Open Source Journalism, sort'a

This article has a great discussion with the Editor over at the Guardian.  He has all sorts of wonderful, glowing, positive things to say about the effects of open journalism on their media outlet.  He says, “The Guardian’s openness has allowed it to improve its coverage and what it can offer readers, even with limited staff. ‘Half of a day of a cricket match will now be written by the readers,’ [Alan] Rusbridger said. “It’s double what we could do with just a couple of journalists.’”

I am really intrigued by the idea of open journalism.  As a concept, I think it is amazing and can only do wonderful things to how we experience a story.  It gives everyone a chance to tell their truth and offer a more broad view of the events that are unfolding.  I am also wildly skeptical of letting just anyone contribute to reporting the news.  I can’t help myself; my eyebrow goes up when I see that they are celebrating the fact that their comments have increased by 66% over the year. 

I should explain that I grew up believing that journalism and reporters are a different breed.  I thought the primary requirements for being a reporter were a wide-brimmed hat, a hard-boiled attitude, a notebook, a smoking habit and the training to be completely impartial.  I have come to learn that, apart from the smoking habit, most of these are Hollywood myths.  But still!  The NEWS!  It’s supposed to have an integrity to it that is unquestionable, right?  These are trained professionals!  They're ready to tell us all the news that's fit to print, right?

Oh, wait.  The Guardian isn’t talking about news.  They're talking about offering something different.

But “in our mindset, we are completely digital first,” he explained. “We are a giant website with a small team dedicated to the newspaper,” and the paper must reflect that, by offering analysis and explanation rather than news.

Is anyone else scared by this?