Open-Source Reporting And Closed Minds
During a gathering of bloggers and MSM chiefs at the Museum of Television & Radio last week, Jay Rosen offered up an example of blogger reporting that sparked a lively discussion among participants.
He recalled a move by Republicans on Capitol Hill after the 2004 election to change the ethics rules in a way that would "benefit" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Angered by the vote, of which there was no record, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall put out a call for readers to contact their GOP representatives and ask how they voted. He then kept a tally of those who would answer.
The story was forwarded as an example of how citizen, open-source reporting can work. Among media executives, however, it stood as a cautionary tale of potential dangers. They argued that results of such an effort would be suspect, at best, for a number of reasons. Individuals may hear only what they want to hear in a typical "political" answer, they wouldn't know how to push for information and wouldn't know the right people to talk with in order to get it. And, any congressional office could easily refute the results.
Well, TPM is back at it again this morning, asking for some help in open-source investigative reporting. Looking into tickets to various events provided to GOP members and their staffers by indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Marshall has some questions for Hill staffers:
For you Hill folks, how commonplace is this up there -- a lobbyist who routinely gives free tickets to ball games and concerts and even professional wrestling events to staffers from the offices of helpful members of Congress?Aside from the topic and substance, there are larger questions raised by efforts such as this. How valuable is the information yielded by this kind of reporting? How solid is it? In the example above, there was concern of deceit, honest error and an inability to confirm the results of the vote tally. But any concerns fail to answer the question of why MSM organizations don't take up the effort themselves, work the sources they have developed and gotten (in the minds of some) a more solid report.
It seems the least big media could do is pay attention to the conversation. They may be surprised by the quality of what they find. And, they just might find a story for themselves. What do you think?