Open-source journalism online: fact-checking or censorship?

Jin Moon
Media Studies Center

10.14.99

Printer-friendly page

Jane's Intelligence Review's recent decision not to publish an article before allowing Slashdot.com visitors to evaluate it has raised debate among journalists about using open sources on the Internet to check facts.

The term "open-source journalism" stems from software techniques that make software coding openly available so that experts and regular users will find and correct glitches. Open-source journalism, made possible by online communities, applies those same principles to news stories — making them available for scrutiny and corrections before final publication.

Advocates of open-source journalism proclaim it as the new journalism, perfecting all that is wrong with traditional journalism. Others strongly oppose use of open sources, claiming the tactic will hinder the practice of traditional journalism and allow experts to wrest editorial control from journalists and the outlets for which they write.

Johan Ingles-le Nobel, deputy editor of Jane's Intelligence Review, an international publication "preparing information vital to the understanding of global defense, aerospace and transportation," posted a Jane's article on cyberterrorism on a "private preview page" on Oct. 4 along with a list of questions to readers of Slashdot. Because Slashdot says it publishes "news for nerds," Ingles-le Nobel asked the Web site's readers for their expert feedback on the article.

After the piece was posted, Ingles-le Nobel was flooded with more than 250 responses from Slashdot readers, according to his statement on Slashdot — overwhelmingly negative feedback. The reaction was so unfavorable that Ingles-le Nobel discarded the original text to write an entirely fresh piece, incorporating material from Slashdot users. The Slashdot reviewers whose comments were included in the final article also reportedly will be compensated for their suggestions.

Slashdot visitors contend that Ingles-le Nobel saved himself from the embarrassment of publishing an article in Jane's that was "lame."

"It seems to me to be common sense that if I don't know a great deal about a given area, I'll ask people that do," Ingles-le Nobel told free! "Isn't that why people use the media as a source of information? And if I don't have that information, I'll find someone who does."

Salon writer Andrew Leonard wrote favorably about Jane's method on Oct. 8. "Slashdot has long been heralded as a flagbearer for a new kind of journalism," Leonard wrote. "The Jane's incident takes Slashdot's evolution one major step forward. Slashdot readers are now actively shaping media coverage of the topics ... . They are helping journalists get the story right, which is a far cry from exerting censorship."

However, harsh criticism of Ingles-le Nobel's journalistic techniques came from PBS online columnist Robert X. Cringley. He wrote in his column, "The Pulpit," on Oct. 7 that Ingles-le Nobel "threw his cyberterrorism research at the nerds who read Slashdot, hoping for some inexpensive proofreading to keep Jane's from making their own big mistakes."

Disapproving of Ingles-le Nobel's method, Cringley added, "The only way to write the news is to write the news ... . You have to do it the best that you can, then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. That's why newspapers make corrections."

Responding to Cringley's criticism, Ingles-le Nobel said, " 'Censorship' is an extremely emotive word to describe a process that every self-respecting information-gatherer should conduct: namely check and double-check your facts with people that know the issue at hand and incorporate their input." He added, "If that is censorship, then I'm guilty, and I'm proud of it."

Slashdot managing editor Robin Miller, whose work spans more than 200 newspapers and magazines and numerous Web sites, noted the difference between traditional journalism outlets and scholarly publications, in which he includes Jane's. "Every single article put in a scholarly journal is subject to expert pre-publication review," he told free! "Traditional journalism exempts itself from this rigor."

Miller said that Slashdot strives for purity by subjecting each article to peer review, limiting the amount of errors in an article. He said, "If we screw up, we are called on it immediately." Miller said that the use of open sources prevents mistakes from being made and leads journalism to a purer form.

"First and foremost, someone needs to point out that the issue is not about whether Jane's should have published the original article," Rich Jaroslovsky, managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition and president of the Online News Association, told free! "It published the article on Slashdot, which is just as real an act of 'publishing' as publishing it on its own site, or pages."

The Online News Association was founded by Jaroslovsky and other online journalism colleagues "to encourage the best journalism possible in this new medium." One of the many principles that ONA stresses in online publishing is preserving the values already set in traditional journalism. Jaroslovsky said, "Normally, journalists try to check their facts and hypotheses prior to publication or dissemination of their news."

However, both Miller and Ingles-le Nobel said the convenience of having experts so easily accessible to fact-check an article was an invaluable tool that every journalist should try to tap into.

"Slashdot is like having a continuous e-mail conversation with millions of friends," Miller said. "Among these millions there are experts on computer science. They provide the world's greatest single source of expertise on such topics."

Lauding the efficiency of open-source journalism, Ingles-le Nobel said that using open sources minimizes bias in coverage on topics such as cyberterrorism.

"I chose to seek advice from Slashdot as I was, and continue to be, impressed by the self-moderating nature of an information resource where you can access the combined knowledge of 100,000 individuals," said Ingles-le Nobel. "Some of these individuals are right at the forefront of this widely-misunderstood and oft-misrepresented topic" of cyberterrorism.

With arguments for and against open-source journalism, it is still questionable even among staunch supporters whether the new practice will catch on.

Supporting the principle of Slashdot, Miller called open-source journalism the next logical move for the profession, although he didn't believe most journalists would use the new fact-checking tool any time soon.

Ingles-le Nobel predicted that the innovative editorial methods he employed would probably be seen more in the future. "Whilst a cliché, there is undeniably an information revolution in progress, and as such, we, the information disseminators, may find that the availability of vast amounts of online information will require an adaptation of our methodology and products," said Ingles-le Nobel.

Leonard at Salon, among others, is not so sure that the technique will mesh well with the tight deadlines that most reporters face, but he admits the benefits of such fast and concentrated strategies. He wrote in his Salon article, "In the deadline-crazed world of technology journalism, there's often hardly enough time to get a story properly copy edited and proofed, let alone reviewed by hundreds of frothing critics."

Jaroslovsky said, "If you don't have doubts about the merits of an article, publish it and stand behind it. If you do have doubts about it, don't publish it — even on someone else's site — until your doubts are satisfied." He added, "The Net has changed many things about journalism, but I don't think it changed that."