E-Media Tidbits

LATimes.com's little "problem" with its wikitorial experiment got me thinking about how important it is to screen content on citizen-journalism sites. LAT's problem was that someone posted explicit photos on the wikitorial. And since nothing submitted to the wikitorial was pre-screened, the photos were visible to LATimes.com users for a short time -- until someone else deleted them or a site editor removed them.

Now, I don't think that mainstream editors should freak out about this. Please don't conclude from this episode that the concept of allowing the public to post directly to a wiki or other citizen-journalism site is a horrible idea. I encourage you to stick to the ethic of free access, but with safeguards, such as: requiring user registration and a real name and e-mail address in order to post; "report misconduct" buttons so readers can notify editors of problem content; and routine back-reading by site editors, who can remove bad stuff.

However, I'm not so sure about the idea of allowing photos to be posted without a quick scan from an editor. If you run a site with a respected news brand, how would it impact you if a pornographic image was posted to a citizen-journalism website that you run? Even if the image is live only for a short time, that could really hurt your organization's reputation.

Some sites that permit citizen submission of photos don't pre-screen. Backfence.com, for instance, lets users put photos directly on the site. It's up to other site users to click a "report misconduct" button if they see something inappropriate, or for site editors to spot problems.

I'm leaning toward the idea that photos submitted to citizen-journalism websites should go through a screening process before publication. The potential damage from inappropriate photos (and especially videos) is worse than what's possible with text. The danger is too great that a bad apple or two will have some "fun" at the expense of your company's reputation.

On the other hand, if your company is free-wheeling and more "hip" than the Los Angeles Times or other mainstream media enterprises, perhaps you can tolerate the risk of not screening images.