Quintessential Journalism
In We the Media, Gilmore redefines journalism as a realm of thought that necessitates response and feedback and embraces a unique revolutionized idea of how ideal journalism should be conducted. As a journalist himself, his thoughts are particularly noteworthy as he recognizes that his audience as more than just passive consumers indiscreetly embracing all that they are provided with. In fact, Gilmore views feedback as an integral part of journalism, and thus recognizes citizens as playing a critical role in the journalism process. For instance, after every article he feels the email address of the journalist should be consistently provided with and this would be a strong indication that public participation is desired and the neglecting to do such would illustrate the contrary. As web technology that allows for feedback instantaneously, and transcends geographic barriers, the power of the web to enhance interactive journalism is immense, and the two parties, the writer and the public, engaged in meaningful intelligent discussion will ultimately improve journalistic.

Although it is impossible to please everyone, as there are endless perspectives and discords existing in public opinion, a journalist’s role as an informative writer could shift, after filtering out pure nonsense, potentially libelous, or flagrantly inaccurate information, to the seeking of a sort of balance and the synthesizing into a medium the polarized ideas and values and perceptions of those members of society who have chosen to involve themselves in the news process. In fact the merging of this wide assortment of ideas could theoretically result in the closest thing existing to objectivity and accuracy in the entire field of journalism. Something strictly informative, comprehensive and objective transcending partisan lines, absent of the prejudices and individual perspectives of one writer could result. And if Wikipedia is any indication this idea, of what could result from unrestricted public access, this may have viability to it, rather than a strictly a nice utopian concept, overly optimistic akin to Marxist communism, but rather present an ultimate and real solution to the series of failures plaguing the journalism industry, (lamented in great details in previous posts of this blog)

Of course, this process of collaborative journalism, where it becomes more of a conversation, heavily relies on the willful active participation of the public in the news process, not to mention the integrity of their ideas. In fact, much of this rests on the belief of the public knowing more than the journalist. Collectively this is certainly true, but this is also certainly a possibly when you take into account the that such a news process would tend to stimulate responses primarily from individuals who take a serious interest in ameliorating journalism, rather than any random menace. For example, citizens who are concerned with factual reporting or media accuracy and find contrary evidence to a claim made, as well as people who have an avid interest in the particular field being discussed and may have additional knowledge or valuable information, and often people feeling personally affected by a topic will get involved as well. It also is usually relatively easy for bloggers to distinguish between the works of professionals or pros and threat of those just uttering nonsense, besides for the fact that latter usually consists of the minority. And thus very often, the final draft of information that is produced by the journalist can result in a smarter, more moving piece of writing. Wikipedia works this could work too. You take what would otherwise be an indiscernible hodgepodge of information and consolidate into one factual, objective accurate article/conglomeration, and you have an authentic, informative piece of writing.

However, this is not to say that this solution would be perfect. Dan Gilmor maintains a very enthusiastic stance through emphasizing New Media with such optimism it is understandable why many consider his work to be bordering on naiveté. Indeed, he only casually brushes on some of the risks involved and dismisses some valid concerns as overblown without outlining any viable solution or rebuttal to the series of potential obstacles, remaining firm in his original stance in his stating and restating that the advantages will always outweigh the risks. Inevitably, certain problems will exist within the field and certain aspects of journalism will always remain in the arbitrary control of the editor, as for instance, the objective standard will be difficult to be consistently maintained and implemented such as with selection of priority for a reporting an event, and the formatting and space allotting for a given story. Practical problems could arise from this system as well, such as a serious difficulty in regulating and controlling all the web mail traffic which could potentially amass to tens of thousands of responses. But overall Gilmore draws attention to a very real potential of New Media to reshape the journalism industry, and considering the sordid situation of our media any remotely viable solution is one to be seriously considered.