Ari Melber has written a great synthesis for The Nation about the new study “A Tale of Two Blogospheres” produced by a consortium of researchers from Harvard, Yale and Berkeley.

The study details the the structure (and resulting impact) of the left vs. right blogosphere or as they put it, “evidence of an association between ideological affiliation and the technologies, institutions, and practices of participation across political blogs.” This study completely coincides with the theories we lay out and the stories (and lessons learned) of Firedoglake, Feministing and Talking Points Memo that we detail out in our book Beyond The Echo Chamber: Reshaping Politics Through Networked Progressive Media.

Here are a few excerpts from Melber’s piece.

“One of the most striking findings is structural: liberal blogs provide audience participation options at triple the rate of conservative sites. That means visitors to progressive sites are more empowered to contribute entire posts to the “front page,” and more likely to have their contributions or comments highlighted before potentially hundreds of thousands of readers.

According to the authors, the netroots’ early embrace of deeper participation platforms, coupled with progressive bloggers interest in mobilizing fundraising and specific actions, helped prime the tactics and habits that supported the Democrats’ later web dominance (see chart).

The survey data does show that progressive bloggers were far more demanding of their readers.

One out of three liberal sites made direct fundraising pitches, and almost half asked readers to take some political action, according to a section of the study analyzing the top sixty-five blogs. On the right, however, only one out of twenty blogs pushed fundraising, and fewer than one out of five issued “calls to action.”

In the book, we tell the “impact story” of Firedoglake in a chapter titled “Assemble the Progressive Choir.” It demonstrates how FDL has successfully built a site that combines analysis, great acts of journalism, transparency, direct relationships between the bloggers and the community, a community forum, calls for action and fundraising (for the site itself and for political campaigns) to become one of the most successful progressive political blogs today.

I hope that both the blogosphere and the rapidly evolving legacy progressive media take heed from both the study and our book and continues with the much needed experimentation and implementation of community engagement, building and mobilization that will continue to build the overall impact of their journalism and messaging. It’s good for business. It’s good for impact.

This image summarizes the significant differences between the left and right blogosphere analyzed in the new study, “A Tale of Two Blogospheres.” (Click for larger image.)

Cross Posted at The Media Consortium.

A few weeks ago, The Media Consortium held its annual member meeting in NYC. Despite the raging blizzard that hit the city the day of the meeting (what timing!) over 70 individuals from more than two dozen organizations traveled from across the country for the two day event. This meeting marked the fifth anniversary of The Media Consortium, which was a great time to reflect on where we’ve been as an organization and a sector and how we are going to move forward together. The meeting gave us a sneak peek of the big changes to expect for the progressive media sector during the next few years.

For many of those who were been present at the first meeting of the consortium in March 2005, and watched/helped the consortium evolve to where it is now, this meeting marked a significant change. A few years ago, the idea of editorial collaboration among members was a big no-no. Imagine exposing sunlight to vampires. That’s how quick some ran away from that conversation. A few years ago, the understanding around community building/engagement was frowned upon (not just by media consortium members, but by the journalism sector at large). But my, how perceptions have changed.

Now the ideas of collaboration and engagement are not just viewed as important, but are seen as essential to the future success, impact and sustainability of the progressive media sector. These topics were a major focus for the meeting agenda and in small-group and one-on-one conversations among meeting attendees. This drastic change has come about for two reasons.

1) Technology has broken down the barriers of collaboration, fostered more relationships among media producers, and encouraged their actual engagement and communication with their users.

2) The economic situation facing many organizations has given them no choice but to find new creative, collaborative ways to work together and with their users. This may be the only good thing that has come out of the economic troubles that journalism organizations are facing.

2010–>2015
The Media Consortium performed an illuminating exercise with our members where we asked them to project what kind of media organizations they would like to evolve into over the next five years. As a baseline, I laid out four journalism “sectors” that I see developing now and in the future. I created short definitions for each of these sector and their corresponding roles/values each of these sectors provide in a short slideshow.

Next, I asked members to place themselves within these four sectors in terms of 1) where they see themselves now and 2) where they see themselves by 2015.

In 2010, most of the cluster of organizations placed themselves in the “Pure Play” journalism field, but by 2015, this sector is empty. Looking ahead five years, most groups formed a cluster around “Hybrid Media Making” and “Journalism + Action.” Drastic, no?

For many journalism producers and organizations, this is a big break from the traditional role of the press to only “observe and report.” This shift into working/engaging with a community and deliberately moving them towards action will probably be seen by some as the opposite of journalism and its last steps towards dissolution. Instead, I think this reflects the correct next step for progressive media makers. While retaining their journalistic integrity, progressive media makers must demonstrate to their allies AND to their users the social and political impact of their journalism. Users (networked consumers of information/news) are no longer passive receivers of content. They want to be active players in producing and distributing the content. More and more, they also want help in knowing what to do with the content.

What’s Next
Progressive media makers will have to decide for themselves how far they want to take the “action” part of their work. Will they create spaces for users to self-organize? Connect them more strategically with organizations like Care2 or Change.org that suggest and organize actions? Or are there other options to pursue? Time will tell as TMC members and others experiment in this area.

In fact, TMC will be working and experimenting with our members on this idea and others, including moving into mobile, editorial collaboration, revenue generation opportunities, community engagement and more through our 2010 Incubation Lab program. We’ll be reviewing and reporting on the results of these experiments as we implement them. So keep checking in to see how the progressive media transforms itself from the inside out for a new media landscape. We’re sowing the seeds now for progressive media sector of 2015.

All last week we released a series of visuals depicting how media organizations should strategically integrate their networks to build out maximum impact for their content. Each visual illustrates the four “networked layers” that we theorize in our book Beyond The Echo Chamber, including: networked users, self organized networks, institutional networks and networks of institutions. We firmly believe that for media organizations to not only provide high quality journalism, but to stay relevant, they must learn to reorient themselves for a 21st century media ecosystem. These visuals lay the pathway for that evolution.

For each visual, we provide a definition of each network, common characteristics that define the network and strategic questions for media organizations to ponder as they think about how to integrate these networks into their daily and long-term production, distribution, deepening of current audiences, expansion into new audiences and overall impact of their content. We also provided a bonus “cycle of engagement” visual that shows a step-by-step process (media organizations can opt in anywhere on the cycle) that depicts the “how and why” of network interaction (including fundraising and revenue generation opportunities).

Below is a slideshow that brings all these visuals together, showing how each network builds upon the other. We’re excited for media organizations to use these visuals in their short and long-term strategic planning and happy to answer any questions or respond to feedback.

Over the past week we’ve been featuring a series of visualizations that examine how media makers can work with various layers of networks to increase their impact. These layers include:

• Networked users
• Self-organized networks
• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

For our last visualization, we’re taking a closer look at how outlets can engage and collaborate with users at every stage of production, from conceptualization to distribution to evaluation.

Too often, makers and outlets only involve their users late in the process—to comment or donate funds in response to a finish product. But there are opportunities for engagement at every point, which can increase the relevance, “spreadability” and authenticity of your media project. Bringing users at key moments over time can involve them as a central part of your strategic planning, leading to a cycle of engagement that builds upon itself.

How open is your project to engaging networks of users? Check the boxes to find out:

| Download PDF

We’re finally here! Today we examine and visualize the last of the four layers of networks taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber. In this post, we offer not one, but two visualizations that illustrate how media makers can integrate and interact with the final network layer: Networks of Institutions.

As a quick recap, over the last few posts we have examined and visualized three of the four layers including:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post
• Self-organized networks: See Tuesday’s post
• Institutional Networks: See Wednesday’s post

Networks of Institutions bring together all of the previous layers—users, self-organized groups and institutional networks—to form the most complex and powerful of all the networked layers.

With this layer, we break down the walls preventing journalism and media organizations from working together and with other organizations. In fact, we argue, in this new networked media environment, when faced with increased competition and reduced resources, collaboration and cooperation are key to impact.

In the visualization below, we describe what makes up the first kind of Network of Institutions: a Media Network. “Media makers and outlets can form collaborative networks to jointly report on complex issues, and structure new models for innovation and revenue,” as we elaborate in the book. “Bloggers and legacy media outlets can and should coordinate around shared reporting on complex issues, work together to build upon each other’s strengths, and fill in each other’s gaps.”

| Download PDF

The Media Consortium (with Tracy as the Project Director) is a current example of a media network.

Common characteristics of a media network include:

• sharing tools and business strategies
• working together to integrate/build upon editorial strengths
• collectively influencing public discourse
• setting/leading news agendas
• building relationships and advocating for sector

But we’re not done. Networks of Institutions also include a “hybrid model.” As we note in Beyond the Echo, “Networks that combine media outlets, nonprofits, and grassroots organizations can work together to drive traffic, build buzz, and raise the stakes around particular issues or events.” We explain that such partnerships can, “drive traffic and awareness via single stories or shared long-term interest in a particular topics. As such networks of institutions develop, the partner institutions can cross-post reporting, devise action opportunities, jointly fund-raise, and more.”

| Download PDF

Characteristics of Hybrid Networks include:

• Combine media outlets, institutions and networks
• Short or long-lasting
• Formed around an ad hoc campaign or a persistent issue
• Spread content and make connections among multiple institutional networks to drive and inform action and set news agendas
• Can strengthen movements and overall progressive movement. (NOTE: not all hybrid networks have to be political or ideological. Feel free to rethink this characteristic if if it applies to your organization’s mission and your sector.)

And last, but not least, here are the strategic questions for media organizations to ponder when deciding how to integrate strategic networks into their work.

• How can your outlet strategically build and connect with hybrid networks?
• How can you reach new users and inform mobilization?

And that’s it for our special series on the four layers of networks! These posts and visualizations are intended to stir conversation (and possibly arguments) among media leaders, makers, funders, investors, academics, users and more. We also hope they will be used as strategic tools by a broad swath of media makers as they determine how they should operate in this network-powered media environment for long-term sustainability and impact.

For more information and detailed analysis of the four layers of networks, please be sure to check out our book Beyond The Echo Chamber.

But we’re not done yet—stay tuned for a super secret, super awesome visualization release. You’re not going to want to miss it.

Hello again! We’re on the third layer of our Four Layers of Networks taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber where we are not only defining, but visualizing how media makers can interact with each of these networked layers for maximum impact. So far we’ve described and visualized the first two layers:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post.
• Self-organized networks: See Tuesday’s post.

The next two layers move from ad hoc networks to more durable and deliberately organized networks.

• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

Today, we zero in on “Institutional Networks.

In Beyond The Echo Chamber, we write, “Through short and long-term partnerships, outlets can work with allies to funnel their content to institutional networks and directly track how this content is used for action. Connecting content to outcomes is a critical component of demonstrating the impact of the [progressive] media. If done correctly, partnering with institutional networks helps make that connection clear.”

| Download PDF
The opportunities for media makers to work with institutional networks is noted in the visual. “Media makers can also harness more durable networks of users — hosted or organized by institutions such as nonprofits or campaigns — to share content, offer crowdsourcing opportunities, and develop fundraising relationships.” Download the Institutional Networks PDF.

Characteristics of Institutional Networks include:

• more formal than self-organized networks
• longer-lasting
• hosted/supported by institutions that provide: organizing tools—i.e. widgets, petitions, frames, backgrounders; offline organizing opportunities and action prompts

Media makers must ask themselves these strategic questions when discerning how to help create or work with Institutional Networks.

• What institutional networks might use or host your content?
• What tools and strategies can help you to assess how networks use your work?
• How can your outlet work entice members of an institutional network to also join your network?

For a more detailed examination of Institutional Networks, the other three layers of networks, and much, much more please be sure to buy your own personal copy of Beyond The Echo Chamber today. We’re coming to the end of our four layers of networks.

Next on the list: Networks of Institutions. (But as a special bonus, you’ll get two visuals for the price of one blog!)

And as always, let us know your feedback and comments on any or all of these four layers of networks and if you’re using them for your own strategic development.

Welcome back to the second in our blog series on the Four Layers of Networks. Taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber (buy your copy today!), we are not only defining, but visualizing these four layers. They include:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post on this first and foundational layer.
• Self-organized networks
• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

Today we take a look at how media organizations must strategically think about integrating and interacting with the second layer: Self-Organized Networks.

In Beyond The Echo Chamber, we note, “Networked individuals users tend to be part of many overlapping online groups, crossing boundaries of work, play and, politics. Such groups can be fleeting or durable, open or closed, sprawling or focused–but each offers media makers the possibility of amplifying issues, engaging in viral, outreach, and attracting new supporters and users.”

| Download PDF

As noted in the visualization, “Users can work together to form ad hoc networks around unifying elements such as shared issues and/or breaking events. Media makers can tap into these networks to spread relevant content, follow breaking trends, and cover collective actions.”

Characteristics of Self-Organized Networks include:

• made up of networked users
• can form for an hour, a day, months or years
• united by common interests, concerns, issues, enemies, desired outcomes

Media makers must ask themselves these strategic questions when discerning how to help create or work with Self-Organized Networks:

• How can media producers participate in self-organized networks?
• How can you offer tools, space, actions, and content that help networks to form?
• How are networks using your content, and how are you actively engaging them?

Please leave comments and feedback, as we hope our definition and understanding about these networks is only the starting point. We’d also love to hear how/if your organization are using these visualizations in your strategic development. And don’t forget to purchase Beyond The Echo Chamber for a more detailed look at Self-Organized Networks, the other three layers of networks, and oh so much more. Next up: “Institutional Networks!”

As we noted yesterday, we’re proud and excited to be releasing a series of visualizations that bring to life our theory of the “Four Layers of Networks” that journalists and media organizations must strategically integrate into their planning for maximum impact.

Those four layers are:

• Networked users
• Self-organized networks
• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

Today, we tackle “Networked Users.”

The visualization below lays out out how media organizations must strategically think about integrating and interacting with networked users. As we write in Beyond The Echo Chamber, “The audience has morphed into users who are connected to both the outlet and multiple social networks. They can take on a myriad of roles that benefit the outlet. Ultimately, such interactions empower users with information and activities that can increase the impact of the news and information being disseminated.”

| Download PDF

As noted in the visualization, “Media makers must learn to work with users who are connected to multiple networks and can distribute, amplify, and serve as ambassadors for the media producer’s content.”

Characteristics of Networked Users include:

• some influential users can serve as valuable connectors, amplifying content, issues and campaigns
• networked individuals use participatory media to form and strengthen connections based on friends and family, proximity, work, personal identity, political affiliation and more.

Media producers must also ask themselves these strategic questions when thinking about how to work with Networked Users.

• How does your project attract and interact with networked users?
• What tools or strategies can you use to make content spreadable and participatory?
• How networked are you and your staff?

Each of the following layers (and corresponding visualizations) are based on the role and foundation of Networked Users. Tune in tomorrow for: Self-Organized Networks!

By Tracy Van Slyke and Josh Stearns
Cross-Posted at SaveTheNews.org

If 2009 was a year of study and debate about the future of journalism, 2010 must be a year of action. We must come together around a core set of ideas to create a better ecosystem for sustainable and high-impact journalism. Based on the various reports and conferences from the past year, we’ve compiled the five most important areas that journalism organizations (and those invested in the future of journalism) must tackle in 2010—and suggest some initial steps to begin moving forward.

Increase experimentation

“If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” wrote Clay Shirky in early 2009. “The answer is: Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments … No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the journalism we need.”

Journalism organizations and individual producers need to carve out the time and people power in areas of journalism, community building and business models. The Media Consortium’s report The Big Thaw: Charting a New Course for Journalism emphasized the importance of experimentation. “By bringing together technologists, entrepreneurs and media-makers to increase experimentation, leverage their collective power and build audiences as communities, independent media can not only rise with technological tide, but also achieve the goals of inclusivity and fairness they espouse.”

In May, Free Press released Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy, (a precursor to its current SaveTheNews.org campaign). A key recommendation was a federally funded research; development fund for journalism. Based on models like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, Free Press argued that, “Just as government invests in medical research to heal the ails of the body, we need government to invest in experimentation with news models to heal the democratic ails of the body politic.”

The Knight News Challenge is one of the only funding mechanisms for new kinds of experimentation. But it is one foundation with limited resources. In the coming year we need a more coordinated funding approach, that brings significant new resources to the table to support journalism innovation and experimentation for both new and existing journalism projects on a local and national level.

Broaden diversity

Roughly 15 minutes into nearly every public future of journalism event held this year, the same thing happened. Someone, somewhere commented (or tweeted) a variation of, “Where are the women and people of color? If the future of journalism is white dudes over 50, we’re screwed.” The repeated lack of diversity at these events is an illustration of the serious disconnect that many media makers still have to their own organizations’ future.

At a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop, Bryan Monroe, former editorial director of Ebony and Jet magazines, argued that new media looks too much like the old media:

“I am going to talk about how white the Web is, and the threat that reality represents to journalism for our increasingly diverse nation,” he said. “Journalism is not dead. Not by a long shot. It is, however, in the process of painfully shedding its old skin for a new one. But, in the battle for its soul between old media and new media, something important is being lost: we are now living in a new America… If our newsrooms lack the broad ranges of culture, backgrounds and life experiences reflective of our society at large, how can we even hope to know what to cover and what appeals to a rapidly diversified marketplace?”

One of the key voices missing from many events and reports this year was that of ethnic media. These media outlets have important lessons to teach regarding the future of journalism. In general, these newsrooms have built strong ties to their audience by giving local people a voice and covering issues that mainstream media consistently overlooks. In his FTC testimony, Monroe points to a recent poll by New America Media that argued “Local, community-based Asian and Spanish language newspapers are also growing — up 16 percent in a recent study — as they cover immigrant and ethnic communities.”

If we are going to build a more diverse media and support new models in ethnic media, we must include diverse (women and people of color) voices at the table when we discuss the future of journalism. We must also engage more strategically with ethnic media and integrate a more diverse set of journalists and bloggers into our journalism endeavors.

Creating engaged communities??

Evan Smith, editor of the newly launched Texas Tribune, describes the project’s ultimate goal as “civic engagement” and has said that he wants their readers to do more than just read; he wants them to get involved. Western Citizen – which launched the same week as the Texas Tribune – seeks to, “Combine investigative reporting with online tools to empower citizens to discover their own opportunities for direct action and to publicly deliberate on finding solutions to community problems.”??

Today’s audiences are not only media consumers. They are active media producers that recommend, share, watchdog, create and more. But there’s a lot of disagreement and confusion about how to genuinely bring audiences into a journalism organization’s DNA.

As The Big Thaw notes, “Traditional journalists often do not like to mix community organizing with journalism because it can contaminate the credibility of the reporting. However, as the competitive landscape shifts from scarcity to abundance of information and voices, the ability to “cover” the news objectively is no longer the most valuable key competency. Building active communities among users is exponentially growing in value.”??

“The Young Turks”, an online television show, demonstrates the power of engaging their audiences in distribution. The Young Turks anoint their audience as “Web Soldiers,” asking for help in strategically distributing the show through social networking sites from Facebook, to Twitter, to Digg. Fast Company recently noted that “The Young Turks” audience is competitive with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, or the now defunct Lou Dobbs program on CNN.

Last, but not least, the great irony for many journalism organizations is that while they employ expert reporters, rarely do they turn the focus on themselves. Journalism producers must get comfortable with actively sharing their impact with their community. One former Rocky Mountain News reporter said it best: “Journalists cannot be objective about our right to exist.”

Cultivate collaboration??

In late November, Time Inc., Condé Nast and Hearst announced a groundbreaking new partnership that would jointly move the companies’ 50-odd publications across multiple digital platforms. Historically, journalism outlets have fiercely protected their own editorial and business turf (even the idea of linking to other sites was an anathema a few years ago). But with the exponential impact of the online revolution, the insurgence of new voices and journalism projects online, and the crashing economy, the journalism organizations have been forced to reevaluate their opinion.??

It’s important to recognize that there is a fine line between collaboration and consolidation. Over the past year, some local television broadcasters have been quietly pooling news production, and in some cases completely merging news staff and operations. This points out the need for clearer guidelines and oversight of these deals to help foster innovation and collaboration that protects the public interest and supports accountability journalism.??

Fear of losing editorial independence and the scoop or being targeted for spreading “talking points” are all prevailing concerns. But editorial collaborations can be done a number of ways. For example, Publish 2 recently described one such example “..a group of journalists from Mother Jones, The Nation, Grist, The UpTake, TreeHugger, and other news organizations have applied the collaborative newswire model to a major international news story, forming the Copenhagen News Collaborative to curate the best coverage from their own reporters, editors, and analysts covering the event.” Projects like this allow publishers to cross-pollinate their audiences and reach new audiences they might not have had access to before.??

Overall, editorial or business collaborations should allow organizations to share on costs, resources, and information. Editorial collaboration among practitioners can also lead to ground-breaking experimentation, new forms of journalism production, expanded audiences and overall increased impact. In 2010, journalism organizations need to develop lessons to help streamline future collaborations while funders and investors should promote positive and creative collaborations through targeted financial support.??

Make media mobile?

Nieman Journalism Lab recently profiled the New York Times’ R&D department’s experiment with moving content delivery and communication among users and platforms. “The R&D group is obsessed with the ability to seamlessly transition among web-enabled gadgets. They’re not convinced that the future will land on a single, multipurpose contraption,” writes Zachary Seward. “Instead, they predict consumers will connect to the Internet through their cars, on their televisions, over mobile networks, and in traditional browsers, while expecting those devices to interact and sync with each other.”

Nowadays, many journalism producers understand that news and information will increasingly be an “anytime, anywhere, anyone” industry standard. But how content is transferred across platforms, who’s accessing it (and communicating through it) and how much it will impact both the bottom line, is still in play. In fact, moving into mobile must integrate the four previous concepts laid out above: experimentation, diversity, community engagement and collaboration.

Journalism organizations need to experiment with new forms of content production, delivery and interaction to fully embody a news industry that reflects our 21st century environment. They must recognize that diverse communities use and access content on different platforms. And through mobile, producers have an amazing opportunity to not only foster deep interaction with the community, but also interaction among community members, an increasingly important value for users. Teaming up with other journalism organizations, technologists, nonprofits and innovators will be key to ensuring that organizations will be able to move forward in this important arena.

This roadmap for the year ahead is nowhere near complete; we are at a critical fork in the road. It’s going to take new models, and new ways of thinking about the old models. It’s going to take policy changes, and the political will to make them. It’ll take new voices, and a willingness to listen to them. In 2010 we need to move beyond talking points and begin taking action. The future of journalism is bright, but it is also what we make of it.??

Top 10 Journalism Resolutions for 2010

Journalism producers in 2010 must:

1. Use in-person meetings and online spaces to facilitate sharing results of experiments and the how-to’s of collaborations.?
2. Create hubs where journalists and technologists can build new solutions together, just like massive groups of people contribute to open source software.
3. Include more women and diverse voices at the table discussing the future of journalism.?
4. Foster deeper working relationships with ethnic media and a diversity of journalists/bloggers. Support initiatives like the National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ Parity Project.
5. Fight for the reinstatement of the minority media tax certificate program and update it for the digital era.
6. Develop and share best practices and models for community engagement
7. Invest in telling journalism’s story of impact and the creation of impact definitions.
8. Develop resources to help streamline collaborations and criteria to evaluate their impact on the public interest.
9. Fight for policies that create a level playing field for nonprofit and commercial journalism organizations.?
10. Work with funders and investors to coordinate and increase support for experimentation and strategic collaborations.

Add your resolutions to this list in the comments section or on Twitter with the tag #JRes2010.

Neiman Journalism Lab has a great post this a.m. in reaction to a new Google Lab release: a Google News timeline view,:

which gives users the ability to see and scroll through headlines, photos and news excerpts by day/week/month/year. The sources of this data can also be customized to include not just traditional news sources but also Wikipedia, sports scores, blogs, etc. It’s a fascinating way of interpreting the news — not something that is likely going to replace a regular old Google News headline view, but an additional way of looking at things.

One question kept nagging at me as I was looking at this latest Google effort at delivering the news, and that was: Why couldn’t a news organization have done this? (I’m not the only one to wonder this). Why not a newspaper, or even a collective like Associated Press (which seems to prefer threats to creativity)? Isn’t delivering the news in creative and interesting ways that appeal to readers what we are supposed to be doing?”

I had the EXACT SAME REACTION when I saw the Google Timeline yesterday. Progressive media peeps–it’s time to put the creativity hat on. So I have a proposal, something I’ve been thinking about for a while.

I think we should do a multimedia timeline of our collective economic coverage over the past 8 years–maybe focused on a single issue or two (i.e. predatory lending, Wall Street regulation) and input coverage from video, text, audio, blogs, reports, etc. from key progressive media sources. I think this effort could do a couple things:
a) Everyone keeps asking where the financial press was during this economic crisis. Well, the progressive media has been reporting furiously on the economic meltdown for years. Let’s show it. Let’s prove that what the “lefty” press was reporting and predicting came true.
b) We’re wondering how to tell this very complex and sprawling story to our audiences in a way that makes sense of the past and sets the stage for future reporting. A visual, searchable component that connects the reporting together into a larger narrative and makes it comprehensive for our audiences is a critical informative tool.
c) The opportunity factors: There’s an opportunity to start playing/integrating new storytelling and journalism formats. (We need to start figuring it out soon). This is an opportunity to leverage and utilize individual content into a collective, larger story and the opportunity to reach a potentially larger audience. And this could be an opportunity to have our audience be part of the creative process. Can our audience crowdsource to research, identify the reporting to go in the timeline?

What do you think of this idea? What would you add or argue with?