People In The News On The News: A New Sort Of Elitism?

Google announces a new model of participation in the news -- those mentioned in the articles can rebut, refute, or otherwise chime in:

[from Google News Blog: Perspectives about the news from people in the news]

[...]

We'll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we'll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as "comments" so readers know it's the individual's perspective, rather than part of a journalist's report.

In an era where media has turned social, the-people-formerly-known-as-the-audience expect direct interaction. Of course, Google would be opening quite a can of worms is they open comments on all news at Google News, so I guess this is a sort of a step in the right direction... or is it?

The reason that people cannot directly get into a conversation at Google News is the lack of human scale: there are just too many people looking at the pieces there. The social dimension gets crushed in the gravitational force of the black hole caused by millions of 'readers'. So the real solution is for people to migrate away from dehumanizing media experiences like Google News, and comment and participate elsewhere.

This sort of experiment will not be social: it's more like Larry King or Sunday morning television, where policy insiders in three piece suits are interviewed by media insiders in two piece suits, which is about as much diversity as you can expect from old push media. This is Google nurturing the elite, not opening up to social media revolution.

Other perspectives:

• Steve Rubel mulls over the PR implications, which matter to PR types, but...
• Deep Jive Interests thinks this is something bigger than it is, a real revolution, not just more talking heads talking to each other:

  Being the one place to actually host all of these opinions? That’s big. Furthermore, that’s News. Google News is going to be a place not only where it aggregates headlines, but it actually provides a place where people who were involved *with* the news can tell it their way. It will actually be getting principals involved with the story to create The News.

  Furthermore, can you imagine what kind of effect this will have on news reporting organizations and journalists? Having the people in the story, or people who are related to the story actually giving their own version of the story — or, actually fact checking the reporter’s stories? Or, giving their opinion about how stories from one organization are versus others?

  Furthermore, can you imagine, as a reader, where *you* will go for news? Before Google News was just an aggregator of news headlines from a variety of sources. *NOW*, Google News is also the aggregator of some very important opinion, and in a very real way, creates “News2.0″. It allows people *in* the story to relate *their* story, and then distribute it for public consumption and conversation.

  Getting the people *in* the story first is an important first step, because it automatically validates the whole idea *of* comments for many people who aren’t familiar to it, or who are new to it (despite efforts by many online newspapers). And I think this will naturally create even more buzz and more pop to this feature — eventually, as if Google needed any more help with it — creating a tidal wave of comments when the doors blast open when it goes out of “beta”.

  And once that does happen, it will create an even bigger reason for people to return to Google News and *not* the actual news site, and its a reason that most of us already know about and recognize as the raison d’etre for blogs, forums, and for many social applications. Its the conversation, man.

  I don't buy it.



• IP Democracy wonders if Google has lost its mind:
  

  Is this freaking nuts or what? How in the world will Google manage the flood of people trying to comment on news, particularly given that the comments will be not be handled in an automated manner? How can Google justify allowing some comments to get published but not others? That would seem to me to be an editorial function, which suddenly puts Google on the hook for a host of legal liabilities.

  Yes, they will have to take on a large editorial role, determining who gets access. Big expense, big overhead, big lines, big media.

  As I said, an attempt by Google to subvert big media, but it ain't social.
  

I haven't read everything written on this, but I expect that we will be talking about it a lot in the next few weeks.

Comments

[kid mercury]

the social game is niche. any attempt by a big player like google or CNN to do social stuff is doomed to failure -- and i agree it is likely to be about nurturing the elite.

[Tony Hung]

I guess we'll have to see, Stowe. ;)

But you are right about one thing: we will be talking about this for some time to come.

Cheers
t @ dji