While he covers a number of different related topics, his main point is that news sites should encourage — not just allow — readers to comment on their content, either through comments on the story itself (just like your standard blog comments) or through TrackBacks (which most blogs offer these days).

It’s a good idea, but it’ll be a hard, hard sell to most newspaper management, the majority of whom are uncertain about how to proceed on the web. Most stick to formats and features that are much (or exactly) like their print product. While there are some legitimate issues about liability involved, I think the bulk of the problem is a fear of losing control. Most newspapers tightly control their content and presentation.

They see news publishing as a one-way street with only the very limited “letters to the editor” section for allowing feedback. But, as I hope most readers realize, letters to the editor are completely under the control of the newspaper: they can (and usually do) edit the letters (and not just for length) and can pick and choose which letters to publish.

Allowing (mostly) unrestricted comments — letting loose of the control over the feedback mechanism — is a very frightening concept for most news publishers. Even by instituting registration or other validating mechanisms, the majority of news publishers would be at the very least uneasy about instituting comments on stories published on their websites.

However, in his post about using TrackBacks, Barry brings up some very interesting points that might go some way in relieving that unease:

Trackback also provides accountability that comments cannot. You can’t get a trackback link unless you have a site that supports trackback and you’re willing to disclose your identity (or at least one of them).

And that’s a powerful motivator for news publishers, because TrackBacks, as Barry puts it:

Trackback creates the kind of context and metadata for each story that you can’t buy at any price.

While Barry presents some powerful arguments for using features like comments and TrackBacks (and RSS feeds, which I haven’t even touched on here) on news sites, he fails to discuss a factor that should heavily weigh in favor of their use: comments (including TrackBacks) will build reader interest and therefore more traffic. Higher traffic can (and often does) result in either more advertising or better (for the publisher) prices for advertising. Not only do you gain all the benefits of having a more open feedback mechanism will bring (increased reputation amongst readers, valuable feedback that will help you improve your web and print offerings, increased traffic due to the community-building effect of comments, etc.), you’ll make more money doing it.

So, why aren’t more news publishers doing it? That is the $64,000 question. My opinion? Fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of the future. How to get publishers to take this step despite the fear? I don’t know. I’m still working on that one.

That site got second place in 2001, third place in 2002, and, finally, first place in 2003. I’m sure it would mean more to me if I were still at that job, but I’m still pretty happy with it (the award, not the site).

The sites at my current job were not submitted for the awards this year, so I had no chance of winning. Next year, based on the redesign I’m working on now, I think I’ll have a good shot at another First Place. And the sites will be submitted next year.

Newspapers ARE liable for libelous statements in letters to the editor, presumably because they are checked thoroughly before publication. Would a newspaper that allows comments on its stories on its website which are NOT edited (just like most bloggers’ comments) be protected under this ruling if someone were to post a libelous comment to the newspaper’s website? I would think so (based upon my reading of the decision and my legal education), but it might have to get tested in court first, an expensive and embarrassing (just being accused) prospect for any newspaper.

That being said, I would like to see more newspapers experimenting with real comments sections targeted at individual stories, just as many bloggers (myself included) offer comment sections for each post, especially if reporters and editors get involved in the comments, creating a two-way conversation about the news.

Getting the news out quickly (especially in the case of breaking news) will be increasingly important. Where the newspaper will shine over the TV station or radio, however, is with the analysis and commentary the next morning (and afterwards, if the story warrants). TV and radio news just keeps moving on to the next thing, not stopping for any in-depth coverage. TV news coverage is often laughably shallow.

But, where newspapers are reluctant to go is to a model where the breaking news and initial reports are posted quickly (though not hastily) to the website and then really beefing up the analysis and commentary in the print edition.

Sure, there will be times that the paper has a huge scoop that gets held for the print edition, and that’s fine. But for the day-to-day news that every news outlet in the area is going to have, going to the web first could be a win-win situation for the paper: (1) they would see an increase in the website’s traffic, and (2) the more readers visit the site for breaking news, the more likely that person would be to subscribe to the print edition (assuming they would subscribe to a print edition in the first place). Granted #2 there is a bit more tenuous than #1, but I think it’s true.

Doing the least that Outing suggests (adding the reporter’s AND the editor’s email addresses to tagline) is probably do-able and would be approved by most editors. It shows that individual editors are as responsible for a reporters’ work as that reporter. It also names names instead of offering an impersonal institutional email address, which is a good idea anyway.

However, putting into action the full version (showing all the people who touch a story) would require a level of work that many news staffs would likely balk at, much less meet the approval of editors and publishers. In addition to just the main thrust of his column, Outing also plots this one feature for news websites as just one small point on a curve reaching toward the “next wave of journalism.”

First, the practical aspects of this one feature.

In order to publish a list of every person who has “touched” a story in its progress from reporter and photographer to reader, you would have to actually keep track of that information. Most newsrooms (at least the three I’ve working in/with) don’t track this info. Sure, on any given night, it would be pretty easy to determine who did what on a given story, but that data usually isn’t recorded anywhere. Most editorial software systems don’t track this data in a way that would make it easy to put on the web. They probably should, but that’s sortof another issue.

Then there’s the issue of actually putting it on the web. Many news organizations are woefully understaffed when it comes to web content producers. They’ve barely got time to do what they do now (just put up the paper’s stories on the web more or less as they appeared in the paper, with little or no additional stuff), much less add in a lot of niggling details (or, if you prefer, valuable metadata) about each and every story that goes up. Some systems are at least semi-automated, and only if this data is easily accessible by whatever Rube Goldberg contraption (and I’ve seen — and built — some doozies) puts the stories on the web could this even be possible.

For those of us whose editorial content management systems don’t interface directly (or well) with the web CMS (and don’t forget the archive system!), this comes back to doing it manually, and again we’re hit with the understaffing problem. Newsrooms are tight these days, too, not just online staffs, and the newsroom staff’s “job one” is getting the newspaper out. The website is often a distant second in consideration when it comes to valuable time.

Second, assuming that it’s possible, will management want to do it (or even be willing to allow it)?

Showing everyone who is involved in the production of a particular story would likely strike many editors as revealing too much of the internal processes of the newspaper. There’s no requirement that newspapers “show their work” like you had to do in 7th-grade algebra. That’s not saying they shouldn’t do so, but most don’t and, more importantly, don’t want to. I’m sure all of these issues will vary wildly from newsroom to newsroom, but with few exceptions, newspaper managements are often very conservative and tentative about how much to show and give on the web.

I think it’s unlikely that the full version (exposing everyone who’s touched a story) will get put into play at many newspaper sites. It’s too time-consuming (and, thus, too expensive), and it represents a movement in a direction that the inherently conservation media business resists, though in his conclusion, Outing point precisely in that direction:

The next wave of journalism should include much public comment, feedback, advice, tips, and complaints. It should contain more information than has ever been made publicly available before. It will make newspaper journalists accountable and journalism credible. It will take us beyond the Jayson Blair scandal.

I know a lot of editors who would disagree with that statement. In fact, I think they would vehemently disagree. For most newspaper management, the news business is a one-way street, where the paper presents the news to the readers, making the decisions about what’s important and what readers should know. That’s how the newspaper industry has worked for decades. The one avenue for public comment on news stories is the “letter to the editor,” which often suffers from timeliness, editorial bias, etc., etc. The last thing most editors would want to see on their sites is unmoderated “public comment, feedback, advice, tips, and complaints.”

It’s going to take a big leap of faith and a lot of experimentation (including some embarrassing mistakes) to work out the details of Outing’s “next wave of journalism.” It was already looming on the horizon, though, before the Jayson Blair scandal (and the inevitable pile of similar problems that are likely to crop up at many news organizations). Now, however, post-Jayson Blair, more people (readers and publishers alike) may see more of a need for those changes. However, the ideas are going to be met with powerful resistance all up and down the line.

It’s going to be an interesting journey.