5Are User-Ranked News Sites Like Digg and
Reddit a Plus or Minus for Journalism?
by www.SixWise.com
Want to know what's going on in the world today? Forget the
newspaper, the TV news or their online equivalents. There's
a brave new world of news aggregator Web sites out there,
and they're fighting to gain your attention as your first,
comprehensive stop for news. What's more, it seems they may
be winning.
|
User-ranked news sites like Digg and Reddit feature
unique news stories that often don't make the cut in
the mainstream press.
|
The most popular of these user-ranked news sites (sometimes
also referred to as social content sites) is Digg.com, which
has only been around since December 2004, yet is ranked 19th
in Alexa's list of most popular U.S. Web sites.
Sites like Digg, and also Reddit, Wikio, Newsvine, del.icio.us
and StumbleUpon, work by putting the readers in control. Anyone
can post a news piece (usually after a short registration
process), then readers vote on whether it's good or not. The
news pieces that get the most votes are the ones that make
the sites' front pages.
If you visit Digg or one of the other sites, you'll probably
first notice that the news you see is not like that on mainstream
news outlets. While some of the news does, indeed, come from
mainstream sources like Reuters or USA Today, much of it comes
from random Internet blogs, You Tube or a wide range of other
little-known sources. And herein lies the debate.
While proponents praise user-generated news sites as a way
of taking freedom of speech to a whole new level, opponents
fear their users may be missing out on important news in favor
of what's simply entertaining.
User-Ranked News Sites Put YOU in Control
The major plus side to user-generated news aggregator sites,
fans say, is that it puts the reader (aka, you) in control.
If an article gets enough votes from site visitors, it will
make front-page news, regardless of its content -- no editors,
marketers or CEOs exist to shoot it down.
Meanwhile, some of the sites will also track your preferences
so that only news articles that will appeal to your personal
interests are presented. This means that ultimately you have
to do less browsing, less sorting and less skimming, and have
more time to read news that matters to you.
The underlying premise, and its benefit, are simple. You
-- not a paid employee or other person with potentially ulterior
motives -- get to decide what news deserves media coverage.
Do User-Ranked News Sites Hide "Real" News?
On the other side of the coin, however, are those who say
that user-ranked sites do not present a fair sampling of truly
important news stories from around the world, the way, say,
a well-planned newspaper might.
|
Social content news sites are sure to be entertaining,
but, because their sources aren't monitored, the news
might not be as accurate as that from other news sources.
|
Critics say social news aggregator sites inevitably wind
up geared toward a niche, such as technology, that's represented
by the audience, therefore limiting the sites' content. Meanwhile,
top stories may often be those that are simply interesting,
entertaining or odd, drawing in votes more on their shock-value
than their real newsworthiness.
And, because the posts can come from any source, top pieces
may turn out to be rumors or could easily contain false information.
Yet it is this same critique that fans say is the point.
News that is boring, or that doesn't apply to a site's main
audience, shouldn't get major press coverage anyway, they
argue. So user-ranked sites provide the best of both worlds
in this sense, offering both relevant news and entertainment.
Users Paid to Post?
Adding to the controversy, news aggregator site Netscape.com
has begun paying its top contributors to continue to make
interesting, well-read posts. These "navigators"
or "social bookmarkers" are earning $1,000 a month
to post at least 150 stories. Further, Netscape has begun
recruiting and hiring top contributors from competing (and
non-paying) sites like Digg and Reddit.
"This is a new field, in some ways, a new talent pool,"
said Jason Calacanis, general manager at Netscape. "They
have a different skill set analogous to other jobs out there
but perhaps most analogous to 'cool hunting.' It's almost
like urban archaeology, finding interesting things. In other
industries it might be a talent scout, or it might be a designer
or people who go out and find the latest cool sneakers. There
are people in our society who get employed doing a job like
this."
While some applaud Netscape for compensating the valuable
news-finding service that top contributors provide, others,
including Jay Adelson, chief executive of Digg, say the idea
could threaten the online communities.
"What's important to the community is not to favor anyone,"
Adelson said. "If we betray that and start compensating
users one way or another, you create significant hierarchies
where individuals are motivated based on compensation."
Recommended Reading
The
Dark Side of Social Online Sites Like MySpace to Beware Of:
Threats to Privacy & Self
The
World's #1 Internet Threat May Be Robbing Your Identity Right
Now
Sources
St.
Paul Pioneer Press January 28, 2007
SearchEngineLand.com
January 24, 2007
WashingtonPost.com