Vancouver-based NowPublic and Associated Press have gotten together to add NP’s citizen journalism to AP’s offerings. From an AP release on the deal:
The Associated Press and NowPublic.com announced Friday that they have agreed to an innovative initiative designed to bring citizen content into AP newsgathering, and to explore ways to involve NowPublic’s on-the-ground network of news contributors in AP’s breaking news coverage.
~snip~
Contributions to the AP news report from NowPublic’s network of participants could take many forms over time, said AP Deputy Managing Editor for Multimedia Lou Ferrara. “They could range from simple eyewitness accounts to originally produced content.”
In the early stages of the relationship, AP bureaus will work with NowPublic communities in selected locations on ways to enhance regional news coverage. National AP news desks also may tap the network in breaking news situations where citizen contributors may capture critical information and images. NowPublic also will help AP extend its coverage of virtual communities, such as social networks and contributed content sites, Ferrara said.
Nothing in there about money changing hands — particularly for the citizen journalists — but this is still an interesting development. As one of the commenters at NowPublic wrote, the news pipe just got bigger.
It’s a smart move on AP’s part. The deal allows them to tap into a site that not only uses wisdom-of-the-crowd aggregation to keep track of the news, but also produces a fair amount of original material, much of it hyperlocal.
TAGS: JOURNALISM, CITIZEN JOURNALISM, NOWPUBLIC, AP
Michael,
In the course of talks that you gave in early 2006, you contrasted the number of NowPublic users in New Orleans to the number of reporters that established news outlets sent to cover Katrina. As best as I could tell, you were trying to establish some sort of camparison between your army of users and the crews that other sent down. To my mind, there is no comparison between reporters of at least modest skill and understanding of journalism, available full-time, and with a great deal of support from base, to a random selection of people for whom none of those previously listed qualities is guaranteed or even likely. One might as well compare 2000 random people with shovels to 20 backhoes with journeyed operators working 16 hours/day. (To sum up: it was a bullshit comparison and I stand by what I’ve written.)
What did that figure of 2000 refer to — registered users, people who claimed to be in the area who submitted something (if only a comment), those who filed reports, those who filed substantive reports, those who filed regularly or those who filed substantive material regularly? There is a large difference between those descriptions.
I’ve since read that the AP will pay contributors; of course, their model was not built on people “sharing” (read: giving away) their work while receiving nothing in return.
Yrs,
IK
Ian,
What makes you think the AP wouldn’t pay for submissions?
Also, for the record we did have 2000 people in the area sending us reports during Katrina. I’ll leave you to determine the implications but please don’t hold me accountable for your own misunderstandings of what I have said.
Michael,
NowPublic.
Woo-hoo! Not only can you work for free for the benefit of Michael Tippett and his investors, but you can also do it for AP! Truly a great advance in getting suckers to work for free; it puts the internship racket to shame.
I’m reminded of Tippett’s bullshit from last year about how he had 2000 ‘correspondents’ in New Orleans compared to the AP’s 20 or so. The impliocation was that you could compare part time (and likely unpracticed) amateurs primarily concerned with saving their asses to a pro with organizational support struck me as dishonest, to say the least.
In all seriousness, I’d like to know how many personnel AP needs to use to dredge through NowPublic’s stories, the vast majority of which are poorly-written, unoriginal crap.