Ideas, not status, will win at Journalism.me

As much as I want to write more about journalism and less about journalism bloggers, Journalism.me deserves some attention.

It’s a simple blog aggregator that takes most of my favorite journalism bloggers and condenses them into a single RSS feed. And yes, it is a full feed, not a partial feed.

The true brilliance of the aggregator didn’t reveal itself until after I plopped it in my Google Reader. At first, I was annoyed to see that the author of each post wouldn’t show up.

Then I thought: Wow, I love that the author of each post doesn’t show up. I love that a journalism student will have the exact same amount of preset clout as someone who’s been writing about online journalism since he first dialed up on Prodigy.

I love that good ideas will rise to the top on their own, and no one will have to achieve any kind of status to have those ideas considered. That was my main contention with the original incarnation of Dave Lee’s bashing together of young journalism heads, when he wrote that a proposed ring of twenty-something bloggers would be invitation only. No me gusta. Barriers to entry will only turn up the volume on the echo chamber.

Journalism.me chops out the promotion and personal branding and leaves only the idea. What a wonderful way to be objectively exposed to as many ideas as possible.

UPDATE 10:30 a.m.: I should have more clearly mentioned that Dave Lee has since decided to nix the invite-only idea. See the comments on this entry for details.

  • I agree about journalism.me, it seems like a great site that will be infinitely useful.

    With regards to the young bloggers ring — I agree with you. My first suggestion that it should be invite-only was perhaps ill-advised. My concern with allow it to be a freeforall is that we’d risk the operation becoming too big with no real focus. In my opinion, we have the blogosphere for that already, don’t we?

    The young bloggers ring should be open to anybody, but there has to be a clear path of quality assurance. I think, perhaps, the critereia should just be that you a) have a blog and b) stick to the elected topic.

    Then, from there, we can cherry pick some of the most interesting posts. This would not mean a bias towards the well known bloggers, rather a slight tinge of editorial control that would allow to keep the usefulness of the blog ring to shine through the mass of content.

  • Daniel – what Kiyoshi has done with Journalism.me is fantastic, and I agree that any exclusive or invite-only ring defeats the purpose. But aggregating great ideas is one thing, and acting on them is another. What is the end goal of Journalism.me? As an aggregator of thoughts it’s great, but what I’m looking forward to is the next incarnation or the evolution of the product so that bringing all these minds together results in something concrete. Not sure what that will entail – perhaps a new project, a new website, a new news organization (!). Definately one to keep an eye on.

  • @Dave – go for it! Sounds like a good idea, and if you can maintain focus, the results could be very interesting. I’m not a journalist (unless you count college paper), but really interested in all of these projects. Looking forward to seeing more!

  • I agree, Dave. I think you can be an effective gatekeeper by sticking to that criteria. And I certainly have no problem with cherry picking some interesting posts.

    Having that editorial control will create a nice distinction for the ring. If a new journalist asked me where to go for an overview of the online journalism discussion, I’d point them to both sites.

  • @Shafqat That’s a great question. To me personally, reading all of the blogs has really helped me develop my own philosophies, and I’ve done my best to inject those bottom-up in my own newsroom.

    The easier it is to hear those ideas, the more likely we are to get some journalists on the fence to buy in. Then they take those ideas to their own newsrooms, maybe persuade the person in the next cubicle, and on and on.