why the first New Assignment project is self-referential, inward-focused, and doesn't investigate outside issues
Source: Interview Technique by Paul Spinrad
This question seems worthy of bracketing with NYU journalism professor and Assignment Zero mentor Jay Rosen's proposed answer in Wired, Why We're Doing This.
Certainly, engaging the "crowd" to investigate the "crowdsourcing journalism" focus proposed may help address what appears to be a serious "pro-am" imbalance on Assignment Zero, including :
- the disproportionate economic benefit to Conde Nast vs. amateur journalists' contributions: the fine print matters mightily and not all Creative Commons licenses are created equal
- the career-enhancing benefits of abundant editorial titles on the masthead for professional journalists and academics vs. the low value of group attributions granted to amateur contributors
- the freely contributed amateur contributed research for Wired's contributing editor Jeff Howe's forthcoming book (will it be Creative Commons-licensed? which specific CC license?) on Crowdsourcing
I contribute here, both constructively, generating original reporting, as well as interview questions for others' topics, and resource links, and critically, especially a good deal of work on the website design suggestions exchange. I couldn't separate the symbiotic activities if I wanted to. When another contributor puts my concerns in what I consider to be humorous terms and gets lessons in professional journalism from a couple of professional journalists, whom I respect but who evidently didn't get it, I have to laugh.
What I take to be the point: it's not funny. For real. Others didn't think so:
If a Joke, Not Funny
Humor: Is this for real?
I feel compelled to speak up.
This is not a joke. This for real. Other sites that solicit citizen journalists do things differently. For one thing, they don't navel gaze about their profession nor do they pat each others' backs at every turn.
Lighten up, listen up, and loosen up.
