to consume. It's better organized. It's more informative because it can include reports and photos from witnesses in the audience. It's more accurate because you can include fact-check-your-ass challenges from readers. It's more compelling because it includes interactivity. It's better presented because it can include video or audio or programming, whatever it needs. It's more responsive because, well, finally the audience can respond. That's just the architecture of presentation. That also affects the architecture of storage: Each element - each news post - is identified and linked to related items by the writer and by the audience. And, obviously, this affects the way the news is gathered, by whom, with what... And don't forget that the audience will link these elements together, too... He also sees the need for a reputation system because "while deception is possible even in the most controlled context (think about Jayson Blair at The Times), the casual online encounter is rife with potential fraud." He adds: "Ultimately, journalism is about trust." I say the goal isn't to create such a system but to create a system that captures the reliability ratings of the audience. (Annotation Systems, Reputation Management, Purple Numbers)

User Options Recent Changes Help Page