On August 31,
Anne Kilkenny wrote
this e-mail about Sarah Palin's track record in Wasilla, Alaska, where Kilkenny lives. By Friday there were over 3,000 results on Google for Kilkenny and her e-mail. That night, Kilkenny was interviewed by National Public Radio and everybody else.
This is another moment that proves the Internet's power to carry a message from a very small town to the entire world. For those of us who like the idea of small-d democracy, it is a light in the darkness of mass media consolidation and it affirms the role of the citizen observer in the complex process that generates popular news.
Three factors sent Kilkenny's note on its rocket ride to prominence:
- Palin, a major political figure, is largely unknown. Her own jet-fueled ascendance to the national scene created a public hunger for any information about her. As a Wasilla resident, Kilkenny was in an unusual position to provide information.
- Kilkenny's e-mail, while even-handed, ultimately was critical of Palin. The bloggers and groups that oppose McCain had an incentive to spread it around as widely as possible. It furthered their political goals and it played off of the emotional energy of deeply held belief.
- Kilkenny's e-mail was based on a large number of verifiable facts. It discussed the debt burden of Wasilla before and after Palin's term in office. It contrasted investments in a sports center, which Palin supported, with investments in waste water treatment, which Palin did not. It showed nuances in Palin’s position on abortion and creationism. Kilkenny did the work of a reporter.
At the same time, Kilkenny spoke clearly about her own bias. She praised Palin's strengths and criticized what she saw as her weaknesses. She is no fan of Palin -- and acknowledging that enhanced her e-mail's general credibility.
Kilkenny gave every reporter and news reader a leg up; a place to begin doing research on Palin and a starting point in forming an overall picture that might or might not match Kilkenny’s conclusions.
She also affirmed an emerging role for citizens in the journalism process. It is a role that lies between objective reporting and pure opinion. Non-journalists can be invaluable when they use their own eyes and ears to report what they see -- but they rarely deliver on that promise. Why? In my experience, most citizens worry that they are not up to the task of producing objective journalism. Worse still, they believe that if they are going to throw their words into the public arena, they must be an advocate for something. It often seems that they are most comfortable emulating the glib certainty of the Op-Ed page or the stridency of a letter to the editor.
Kilkenny took a third route. She provided many clear facts that can be verified or disputed by others. She attempted to be even handed. And she acknowledged her biases. These are the qualities in citizens that newsrooms ought to nurture and develop. It's in their own interest to do so.
Kilkenny represents a huge opportunity for newsrooms working on hundreds of stories in hundreds of communities. All they have to do is take two steps:
- Identify stories that are best suited to allow citizens to offer useful reporting.
- Adapt their culture and processes to more easily accept contributions from citizen journalists and use it in ways that fit with longstanding journalistic traditions.
If newsrooms pull this off, they will establish a new social contract between themselves and the public -- a new social contract that can breathe new life into the news we all rely on.
Guest contributor Jon Greenberg is executive editor of New Hampshire Public radio.
