Backchannel Journalism

Journalists have their sources, but usually have to find new sources for new stories that don't reveal themselves while on the investigative trail. One tool they use is Profnet, an expert system for journalists. I have been on the expert side of Profnet connections, have an understanding of how it works and met Profnet's founder at the Innovation Journalism conference. Now someone is trying to change the rules of the game for their own agenda. Dan Gillmor comments:

Now a columnist for a Pittsburgh newspaper (owned by one of the right wing's major financiers) has begun posting reporters' queries, with the apparent aim of showing left-wing bias in the first example. He doesn't begin to make his case, but that's not the issue I'm considering here.

What's interesting is the question of journalistic transparency. We're a black box, but its workings just got revealed, in a small way.

Journalists will go nuts over this, but I think we'd better get used it. Turning the tables on our interviewing is not a new phenomenon, though it's disconcerting for a reporter to discover that the topic of his or her unwritten story is now public information.

The Profnet query by Fox News' Elisa Cho was I'm looking for academic "experts" who can speak about the "liberal bias" at college campuses and/or the dominance of liberal professors at colleges. I prefer someone who has written a book about this topic. Dave Copeland comments:

I'm not sure why Elisa saw the need to put "experts" and "liberal bias" in quotes. To me, it suggests she has doubt not only in the experts she's looking for, but the premise of the story. And, as noted by someone else who has seen this query, it's rather telling that when she says that she wants someone who has written a book on the topic, it means she's looking for someone with a conservative bent. Who would bother to write a book saying universities and colleges DO NOT have a liberal bias?

It's wrong for Copeland to take this semi-private information about something someone is working on and turn it into a story in and of itself. Can't imagine its allowable under the terms of service. But worse, he is guilty of the same bias of which he accusses Cho -- while attaching a backchannel service that helps reduce bias in journalism.

When a journalist works a story they usually start with a source or event and then follow and investigative trail to find other sources. Often the first source represents a single side of the story and the trail, contacts and skills of the reporter finds the other side to assure its fair and balanced. However, under the pressure of deadlines and resource constraints, finding the other side of the story can't happen in time. Profnet is a resource for finding the other side of the story without breaking it. But yet, Copeland posts again:

But I do think it's important to understand how news is gathered, and her query illustrated that point perfectly. I can't begrudge anybody for going into a story with preconceived notions or opinions. But where journalism gets really dangerous is when reporters go source shopping for someone to enforce -- and not challenge -- those preconceived notions and opinions.

Just because Cho posted a query for one side of the story doesn't mean she hasn't already interviewed the other side. Just because she wants someone who has written a book doesn't mean she is looking for bias, its more likely she seeks qualified expertise. Revealing a snippet of the process of building a story lacks context. Without a backchannel for casting a wide net for sources, I would suggest there is a greater risk of journalism being less fair and balanced.

Blogs don't have this problem. We break the story and then comments and posts reveal the other side through conversation. Maybe that's what Copeland sought by posting this, so I'm happy to provide the other side.

UPDATE: Dan Gillmor gets a comment from Profnet founder Dan Forbush:

Our members are contractually obligated to maintain the confidentiality of reporters' queries. In this case, it appears that one of our members -- disturbed by the phrasing of a query from a reporter -- violated our conditions of membership and forwarded the query to another reporter...